The URL can be used to link to this page

2021-11-09 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, November 09, 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 PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\] 1. Family Court Awareness Month ACTION ITEMS 2. Request for Reconsideration of City Council's Decision of Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Denied Motion to deny request made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 3. Public Hearing for Proposed Winter/Spring 2022 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department 4. Resolution No. 21-2296: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener 5. Public Hearing for Settlers Square (H-2021-0072) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave., Adjacent to the Mid-Mile Mark Between Linder Rd. and Meridian Rd. Continued to December 7, 2021 A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016- 097989) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses. Motion to continue to December 7, 2021 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault. Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilwoman Perreault Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Cavener Voting Abstaining: Councilman Bernt 6. Public Hearing for Intermountain Wood Products Expansion (H-2021-0042) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at 255, 335, 381, and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. and 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way Approved A. Request: To expand existing wood products business located at 220, 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way by B. Annexing 255 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd. with the I-L zoning district. C. Modification of the Medimont Development Agreement for the purpose of creating a new development agreement for the subject properties and removing the requirement for an internal landscape buffer. D. A Future Land Use Map Amendment to designate 355 and 255 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Industrial, and 385 and 381 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Commercial Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 7. Ordinance No. 21-1953: An Ordinance (H-2021-0036 Briar Ridge Subdivision Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southeast ¼ Of The Northeast ¼ and the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 40.992 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 7:46 pm Item#3. Meridian City Council November 9, 2021. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:04 p.m., Tuesday, November 9, 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, Alan Tiefenbach, 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, call the meeting to order. For the record it is November 9th, 2021, at 6:04 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Next item up is our community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by Vinnie Hanke of Valley Life Community Church. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this a moment of silence and reflection. Hanke: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you again tonight and pray for you. Let's pray. God, we thank you for this evening. We thank you for the fair city you have granted us the privilege to live in. We ask now that you would grant wisdom and discernment to those members of the Council as they lead and those members of the community as they speak. God, as we approach the holiday season we ask for a spirit and a sense of joy and gratitude would be among our citizens here. We continue to lift up those, Father, on the front lines as they serve our community in the hospitals and in the medical profession, in law enforcement and fire protection, Father, and our teachers and community leaders. We ask that you would help us to be a city that would love our neighbors and it would bring glory to your name. I asked these things through Christ, amen. Page 65 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 2 of 0, ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Next item up is the adoption of the agenda. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I would like to make a motion to adopt the agenda as published. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted as published. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Next up is our public forum. Mr. Clerk, we had someone sign up this evening? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have one gentleman signed in. James Thompson, discussing downtown parking. Simison: Mr. Thompson, if you would come forward and be recognized for three minutes. Thompson: My name is James Thompson. Been -- I grew up in Meridian, Idaho, most of my life. Went to Meridian High School. Went away for a little bit and I have been watching how fast you have been growing and so my main concern that I'm looking at is -- I'm watching all this development in this area and, you know, like the apartment unit I have been looking at it, looking at the plans, and right now you guys have one parking spot per unit and on top of that there is a bunch of retail units down there. Who knows what that retail facility could bring. You know, if it's a Starbucks or something like that, you never know what kind of boom would that bring. My concern with all that is in talking to some of the owners that are down here, there is a big concern of the impact of the economy of our business people, any-- anything -- or even just like my wife and I to come down and visit and be here, it's turning into a place where it's -- it's not as enjoyable or pleasant, because you are -- you can't find a parking spot, you know, or the parking spots are -- you know, they are -- they are full. There is a lot of construction. I know that in a -- in a sense when you have construction going on there is always discomfort in that and that's part of growth, but with growth I'm wanting to ask you guys what is the plan that you guys are going to have for like the apartment units that are coming in? Because for one -- because if you look and you can -- you can Google it and it says the average amount of vehicles per household is two. That's -- that's straight from Google and so with one -- this is just the residents there, not visitors, but residents right there, there is going to be Page 66 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 3 of 37 an influx, theoretically, of a hundred cars that are going to have nowhere to park and so these are not just people coming from the rural areas, they are people that are planted here that are coming in -- and this is all -- I mean, of course, this is all theory, you know, but the concern I have is like what plans do we have to make sure that we can keep our local businesses alive and, you know, what -- I mean I don't know how to -- any other way to put that. But that's my main concern is what -- I mean are we going to look at -- are we looking at parking structures? Are we -- you know, is there people we can team up with, other businesses that are willing to chip into that? Because I know that part of being a community -- it's like, hey, if we can look and save money, if there is businesses that are willing to chip in to say, hey, we are willing to partner with it -- I know there is a church over here, they might be willing to partner with a built -- a structure and I don't know if that's something that you guys have -- and I yield my time for questions or -- you know. Simison: We really don't get into a dialogue at this point in time, but I can tell you if you can give -- give the clerk your information we can follow back up with you offline with our -- or you can talk to Councilman Bernt and he can fill you in on all -- where we are going, but to, hopefully, answer some of your questions, but appreciate the information and thoughts. Thompson: Okay. So, there -- so, you are -- what you are saying is you guys don't have a plan right now? Simison: No. What I'm saying is the public forum is for you to convey that information, but it's not an agenda item listed, so it's not a conversation back and forth at this time. But we can have a conversation offline. Bernt: Sir? Sir? Johnson: Mr. Thompson? Bernt: Write me an e-mail. PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item] 1. Family Court Awareness Month Simison: Okay. Thank you. All right. Next item up is a proclamation for Family Court Awareness Month. I'm going to go down to the podium and I will be joined by Christy Martin and Renee Swithin McClaskey. So, if you want to join me at the podium. So, as was mentioned, this is a proclamation for Family Court Awareness Month. So, I'm just going to go ahead and read my proclamation and, then, we will hear from Christy and Renee about the organization's impacts on this issue. Whereas the mission of One Mom's Battle, OMB, in the Family Court Awareness Month committee is to increase awareness on the importance of a family court system that provides child safety -- or prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children and whereas FCAMC works to increase awareness on the importance of education and training on domestic violence, Page 67 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 4 of 37 childhood trauma, and post-separation abuse for all professionals working within the family court system and whereas the judges and other family court professionals are educated by the FCAMC on the empirical data and research that is currently available, including research such as the adverse childhood experiences study, the Saunders study and the Meier study and whereas the FCAMC is fueled by the desire for awareness and change in the family court system, while honoring the children in the United States who have been murdered by a parent after a custody court rejected the other parent's plea for protection. Therefore, I, Mayor Robert E. Simpson, hereby proclaim November 2021 as Family Court Awareness Month in the City of Meridian and urge our residents to learn ways to prioritize child safety and act in the best interest of children. Would you like to come forward? McClaskey: Thank you. My name is Renee McClaskey and this is Christy Martin and we are honored to accept this proclamation on behalf of Family Court Awareness Month. Twelve years ago my sister Tina, the founder of this movement, entered the family court system naively believing that child safety was prioritized. My sister's safety and my niece's safety was not prioritized. They were repeatedly placed in harm's way. Finally, after six years my sister's concerns were all validated, but what she and her daughters went through to get to that point is unacceptable. We must do better. Our children are our future. Heidi de Leone, a Meridian resident, was viciously murdered in 2019. Heidi was a member of my sister's support group. She reached out to my sister for help in December of 2018 and less than two weeks later she was murdered. She feared for her life daily and expressed concerns to the family court system for years. Had they listened sooner she may be standing here with us today. We would like to dedicate this proclamation to Heidi's daughters and we thank the City of Meridian for standing with us and proclaiming November as Family Court Awareness Month. Martin: We know that domestic violence is about power and control. The desire to maintain power and control doesn't mysteriously vanish when the relationship ends, it transitions into post-separation abuse and the family court system becomes the platform. The need for power and control often escalates and the desire to hurt the healthy parent and win at all costs become the driving force. The children become the pawns and the weapons. Most family court judges have no training in domestic violence or trauma. Our lives and our children's lives are literally dependent on the court becoming educated on these issues. We believe that the first step towards change is awareness. I'm grateful to Meridian and to the state of Idaho for joining the list of almost 200 cities, counties, and states that have proclaimed November as Family Court Awareness Month. Thank you for standing with us to recognize the importance of court -- a court system that prioritizes child safety. Thank you. ACTION ITEMS 2. Request for Reconsideration of City Council's Decision of Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Page 68 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 5 of 37 Simison: Thank you again for being here. Council, with that we will move on to ourAction Items for this evening. First item up is a request for reconsideration of City Council's decision of Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision, H-2021-0024. I will turn this over to Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. You have before you a request for reconsideration of the decision that was made by this Council a few weeks ago on the Andorra Sub and the Wells Street annexation. The decision at that time was denial of the project. They have properly filed a request for reconsideration, which is required by code for them to ask. It's up to this Council and, basically, your decision point is either to approve the request for reconsideration, schedule it for a new public hearing. Deny the request for reconsideration and that's the end of it as far as the city's perspective at this time. And the third option is to review the findings, make amendments or changes to the findings that you think are necessary. We reviewed the findings. We helped draft the findings. We are comfortable that the findings meet the legal requirements that are necessary and are defensible, but it's your decision on whether or not you want more or a different outcome or if you want to have a new hearing. So, it's your decision. As you know this really isn't a hearing in that sense. The applicant is here. They have their counsel here, but they -- this is not a dialogue. This is simply a if you have questions, if you want some clarity, if you are unclear about something, it's your option to ask that question, but, other than that, it's really a decision and that's where we are. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Council, questions, comments, actions, motions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I was just going to say I was absent at that meeting, but I have read the minutes of the meeting and fully understand the -- what took place and -- and the decision that was reached and I certainly respect the decision of this group that -- whatever they direction they determine to go, as they did at that meeting. So, just wanted to put that on the record. Simison: Thank you, Mr. Hoaglun. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: The letter submitted by Givens Pursley-- I appreciate the feedback and context provided by Mr. Nary. I don't see any reason for me to change the recommendation of denial that I made I think at that meeting. With that, Mr. Mayor, I would move that we deny the reconsideration request for the Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision, Item No. H-2021-0024. Page 69 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 6 of 37 Perreault: I second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to deny the request for reconsideration. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, ask the Clerk to call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the request for reconsideration is denied. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Public Hearing for Proposed Winter/Spring 2022 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Simison: So, with that we will move on to Item 3 this evening -- is a public hearing on proposed Winter-Spring 2022 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Rec Department and we will open this public hearing with Mr. White. White: Mayor and Council, thanks for having me tonight. In front of you, like Mr. Mayor just said, the 2022 Winter-Spring activity and class fees. Listed on there you will see the increased percentage at the request of Councilman Cavener. Note that some of the increases -- percentages went up based on -- we went from an 80/20 split to 70/30 split, just to cover our costs when it comes to different facilities and things. On top of that there is also a combination of -- depending on the class, how many days are in the -- in the session or the dates in the class, things like that went from -- there was five Tuesdays in the class compared to four, those types of things. So, fees are what they are there. With that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you, Garrett. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not online. I did not check the back of the room. I will do that. Simison: If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would feel free to come forward in the audience at this time. If you are on online and you would like to provide testimony you can use the raise your hand feature and we can also bring you in. Seeing no one coming forward, nobody online, do I have a motion to close the public hearing? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just for clarification purposes, do we make a motion to adopt the resolution Page 70 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 7 of 37 and that's the only motion that's necessary? Simison: After we close the public hearing. Perreault: Oh. Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the public hearing. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 4. Resolution No. 21-2296: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Item 4 on the agenda is now Resolution No. 21-2296. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Resolution No. 21-2296, adopting new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department and authorizing Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to collect such fees and providing an effective date. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 21-2096. Is there any discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, staff. Appreciate you guys putting in the increase and I like seeing some of those new classes. I don't know what this tree climbing thing is, but I'm interested in learning more about it. So, appreciate it. Simison: Is there any further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the resolution is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Page 71 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 8 of 37 5. Public Hearing for Settlers Square (H-2021-0072) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave., Adjacent to the Mid-Mile Mark Between Linder Rd. and Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-097989) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for Settlers Square, H-2021-0072. I know the applicant has requested this to be continued. I assume you want to open it at this time? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Have that conversation. Okay. Well, I'm going to start by opening the public hearing for Settlers Square, H-2021-0072, and turn this over to Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I -- since we are -- since we opened the public hearing for this one issue I would like to recuse myself from further discussion with regard to this item. So, thank you for that time. Simison: All right. Perfect. Thank you. Alan? Tiefenbach: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner, standing in for Joe this evening. This was a request to modify an existing concept plan basically at the northwest corner of Ustick and Venable. The original development agreement required a hundred percent commercial and they wanted to amend this to allow a mix of multi-family and commercial. When the staff wrote the staff report we were recommending denial. Based on that recommendation of denial the applicant wanted to see if they could work out the issues and are requesting a continuance until November 23rd. Simison: All right. So, Council, you have at least heard the rationale. We do have the applicant on. Would you like to hear from the applicant as well at this time? Seeing none, at this point in time. Mr. Clerk, we did have some people who signed up to provide testimony on this item tonight? Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Four people signed in to wish to testify. Simison: Okay. So, Council, I guess that begs the question, if we want to hear from the public as well or if they are -- depending on what date is potentially selected if they are able to return and provide testimony at that time or not. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Page 72 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 9 of 37 Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would prefer to -- to wait on the public testimony, so that the applicant can respond to any concerns the public presents. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman -- Hoaglun: Hoaglun. Simison: -- Hoaglun. Thank you. Hoaglun: No. I think if this -- if there is going to be changes to this I think -- as long as we can make sure they have that information in advance to review it. Their testimony may change. I don't know. And just have to see what -- what their updated plan would be. So, I think that way we can -- everyone can speak to what's in front of us, instead of speaking to something that will no longer be in front of us. So, I think as long -- and, Alan, I think we will be good in having that out in enough time for that hearing for folks to review it; is that correct? Tiefenbach: Yes, sir. Hoaglun: Okay. Simison: And I think that is a good differentiation than just they can't be here, the project, taking testimony versus the project is going to be different. Tiefenbach: Correct. We are not sure exactly what the proposal is going to be yet, which is why it might be a little premature to have too much public discussion until we know what their revised proposal is going to be. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I appreciate when our public take time out of their busy schedule to come down and testify and it can always be a little surprising when there is a continuance requested. When I look at the request to date it's a -- for many folks a holiday week. I don't know the likelihood of the folks that are here to testify, if they are going to be able to attend on the 23rd and wouldn't want to take away their ability to provide that feedback and so I -- I guess maybe, Mr. Mayor, a straw poll of those in attendance if the 23rd also works for them or maybe you want to wait until a little bit later in December, so that those that made time to be here tonight are able to attend to provide their testimony with the updated information. Page 73 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 10 V,37 Simison: Okay. And there is also the remote option for people as well if they can't be here in person. That's the beauty of our new system. Is the 23rd the date that -- I know we do have a busy calendar on the 23rd already anyways. Mr. Clerk, do you want to weigh in on -- Johnson: You do have four public hearings on the 23rd. Two of them are related to urban renewal. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: My gut reaction is the first Tuesday of December would be better. I mean we have got staff reports to get out, get to the public, let them digested it and I think it would -- it could only help in light of what was talked about with the weekend or the holiday week, so -- Simison: Can we find out if that works for the applicant, who is in the room? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Wardle is online. He should be able to speak. Wardle: Mr. Mayor, Council, Jon Wardle. Can you hear me? Simison: Yeah. You are muffled, Jon. Wardle: Sorry about that. Sorry. Bad connection tonight. In appears you want -- you are asking for the first week in December, like December 7th; is that correct? Simison: Correct. Wardle: That would be fine. Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you, Jon. So, for those who signed up with the audience, December 7th. Yes. Let's see if -- yeah. All right. Well, then, with that do I have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we continue the public hearing for Settlers Square, H-2021-0072, until December 7th. Perreault: Second that motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item until December 7th. Is there Page 74 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 11 of 37 any discussion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Or maybe just some discussion. I think I heard maybe from a couple people in the back of the room that that day does not work and that they strongly prefer to testify. I would hate for someone who showed up and that day doesn't work -- to not have that opportunity in person. I personally would like to open the public hearing and allow them to do that. Simison: What --what I heard was today would be great. I didn't hear that they could not be here on that day, just today would be great, but -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The trade-off-- and then -- and remote testimony is great if it's an option, but the trade-off is if we hear testimony today it might be about a project that isn't what's actually before us, so we don't know exactly what to do with the testimony that's provided. So, it kind of cuts both ways. If -- if there is an opportunity to participate on the 7th, even if it's remote, it's probably more substantively on point to what's ultimately presented in light of the reason for this continuance. So, that's generally why we bumped it when the -- when the need for the change is, because the application is not quite cooked yet, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I would just like to mention that anyone is welcome to send in an e-mail to the city, a handwritten letter to the city, a voice message to the city and we do look at all of those prior to our hearings as well. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: There is a motion on the floor, so I don't know how that works, but I would move that we open the public hearing and take testimony from anybody that's -- Simison: We would have to -- have to do that and, then, I'm going to ask staff to present and this is not our staff member to present. Then I'm going to have to ask the applicant Page 75 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 12 of 37 to present as well. So, just so we understand, we are going to not get a good project, because we don't even have our staff member in the room either, so -- but let's -- let's go with the disposition of the motion and the second. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I did specifically make the motion because of the fact that we are going to hear testimony on something that may not be relevant and that's a waste of their time and I know we have got options for them to provide testimony. It doesn't -- if there is a substantial change -- you know, there might be things related to traffic and that sort of thing that might be similar, but overall I just would like the comments to be specific to the project that we will be considering at that time. That's my -- my only reason for doing it. It's not to exclude anybody, but it's certainly to make sure that testimony is relevant to what we are considering. Simison: Well, we do -- as mentioned we have a motion and a second we have to dispose of that either by vote or by the motion and second maker withdrawing their motions, so -- then with that I will ask the clerk -- all those in favor of continuing the public hearing, please, say aye. Opposed nay? Cavener: Nay. Strader: Nay. Simison: The ayes have it. We will continue the public hearing and that's when we will take public testimony on this item. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAY. ONE RECUSED. 6. Public Hearing for Intermountain Wood Products Expansion (H-2021- 0042) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at 255, 335, 381, and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. and 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way A. Request: To expand existing wood products business located at 220, 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way by B. Annexing 255 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd. with the I-L zoning district. C. Modification of the Medimont Development Agreement for the purpose of creating a new development agreement for the subject properties and removing the requirement for an internal landscape buffer. D. A Future Land Use Map Amendment to designate 355 and 255 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Industrial, and 385 and 381 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Commercial Page 76 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 13 of 37 Simison: Next item on the agenda is a public hearing for Intermountain Wood Products Expansion, H-2020-0042. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Alan Tiefenbach, associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is a proposal for an annexation of three acres of land with the I-L zoning district, request for a DA modification and two future land use amendments. So, the existing property -- the proposal consists of six properties. So, one, two, three, four, five, six and they are located near the East Franklin Road-South Locust Grove intersection. Two of these properties, these two here -- hopefully you can see. It looks like you can see my pointer. These two properties here are already in the city. These two properties here are presently in the county and zoned RUT. And, then, there is also these two properties here -- and I'm going to talk about that a little more. These properties are only being proposed for a future land use map amendment. They are really not part of this development proposal. But, again, I will talk about why they are being included. So, to the north of the property these -- these two here, if you can see my pointer, these are the ones that are being proposed for annexation. To the north of that is zoned RUT. It's existing rural residential. To the east over here is R-15 and C-N. To the south, which is down here, is zoned C-C. It recently was approved for a childcare facility, the Learning Tree, and, then, to the west over here this is all an existing office park. So, the two lots that are being proposed for annexation, these two -- or sorry. The two lots that were -- that are presently in the city, they contain an existing business and these were annexed in 1996 and platted as what was known as the Medimont Subdivision No. 2. There was a conditional use that was approved for this. It was for a whole -- wholesale building materials building and that was approved in 2001 and the CZC was approved in 2003. The two parcels proposed to be annexed and zoned to I-L -- that's what you see here. These properties are being proposed in order to do an expansion of the existing business and, again, these are presently in the county and they are not platted. The two additional lots down here proposed for a future land use amendment -- and, again, I will go into more detail about that. These -- 385 and 381 South Locust Grove, these were annexed in 1999 and CZCs were issued for that existing daycare in 2012 and 2017. Once again, although these lots are being included as part of the Comprehensive Plan land use map amendment, they are not part of this development and I will go through in specificity. Trying to get this thing to move for me here. Why is this not working? Okay. There we go. Okay. So, again, here is a summary of requests. The first is to annex two properties into the city with the I-L zoning to construct a 59,000 square foot and some change square foot warehouse. So, these are the existing buildings that are here. These are the two properties that are being proposed for annexation. This would be the warehouse that they want to build. The other proposal is for a development agreement modification and the reason why is they want to remove a requirement for a permanent 20 foot wide landscape planting strip. This long blue sliver here, this is what is shown on the plat right now. The existing meet the Medimont development subdivision -- the development agreement required that there be a permanent planting strip in there. And, again, I will go into more detail about that. And the third request is for future land use map amendments. So, the first amendment is to change the designation of the properties to be annexed, which would be these two here, from mixed use community to industrial to allow the zoning for the warehouse. This is Page 77 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 14 of 37 what is existing now. Here is what is being proposed tonight. The second map amendment involves these two properties down here. And, again, this is where that existing Learning Tree facility is. These --these properties are being designated -- or also designated for mixed use community to commercial and the reason why these -- that we are changing the land use map amendment here is when we talked to the applicant about this we didn't think that it was a good idea to have these two little enclave pieces zoned mixed use community. It made more -- it was a cleaner thing to do to rezone -- to re- designate these to be commercial to fit with the rest of the commercial to the south and to the west. So, it's merely just a cleanup, so you don't have too little floater pieces here that are -- that are designated for mixed use community. So, that's the only reason that they are included into this tonight. Okay. So, I'm going to talk a little bit about this proposal now. So, again, the area is presently designated for mixed use community under the future land use map. To the east of the subject property, across South Locust Grove, is single family attached, that's what you see over here. There is also a religious institution, which you can see here. There are commercial and office uses to the south. Down here. And directly adjacent to the west, all of this, is a 27 acre industrial park, including the -- the buildings that are part of the existing business. Adjacent to the north here are two existing single family residences and north of those is a two and a half acre property zoned R-4, with a development agreement that allows 95 multi-family units. Also this now is a large ACHD detention pond. When this was approved for the 95 units it was all one big piece. Since, then, it's been subdivided off. So, it's probably not going to fit 95 units. Kind of a side note there. Given the existing development in the vicinity, the size of the remaining undeveloped properties and that the UDC require a site circulation to occur from a local street, staff does not believe that the subject properties have the accessibility and are viable for the integrated walkable synergistic development that's anticipated by the plan for mixed use community. Staff does believe a plan amendment is appropriate to allow a change to industrial designation for the subject properties and a commercial -- commercial designation for the properties to the south. So, again, that would be these properties down here. However, staff does have -- does have reservations about how it would interact with the existing properties to the north and -- and in the future what kind of issues, if any, it would cause for the rest of the properties to the north being recommended -- still being designated for mixed use community. Okay. For the DA modification. The existing businesses within the Medimont development agreement. So, this here is the existing business in this building here and this is all an industrial subdivision called Medimont Development Agreement and that DA requires a permanent 20 foot wide landscape planting strip along the east boundary. That is this long sliver that you see here. This -- until recently all of this was owned by the property owners association. This was required, because all of this -- at the time that that subdivision was done all of this was residential. There was really probably no intentions of anything other than residential at that time, so this landscape strip was required to buffer the industrial from the residential uses. This proposal would create a new development agreement for the subject properties and would remove the requirement for this buffer in this little area directly adjacent to the subject properties. Again, like I said, this buffer was in a common lot and it was owned by the Stonebridge Owners Association. In February of 2021 the portions of the common lot between the existing business and the parcels to be annexed -- so, again, if you can see my little red pointer -- basically in this area here. This was Page 78 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 15 of 37 deeded to the applicant. Unfortunately, it was done improperly. They didn't go through a subdivision in order to do that, so it's not a proper subdivision. The applicant is going to be required to be able -- to have to do a short plat in order to merge those in and the reason why is because it was actually subdividing this parcel. This was one large piece. When they merged this in they are actually cutting that piece of property in half and in order to cut it in half like that you are actually doing a subdivision, so it is required to do a short plat. In addition to that, when staff went out on a site visit, all of the trees that were initially planted here had been cut down. They were laying in the front of the property. Staff requested that they -- and staff noted to the applicant that those trees were part of the DA requirement. You can't cut down the trees. Staff requested that the applicant account for all those trees that had been removed and the applicant responded that 11 trees have been removed in this area, ranging in diameter from 11 and a half inches to 20 inches to a total of 169 inches. So, one of our conditions of approval is that that number of caliper inches be provided in addition to what the regular landscaping requirements are. Are you following me so far with all this? I know it's complicated. I'm seeing head nods. Good. Okay. Site plan. In the staff report, the original one that you had, staff noted that although we support the use in the future land use map amendments, that there were issues to be worked out with the concept plan and elevations and the reason why is with the original version of the concept plan there was -- we had issues with access. In particular -- and this is one of the things we will ask for you to discuss tonight-- is primary access coming off of Locust Grove. Excuse me. This was the original one. Primary access coming off of Locust Grove. There also at the time was not access provided to the north and to the south and our regulations say that if you are on an arterial street that if you have the ability to provide access to adjoining properties you are supposed to do that. The residential buffer on the original concept plan did not meet the requirements. The loading bay that you see here was too close to the adjacent residential properties. It has to be more than 300 feet. Again, like I said, there wasn't cross-access that was provided and all of the parking was provided between the front of the building and the street and our site and design standards say that no more than 50 percent of the parking can be between the building and the street, so you are not looking at a sea of parking and cars. And also there was some questions about whether the building met modulation requirements. Meaning you have to -- you have to vary the -- the wall plains. If you look at this site plan you will see it's very square. In response to the staff report -- pretty much on the day of the Planning Commission meeting the applicant provided us an updated concept plan. That's the concept plan that you see here on the right-hand side of the page. All of those issues, except for one, have been resolved. So, the residential buffer has been widened. The loading bay has been moved to be further than 300 feet. There was cross-access that has been provided down to the south, although it's still not shown to the north. All of the parking has been broken up, so it is not in front of the building and since then you can see how the building now modulates. With that when we went to the Planning Commission we said that we were okay now with the concept plan as it was being proposed. The only issue that we had, first of all, is that it still did not show access to the north and the second was that staff was still noting that primary access was coming off of South Locust Grove and per our requirements it's supposed to be closed. I know that that was one of the -- the issues that the applicant had was they didn't want to close its access. Staff's comment to the applicant and to the Page 79 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 16 of 37 Planning Commission was if the Planning Commission wanted to deliberate on this and say they supported keeping the South Locust Grove access, staff would not oppose this. The Council has the ability to waive the requirement. So, if the Council wants to waive the requirement and allow this South Locust Grove access again -- again the staff did not strongly oppose this. This was merely an issue of regulations. ACHD did review this and ACHD did not have any concerns with this. Our big concern was trucks and whether or not there would be big trucks coming in and out of there. I know that the one person that submitted public testimony at hearing did have some comments about trucks. I'm not sure if they are here this evening. The last thing I wanted to talk about was in the original staff report the first version of the elevations almost all of it was metal siding. There was --there was no accents. There were facade sections that were longer than 50 feet without modulation. There was roof lines that didn't have breaks and it was possible it wasn't meeting the fenestration requirements. So, what you see here on the top was the original version that went to the Planning Commission. Again, on the day of the Planning Commission applicant submitted elevations that were significantly better than the original ones. In general, when we are talking about elevations in building design, this is something that's usually worked out with staff and the applicant outside of the hearing. It's something we do at the certificate of zoning compliance and we make sure that it meets the ASM requirements, but we were calling out the original elevations, because we didn't want them to get approved in the hearing as they were when they were so far from -- from being -- to the ASM. What we see on the bottom now, what you are looking at, we believe they have made a huge amount of progress. We think that probably with a little bit of back and forth we could get it there. Staff has received two letters. One letter expressed -- expressed numerous concerns. It was by a property owner that lives in the subdivision to the east, right about the center of that subdivision. That was in regard to traffic, lighting, safety, loss of property values. The other letter that I received was from the property owner that is to the south. They -- their concerns were -- they wanted to make sure that access was provided, because they have an access easement here. They only saw this version of the concept plan. The most recent version of the concept plan does provide that access, so I don't know if the adjacent property owner now has seen that. I would assume that they would be in favor of that, because that's what they were asking for. With that staff recommended approval with the conditions listed in the staff report, with the addition that--the site plan now we support the site plan. The only change we would recommend is that the Council debate whether they want to have access off of South Locust Grove and we would still need to see a northern access connecting to the northern properties, even if they are not going to be developing -- developing those northern properties for some time, they would need to provide an access easement. At the Planning Commission on October 7th the Planning Commission moved to recommend approval. They also liked the most recent version of the concept plan, the one that I showed you tonight, dated October 7th. They supported keeping the South Locust Grove access open. With that I have concluded my presentation. Certainly happy to offer any clarification or answer any questions, Council. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 80 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 17 of 37 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you so much, Alan. It is a complicated one, so I'm sure all I will get us going down a rabbit hole just to start out. My biggest concern -- I want to kind of put the annexation and expansion of this business to the side for a second. I hate changes to the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM. I know we are limiting that now. I think to twice a year or once a year. I think we had some that were grandfathered in. Maybe this fits in that category. My question is describe the ownership of all of the parcels that are affected by the changes to the FLUM, because I'm concerned that there isn't common ownership of all of these -- maybe I'm just not following it in the application, but I would hate for us to be making changes to the FLUM affecting property that may not be aware of the changes and that's my main concern. Tiefenbach: Very reasonable question. Thank you. Okay. So, the -- if you can see the bottom right, the two properties that you see in gray here, those are the ones that are being proposed by the applicant. The two properties you see here that are being recommended for change to commercial were also co-applicants on this application. So, even though they are not part of this development, they actually did sign the application and did -- did submit affidavits of legal interest. So -- so, they are on board and okay -- okay with it. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor. Thank you. That clears it up. It wasn't clear to me -- just trying to follow all the addresses, like which ones were on board. Okay. Tiefenbach: Very little of this is clear. This is very difficult. Strader: Fair enough. And so, then, I guess my next question would be what -- how did this FLUM amendment come to be or is this -- like this is from our old process and this application has been ongoing since earlier in the year -- or help me understand how we ended up with a FLUM amendment. Tiefenbach: Yeah. There is -- there is a regulation now that says you can only amend the FLUM -- and I'm -- off the top my head -- you know it more than I do. This was grandfathered in. So, this application came in before that requirement happened. So, they -- they got in right before you passed it. Strader: Sorry. One more. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: And so do we have any kind of different outreach than normal -- than our normal notifications to property owners considering we are doing a FLUM -- considering a FLUM amendment outside of what will now be the go forward cadence for City Council? Page 81 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 18 of 37 Tiefenbach: Actually, there isn't a posting that is required for a future land use map amendment, so there was actually more notification that happened with this. If we were just changing the future land use map we wouldn't have had to post this, but because this was actually a specific piece of property, all the property owners within 500 feet were notified. There was a sign posting that went up. So, anybody that was around this area would have been notified that this was one of the things that was being proposed. Strader: Thank you. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just one question. Thank you for that presentation. Although complicated, very clear. My -- my question is regard to the property to the north. You mentioned in your presentation that there would -- leaving those properties as mixed use community might be an issue. Can you, please, let us know what your concerns are with leaving the properties to the north mixed use commercial? Tiefenbach: I guess -- there are only -- it was more -- we weren't sure -- I guess our concerns were we weren't really sure how this was going to interact. What we would be left with was just these properties here, mixed use commercial. We already know that this one here -- or sorry. That this one here is zoned to allow apartments. So, it, basically, comes down to these little two properties here are being designated for mixed use community. I think more than likely what you will see in the future will be some sort of proposal to designate that to something else, but we are not sure now how all this would integrate and function if it really was proposed, someone wanted to do some kind of mixed use community proposal. It doesn't have great access. It's not big enough. We are not sure if the way that it's already built out and what's already being there is -- is copacetic with a mixed use community type project, but there are some questions. We are not sure how this would play out in the future. I don't have a solid answer for you. I just wanted -- it was -- it was discussed and thought we would mention that we are just not sure what that would mean in the future if these ones to the north were still a mixed use community. It was -- it was a reservation more than a statement. But that said we do -- we do support -- we do support the proposal. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One last follow up. Were the property owners to the north notified? Did they know of this -- of this proposed change of use? Tiefenbach: Yes, sir, they do. The property owner directly to the north -- they will give you her name. I can't remember. She came into the Planning Commission hearing, was very supportive of this project. Her only concern, which is why I brought this up to you, is she didn't understand exactly the way the process worked and she thought that we were making them put access into her property and all we were doing is saying that they had Page 82 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 19 of 37 to provide an easement, so that when those -- if and when those properties develop in the future, whether it's ten years or 20 years, that now there is access. So, she didn't understand that. But she did come into the hearing -- and I'm sure they can -- they can expand on it, talk about them being very good neighbors and that they would work with her very well. Bernt: Mr. Mayor, that's all. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Alan, you mentioned that the changes in the original staff report that were made and, then, the applicant followed up the day of the original Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, so the public didn't -- that testified didn't have opportunity to review those changes made by the applicant and the Commission did not have an opportunity to fully review those changes made by the applicant; is that right? Tiefenbach: Ms. Council Person, Members of the Council, actually, the Planning Commission did get to review it. We -- we had time to tell them -- basically exactly what I just did to you, to tell them what the changes were. The changes that they implemented made it a better project, but didn't significantly change it. So, it took the parking off the street. It did more modulation to the building. It -- there was still some question about where the Locust Grove access would occur. It pushed the outdoor activity area into being in conformance with the code. Originally it was too close to the residential. So, none of the changes that were being recommended by staff would have really made a significant difference. In fact, it would have made it a better project. The only difference was that we were asking the applicant to provide northern and southern access and, again, the property owner to the north already knew about that access. The property owner to the south actually commented on the original plan and complained that there wasn't any access. So, there really aren't any changes that would affect anybody adversely, only positively. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, a follow up. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: In my opinion -- and I will make this short, because the applicant still needs to share. The -- a number of conditions in the original staff report were so significant that if those were fulfilled we might not even be looking at the same concept and so I just have a lot of concern about that. So, hopefully, when we hear from the applicant we can kind of address that and if you have anything to share about that statement I just made I would appreciate it. Tiefenbach: Again, really, the -- the significant changes where they modulated the building. They moved the parking off of the front. They moved the drive -- they move the outdoor loading aisle and they provided access to the north and the south. Those --those were the issues that we had. All of those have been resolved, except that they still haven't Page 83 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 20 of 37 shown a northern access and Council should discuss whether they support the Locust Grove access. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? All right. Ask the applicant to, please, come forward. Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho. While we were discussing the recent changes that were made at the Planning and Zoning hearing, the staff report didn't come out really early and when we -- as soon as we knew about those changes we made those as quickly as possible and it was very easy to do for the most part. We had our loading dock closest to the northwest corner of our building and we moved it to the southwest corner of our building. So, that was the biggest part of the change. If you look on the screen, the Belveal Subdivision, that property is to the south of us. Alan has made reference that there is a daycare there. Brent Belveal and I did that subdivision just recently. There is a flex building that's supposed to go adjacent and parallel to Locust Grove and, then, there is parking behind and, then, when the tenant of the daycare leaves there will be a duplicate building in the back and there will be parking in the middle. If you go to the next one. One more. Here is the Belveal Subdivision. So, we have known where that access is. This is their access off of Locust Grove. So, that doesn't get interfered with and we have always known that that access was in the middle of their property and that we could accommodate that -- that location. If you go back to the first one again. The property owner to the north of us, those two properties are enclaves and they have been annexed. When we first started designing this project we approached the highway district, because access to Locust Grove is critical, and asked them where we wanted -- or where they wanted it. There is numerous locations. We could have put it to the north -- the very northeast corner and that could have been our shared access with that property to the north. The highway district said that they would prefer it to align with the BellaBrook Subdivision. That's where they wanted the entrance to be. So, we -- and that was where they -- they asked for it to be. I know Alan works on a number of projects, but the discussion about our access to Locust Grove -- the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn't have the right to grant that access, that's something that the Council has to do, and so we discussed operation of our building and that's why they agreed that they could support what we were doing. The Intermountain Woods people, their two main buildings over here off of Atkins, in between the two buildings is where customers come. Their customers are hardwood flooring people and cabinet makers. They supply hardwoods and so forth for those --those types of uses. The new warehouse will not be having any customers. The customers are taking products, they are taking them off of Atkins. The only thing that will be coming in off of Locust Grove will be the few employees. There is -- there is approximately 12 that would work there. Some office people and some warehouse people. And, then, the reason that it's critical is how the entrances to the freeway are and how they can have trucks stack up off site and, then, schedule those trucks to come at a specific time, that they only operate between 8.00 and 5:00, so it's not after hours or extended hours. That's -- this building isn't a part of the day-to-day operation, it's just a warehouse to store their -- their -- their hardwood products. This strip between the two properties, there is an elevation difference in that area. Those --those properties are going to be three feet higher. They are currently three Page 84 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 21 of 37 feet higher than the property that is being annexed and so there is not going to be a lot of cross-access. The Planning and Zoning Commission asked us to -- to provide a cross- access point. The use of this property -- when we approached in our meeting with the pre-application, staff brought up is that you have, basically, a 20 year business that's been operating in Meridian and has been successful and they are trying to expand and make that work for them. To me that's a success story for you in having this type of use for the different cabinet makers and your flooring people that have access to these wood products there. It's not generally where the general public come, but it is more of a contractor thing and all of that access that the general public and the unloading and loading for them is at -- off of Atkins. The unloading on this building -- if you go forward, Alan. Tiefenbach: Forward up or forward down? Brown: Down. Down again. Past Belveal. The next one. Tiefenbach: Down? Brown: One more. So, in this northwest corner is the one spot that we would have a ramp go in between the two properties, so that they could connect, because, otherwise, they are going to be at different elevations. But that's the only place that between those two properties that people would be able to connect. The parking stalls that are on the existing, they are going to remain. There is going to be no change to that parking. But the office is over here on the other side. I think I got one more, Alan, don't I? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Quick question. Quick question. Kent, when you say ramp you don't mean ramp. You mean -- you bet. You mean like actual -- Brown: It's going to have -- Borton: -- a section width for a vehicle to -- Brown: It's going to have to be some kind of ramp, because you are going to have three foot higher in elevation that you are going to be going up to. So, between the two properties, yeah, there will be -- Borten: The design for cars and trucks to safely utilize -- Brown: Well, forklifts and so forth, yeah, that they can do -- go through there. Yeah. Borton: All right. Thanks. Page 85 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 22 of 37 Brown: Of what he showed and what he is showing is a lot smaller than -- Borton: Right. Brown: -- what it would be. The architect is here and he can speak to that. Borton: No. I just figured --just clarifying that. Thanks. Brown: We intend on providing an access to the north. We just need to work it out with that nice lady-- our landowner. We share that currently, those --those existing properties not being annexed. There is a little strip. We currently have an access easement on that with her and that's where the previous owner always went. If you go to the second picture in this series, Alan. Tiefenbach: Down? Brown: Down. Up. Sorry about that. Tiefenbach: Here? Brown: Right there. Can you blow it up? That middle one up. So, in a line with the church's parking lot is her driveway and the house that used to sit on that northerly piece shared that same driveway and we have an access easement across that on her property and so we -- we have the ability to put it, we just need to know where it's most viable for that -- that adjoining property and understanding that is that you have limited access points that you are going to have on Locust Grove. If you go from Watertower, you go -- that first property that's on Watertower on the corner takes off-- access off of Watertower. Then the next one is the Belveal property and their access is on their southerly boundary. Then this one is -- why the highway district was okay with that is that we are basically halfway in between Watertower and Franklin Road and so they--they looked at that being a good place to have a connection and, then, have these cross-access easements continue from the properties going -- going to the north, so -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: On that point, Kent, would you be -- I thought the condition would be that you would be providing the cross-access to the north, but wouldn't you also vacate the access easement that's on that property -- Brown: We -- Borton: -- because you wouldn't need it? Brown: We are not going to need it and at some point we are going to have to -- what we Page 86 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 23 of 37 currently have is we have a joint agreement that we maintain it together. So, they -- they pay part of the taxes, they -- I mean it's not in their ownership name, but it's on the deed, it has a part of their property, and so they have an agreement and, yeah, eventually, when and if that property develops, yeah, we would release that and make that go away. But -- and because we don't have ownership of it, we didn't try to include that. I mean she says that she's ready to be gone, but I think she's got her -- her kids living with her and -- and so -- are there any questions that I can answer about this? As Treg knows, I'm -- I drive by here probably ten times a day, so I'm very familiar with it. Simison: So, Kent, I'm going to play off of that, just for-- not the driving by. Following up a little bit on Joe's comment, a little bit on what Councilman Bernt mentioned before. Give me your years of experience and expertise and tell me what this section of property looks like redeveloping from Franklin up to the back of this tenant's property with accesses, with land use designations as you see them, with -- can -- can that retention pond be modified in the future, in your opinion? That's my big -- bigger concern is once you get this -- this northern cross-access what does the rest of this look like in the future? Brown: So, there is going to have to be one more entrance into the property and it's going to have to be -- to even make that existing multi-family that's there on the corner. Bryce Peterson submitted that when I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission years ago and got that property approved for an apartment complex and they were three story buildings and, then, the highway district started doing improvements there and on Franklin and they also have a floodway that's there. So, the big part of the property has a pond that you can see the road going around and the other part is floodway. So, they couldn't put any improvements into that floodway and so they have got this strip of ground that is to the west side of them and, then, they have a strip equally sized and by themselves they can't develop. In the last year all of these property owners in this entire length have been contacted by multi-family people trying to put multi-family in there. Whether that happens --that's a possibility, but they would have to --they would have to have all three properties most likely to make that happen. You could do some commercial, but you are going to have commercial that is going to be further away from that intersection and what do you do with the existing residential that's already zoned there. It would be nice if that could be a part of that project and make that work, but it-- it is a difficult piece because of access and anytime that you get close to a major intersection like that, you got to be far enough away. The church has a park--driveway on the north side of the building. That's probably as close as they could go to that intersection with an access, which just basically goes across to the property that already had multi-family on it. It could go to the center of the church, but that -- the highway district would probably have to speak about the distance there to go. Could it go from a commercial use? I mean your mixed use community wants people to drive and it's the depth of those properties that make having that type of use. Is it more reasonable that the industrial expands? I mean until Brian in our -- in our pre-app meeting -- I was expecting him to tell these clients, well, you tore down some houses and you tore down some trees and you might not be able to get industrial there and I know that that's the decision that you guys are wrestling with, but when you have limited industrial and you have a user that is proven up and realistically you can't look at them as out-of-state people, they have been here supplying the local people and they are Page 87 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 24 of 37 a part of the community and there is -- they are being successful and they -- could they expand to the north? Yeah. That would -- that would work. That was one of the discussion items that they had, but that owner isn't ready to sell and I -- that property to just to the north of them they just sold and they kind of like being a farm. They -- they have got six grow boxes out there and they view themselves as farmers. So, I don't know, I -- that's -- that's my experience. I can see it going in -- more going industrial and I can see mixed use continuing if you include all of them and -- and I know that the developers have tried to do it, because you get that property on the corner that already has existing residential, you really can't make that property work without having the properties to the north. Simison: Thank you. I mean we have no idea what will happen, but least it gives Council an idea as you think about access and what would be moving forward and what areas and the importance of that north-south, etcetera. So, thank you. Council -- Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, the size of this warehouse, it's about the size of an Albertson's. It's huge. So, I want to understand more about what is going to -- normally I wouldn't -- I wouldn't likely ask this question, except that it's just so big. More about what's going to happen inside of the warehouse, so that I understand more about kind of -- I still don't have a full grasp of the traffic flow. You addressed the number of staff that would be coming in. My assumption is is if they are doing more manufacturing, then, they are storing -- Brown: They are not doing manufacturing. They are storage. They are not doing -- Perreault: You had mentioned -- are they building cabinets there or -- Brown: No. Perreault: -- are they storing items there? Brown: Storage. Perreault: So, do they have delivery trucks that are coming in and out during the day and is it -- Brown: The delivery trucks are dropping supplies off and -- and, then, leaving them as a warehouse. They are not manufacturing anything here. It is -- it is a hub that other of their properties would come and pick up stuff, but that's why we located it in between the two buildings, so that it's not seen by the public and the number of trucks isn't that many trucks, because they -- they don't have the -- they don't want that -- that congestion in their -- their operation. They have a -- even what they currently have they have an overhead covered, because of this -- the -- the nature of their wood, they don't want it to get damaged, so they have a covered area that they are unloading and loading stuff. So, realistically, the activity portion of this is sandwiched -- it's the Oreo filling in between the Page 88 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 25 of 37 two buildings, if you will, and so they are not seeing that as they are looking at -- at these properties. What they are going to see is a warehouse with some -- a few cars for the people that are working in that warehouse and, then, they will see -- you know, I don't know how often. One of the people from the plants here -- and he can talk about how often they -- but there is everything scheduled, so that it -- they are very organized in the fact of them showing up and leaving, that there is not this congestion. They don't want people stacked up on site and they want to be able to have access to the freeway and this provides that they can either get off at Meridian or they can get off at Eagle, in between the two and that's why this entrance onto Locust Grove is so critical, because you can go over and get to the Overland Road and access those also. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: So, I agree with you in regard to there -- there is probably -- you know, the customers aren't going to be down there, they are going to be on the other side. I'm there all the time and so I get it. But I think there is going to be a fair amount of trucks. I mean like Councilman Perreault mentioned, that's a -- that's a big warehouse and -- and there is going to be a lot of product going in and out of that place and so -- Brown: I wouldn't know -- Bernt: And I know you wouldn't know that. And they could speak to it. That's fine. That's fine. So -- but my question to you is is there a way to take those trucks off of Atkins and bring them down, instead of having big trucks go down Locust Grove? Is that a possibility? Brown: Obviously it is. I mean they currently are going in there. Bernt: Right. Don't mean to interrupt, Kent, but like I get how they are going in and they, for sure, receive trucks on the Atkins side. My question is can they -- can those trucks continue to go to Atkins, but is there a way from --for the big trucks that go through Adkins and -- and deliver and unload and load at this new warehouse that you are proposing? From Atkins, not Locust Grove. Brown: I could have them speak to that. Bernt: Sure. Thank you. Brown: Anything else? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 89 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 26 of 37 Strader: I have a question. We did receive some public testimony from somebody that lives nearby and I think you did address some of the questions about traffic, but maybe we will get into that some more. There was a concern about the lighting. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to address that. Is there -- I know our planning staff opt -- okay. Well, let's go there. If that's okay with you, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Alan. Tiefenbach: Just waiting for the go ahead, sir. Yes, some of the property owners that you are talking about there in this subdivision here, some of the things you had concerns about are just performance standards. If they put in lighting, the lighting has to be downcast and shielded. It's cut off to a certain amount of foot candles. That's all stuff that's done administratively. You can't have big bright lights shining at a house. We have requirements and when we look at the CZC we will make sure that their lighting is downcast and shielded. Again, if it meets -- if it's over 1 ,800 lumens, then, they have to do a photometric plan, all that. So, lighting is not going to be an issue. Strader: Perfect. Thanks. Simison: If you would like to state your name and address for the record. Partridge: Kalon Partridge with Intermountain Wood Products. Simison: Thank you. Partridge: I -- to answer a couple of your questions, I guess. So, trucks I think are estimated between four and eight a day that would come in. Typically we would schedule them throughout the day, so they would come -- like one or two at a time we would unload them in the back and, then, they would come out the other side and leave. I don't believe it's realistic for them to come in on Atkins, primarily because of the elevation change. It would be -- it would restrict which direction the trucks can go and that would force all the trucks to -- they would go through Atkins and they would get onto this new property on the north side, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid with the loading dock moved to the south side, so -- Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Sorry we are getting so specific, but, you know, we do have members of the community that -- that would be asking the same questions. Partridge: Sure. Page 90 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 27 of 37 Perreault: When you say trucks are you meaning semi trucks? Partridge: Yeah. Semi trucks. Perreault: I don't see a lot of semis on this section of Locust Grove generally. So, that's just -- I wanted to understand that. This isn't all that far from schools and there are pedestrians in this area quite often, so just wanted to -- Partridge: I don't know -- if I may, I don't know for sure, but I would guess at least half of the trucks that currently come into Atkins go on Locust Grove, because they come off of Eagle and the easiest access to our property is to come south and, then, go on Locust Grove. So, I think a good portion of the trucks are already driving through that area. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Partridge: Thank you. Simison: Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone from the public signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item if you would like to come forward at this time or if there is -- do we have anybody online with this? We did not have anybody online. So, if you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes. Xu: Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is -- Simison: If you can speak into the mic. Xu: Sorry. Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Danny Xu. I'm -- I'm a property owner across street, just right there in the Bellabrook Subdivision right across on Locust Grove. From the proposed development. I didn't get a chance to submit a -- you know, a statement before the meeting, so I just came from work. Yeah. So, basically, the question has been asked, I just want to repeat and emphasize as a property owner living nearby with three kids, small children, and I have significant concerns about the traffic and, of course, it's safety related and so it looks like, you know, the information that we just discussed that there will be fairly significant increase of traffic by semi trucks and my personal experience -- I have lived there for almost six years now at the beginning of the subdivision, across the street from there. I don't see a lot of semi trucks going back and forth -- at least within that section of Locust Grove. So, that is a pretty significant concern on my part and including my neighbors. I talked to a few of them. So, I just want to make sure that the City Council is aware of those concerns. Thank you. Page 91 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 28 of 37 Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Was it Daniel? Xu: Yes. Hoaglun: Yeah. I appreciate that -- that comment in the testimony and so I guess for us --for me it's weighing the factor, okay, four to eight semi trucks, which would be on Locust Grove and, yeah, we don't -- you know, people don't want semi trucks. But if we leave it mixed use and it goes to residential and it goes to multi-family and all of a sudden you have 250 units and cars and from what I understand in reading the minutes for the semis, we are looking at limited office hours or warehouse hours, you know, 8:00 to 5:00 type of time frame. So, I'm weighing that versus a residential multi-family where you have cars at all hours and let's say it is a 250 unit facility or even retail, which you may be operating from 7:00 to 11:00 at night and so that's -- that's what we are trying to weigh. So, if I hear objection to four to eight semis, I'm thinking, well, what would the -- is their objection to having retail and -- in a mixed use community with apartment complexes and that sort of thing, which also has impact. So, what's your flavor? Pick -- pick your poison, I guess. Xu: Right. That's a really good question. I think -- personally I think my personal preference will be, you know, I would lean towards the other side, which is the mixed use, including commercial, instead of industrial, semi trucks, traffic. That's just my take. I believe a lot of people share that, so -- yes. So, you know, it -- the other concern is that the proposed entrance to the new -- new property, new warehouse, it's -- as we see in the picture is, essentially, right across the street from the only entrance to my subdivision, so -- I mean that's the only entrance and exit for that subdivision or the cars, you know, going -- going in and out of that and when we -- you know, imagine that we actually try to drive out of the subdivision and, then, there is a semi truck coming out from the other side, that's -- yeah. That's my concern. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Mr. Hoaglun. Hoaglun: And, Daniel, I appreciate that input and -- and that's, again, why I'm weighing this thing is, okay, if their hours are 8:00 to 5:00 and there are four to eight -- is because it's a warehouse, it's not a long expanded time and when you leave at rush hour -- and let's see if you leave at 7:15 or 7:30, there shouldn't be any traffic and when you say -- and you have commercial or multi-family across there, you have got many cars going at the same time. That's why I'm trying to weigh this and thinking, well, there is a lot of advantages for going this route than the other route in terms of impacts to traffic and -- and impacts to your neighborhood of coming in and out. So, that's -- that's -- that's my Page 92 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 29 of 37 thinking on this, so -- Xu: There -- there is -- the reality is that there is already a lot of traffic on Locust Grove. You know, it's not like Eagle Road, but it's -- it's -- you know, because of Eagle Road I believe a lot of people try to avoid it, so they actually take Locust Grove. So, every day -- I mean if I get home early, like even before 5:00, you know, sometime during the noon, lunch hours, or starting, you know, after 3:30 when school is out, already have a lot of traffic. No semi trucks, but just ordinary traffic in that that section of Locust Grove. So, imagine -- you just mentioned that the office hour is like 8:00 to 5:00. So, definitely that overlaps the kind of rush hour and, then, you know, there is actually a long line of normal traffic because of the traffic lights, the wait, and -- and, then, you know, that's even -- you know, that started way before 5:00 o'clock and now you have semi trucks waiting to get out. That's -- you know, we are going to expect a lot of traffic jam there. Hoaglun: Appreciate your input. Thank you. Xu: Sure. You're welcome. Thanks. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time from the public? Then would the applicant like to come forward for final comments? Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. When you look at the area and you take the area directly north on the north side of Franklin, that--that's an industrial area and there is semi trucks, so -- and as I drive through there all the time I pick Locust Grove and, yeah, there is times when I don't pick it. I don't pick it between 4:30 and 6:00, because that's when that intersection is really backed up. When I first started going down there Locust -- Locust Grove was a dead-end road that just went past Treg's house and, basically, just stopped. It was a really nice road, because an ACHD employee lived up there and that road always got chipped sealed and was well taken care of. But the city like you are currently doing with Linder Road, got that overpass in and worked with Jabil, which was another one of my clients that did that in that area. This really works in this location. If you limit the access and say you can't come off of Locust Grove, they are going to be driving right past the same areas to get into Atkins, because you have to go -- you can either enter it from Watertower or you are going to enter it from Franklin. Either one they have got to go in there. Most likely they are going to drive up to Watertower, because turning there on Franklin Road closer to that intersection -- Franklin is busy all the time, too. So, I know that that is a challenge we -- we hear about traffic all the time. Councilman Hoaglun really hit it really well is -- I think it would be different if this was a different type of a warehouse, but these guys have a limited number of trucks that are coming. That's one of the things that I liked. And when -- when they approached me I kind of wondered about it, because I haven't had the best of luck doing things close to my home and having neighbors not like me and I like this project. I think that they are a good use here and -- and I don't view them being the traffic issue that people are concerned about and that's my final comments. Thank you. Council, questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Page 93 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 30 of— Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Kent, you are one of the best. You know that. I just -- my other concern was -- I just -- I want it to be a good good looking building and -- Brown: So do 1. Bernt: You know, I don't want it to be a warehouse. Are you guys listening? Like I don't -- I don't want it to be like what your warehouses look on the other side. The reason why you get away with it is because it's industrial, it fits the mark. Don't make this look like your other facilities. And I'm not saying that they look bad, because they look great. But it matches everything else that's over there; right? This has -- you're right next to residential, you are right next to a thoroughfare that's going to be busy. Dress it up. Just do me a favor and dress it up. Don't make it look like a normal warehouse. I think -- I think that -- other than that I think that we are in good shape. Are we good? Okay. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Kent, I guess I'm curious -- I don't necessarily see Intermountain Wood Products going anywhere anytime soon. They have been there for more than 20 years. Brown: Right. Nary: But would they be okay with the DA -- the modification we are talking about to include some of those limitations that fit their business? The hours of operation -- Brown: Definitely. Nary: -- those types of things that way -- in case it were to change, so that we wouldn't be faced with a different project. Brown: So -- so, I appreciate you bringing that up, Bill, because when I -- I read that first existing DA that's on their existing facility, the neighbors -- in fact, the sweet lady that lives to the north of us, she said, you know, they showed up in mass to stop that industrial development from going in against their -- their acre parcels that they had there -- two acre or three acre parcels and the developer Barnes proposed putting in the -- the buffer. Well, the buffer wasn't necessarily a common area lot, it was just the screening and as I read the conditions it said you just screen residential uses that are adjacent. When this becomes industrial we don't -- we don't need it, but I offered to the planning staff going we want a DA that covers all of our properties and so we -- we want to include that and definitely that's why I think it's very appropriate and your legal counsel is giving you a good direction that you can cover some of those concerns that you are having. By the time we put in all those extra trees that we had to mitigate that they cut down -- it's Page 94 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 31 of 37 interesting sitting here before the meeting they said that the forester had been out and talked to the neighborhood and said most of those trees were infested and were ready to be cut out anyway. They maybe could have not had to do as many as they are going to do now, but that's going to enhance the site and it's going to make it look nicer sooner, so -- anything else? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor and Kent. Yeah. To Mr. Nary's comment about hours of operation and whatnot, what is -- what is reasonable for -- for that? I mean it's not something you want to go into lightly and put limits on there to -- Brown: But that's inside the warehouse, not deliveries. Simison: For the record that was stated 8:00 to 5:00. That's what they currently do. So, it's on the record. If you -- if you -- if you would like to come forward and add, so we can have it on the record, please. Brown: You are going to have to live with it, so -- Partridge: Again Kalon Partridge. At times we do have trucks coming in at 7:00 to be unloaded and our -- our own delivery trucks going out would perhaps start at 7:00. Our -- Brown: Is that the Atkins side or -- I guess I'm asking the question, because you -- because the DA is going to be over both pieces. What you want to do is maybe limit the entrance off of Locust Grove to the 8:00 to 5:00, but have the other entrance be sooner, if you can live with that. Partridge: Yeah. We -- that would help us be flexible, because our own delivery trucks would leave earlier perhaps at 7:00 to get on the road and those could leave out Atkins side. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I heard 7:00 to 5.00 p.m. for the warehouse off of Locust Grove access point? Partridge: That's correct. Hoaglun: Thank you. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 95 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 32 of 37 Perreault: Ask this question for the applicant before the public hearing is closed, just in case. I want to understand more thoroughly from staff about the -- the north and south cross-access easements and what you need to see from the applicant to include that in the DA. Do you need an updated concept plan from them? Do you need something done legally? Do we need to have that short plat done before we do that? And perhaps this is a question for Mr. Nary as well. I want to understand the process, because I have some concerns about approving a DA modification without an accurate concept plan, if we are tying one to it. Tiefenbach: Sure. I think those are reasonable. Bill Nary, that might be one for you. mean if we can -- we are okay with the concept plan that you see here, except that it doesn't show a northern access. I'm not sure how specific the applicant wants to get about putting in the northern access, but that might be -- it may be a Bill Nary question. Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so what we have done on many many occasions, because, again, the access is really going to be dependent on what the use is going to be. So, there will likely be some limitations on where you could logically put it from an engineering standpoint, but we would normally require in the DA that the -- basically the applicant agree to a future -- an easement for a future access point along their northern boundary and, basically, what happens is when that other party wants to develop, then, they work together to say it needs to be here or it's got to be there and where ever it's going to go and so it basically is recorded against in the DA that they will provide it. They will, then, determine later where the exact location is going to be. Tiefenbach: If I could add north and south. Nary: Yeah. We can do -- we can do that. But we -- we do that all the time. That's not a concern. Brown: And most likely we would like to be closer to Locust Grove, but you have to have it outside the landscape buffer and the reason being is you don't like people wandering through your site going to some other property and so generally they are -- they are fairly -- going to be fairly close to Locust Grove, but outside the landscape buffer and out of parking stalls and so forth. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Brown: Thank you. Simison: So, Council, any discussion before closing the public hearing? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Page 96 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 33 of 37 Perreault: My gut tells me this is one of those we may want to leave it open just in case of scenarios as we discuss. Simison: Yeah. Well, as you contemplate that for -- I think it's great to see an existing business have an opportunity to expand and grow in our community. We are seeing this from a lot of businesses and with the limited industrial and other challenges of wanting to stay consistent, going to industrial is a great thing in this location and, you know, if -- but for the already existing multi-family to the north with that pond, there -- there could be a good argument to make this all -- area all industrial, but that will -- we will let -- the market will determine what's available in this area, but I think in this property with these changes I think it makes good sense for a change. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Alan. Alan, what site plan are we approving for sure? Because I noted in staff recommendation that the site plan that was presented on October 7th hearing be the one that is approved? Is that still -- Tiefenbach: Correct. Yeah. It's the -- it's the one that was included in today's staff report that was dated October 7th. Same site plan that was provided to the Planning Commission. Really, the only changes that you are going to see to anything else would be a northern and southern access. Other than that we were fine with it. And for some discussion about the Locust Grove access. Hoaglun: Right. Tiefenbach: The -- since the staff report went out and the Planning Commission they made huge improvements that we no longer have concerns with the elevations or the site plan. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we close the public hearing. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and second to close the public hearing. Any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Page 97 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 34 of 37 Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, I -- I echo your comments from earlier. It's always wonderful to see existing Meridian businesses expand and grow and -- and to be successful. So, this is -- this is a true testament of that. Intermountain Hardwood have been a staple in our community for decades and so grateful for their success and their willingness to continue the investment in Meridian. I just hope that they dress it up, make it look good. Okay. All right. With that said I make a motion to approve Item H-2021-0042 with the following modifications: Making sure that there is a northern access. Not going to get too specific on where that is, but to make sure that there is one going forward. Is there any other -- okay. And -- I thought that was already stated. And the southern boundary as well. Anything else need to be stated? Is that good? Nary: Limitation on hours -- Bernt: Okay. Nary: -- on the Locust Grove access. Bernt: 7:00 to 5:00? And making limited access to hours on the Locust Grove access point from the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through -- throughout the week. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? And -- Simison: Let's him finish before you address any -- Hoaglun: Was that access or hours of operation? Bernt: Hours of operation between -- Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Bernt: -- 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Locust Grove access. Simison: Is there -- Hoaglun: I will second, Mr. Mayor. And for -- Simison: Motion and second. Is there discussion? Hoaglun: Yes. Did we want to add in -- I think we have to -- Council needs to act on waiver to allow access off--off of Locust Grove is one of the items that we need to include. And -- and, then, I -- I think we need to just make sure it's agreed to that the site plan is as presented on October 7th, just to cover all our bases, so -- Page 98 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 35 of 37 Simison: Does the motion maker agree with those changes? Bernt: Yes. Simison: Does the second -- Hoaglun: Second certainly does. Simison: -- support it from that standpoint? Excellent. Is there any further questions on -- do we have everything from everybody's point? Okay. 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 item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, I forgot to -- Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: -- do this during the discussion portion, but just, Daniel, appreciated your testimony and for us up here, having -- we do a lot of these around the city. We really did try to pick the lesser of the traffic impacts and I know we are talking about semi trucks, which, you know, causes consternation, but seeing what we see with multi-family and commercial and the impact that has on the roads, I hope you trust us that we really did want to do what was the least worst for your neighborhood. So, hopefully -- hopefully your neighbors will understand, so -- but appreciate you being here. Thank you. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 7. Ordinance No. 21-1953: An Ordinance (H-2021-0036 Briar Ridge Subdivision Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southeast '/4 Of The Northeast '/4 and the Northeast '/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 40.992 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 99 Meridian City Council Item#3. November 9,2021 Page 36 of 37 Simison: Thank you. Well said, Mr. Hoaglun. With that we move to Item 7 under Ordinances. Item No. 7 is Ordinance No. 21-1953. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related H-2021-0036, Briar Ridge Subdivision rezone, for rezone of a parcel of land located in the Southeast '/4 of the Northeast '/4 and the Northeast '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 40.992 acres of land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing no one, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1953 for Briar Ridge Subdivision with the suspension of rules. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the item under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. FUTURE MEETING TOPICS Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just a housekeeping item. At some point in the future if we could revisit the fees that we charge for -- I'm forgetting the name, but, basically, when someone's pet -- impounding fee for pets that are found. That sounded like something we might want to talk about. Page 100 Meridian City Council November 9,2021 Page 37 of 37 Simison: If not, do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we adjourn. Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:46 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 11 / 23 2021 MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 101 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Family Court Awareness Month Page 4 Item#1. w IDIAN IDAHO 'rhe Office of the Mayor PRO CIA '.% ATrlo .Ar WHEREAS, the mission at One Mom's Battle (OMB) and the Family Court Awareness Month Committee (FCAMC) is to increase awareness on the importance of a family court system that prioritizes child safety and acts in the best interest of children, and; WHEREAS, FCAMC works to increase awareness on the importance of education and training on domestic violence, childhood trauma and post separation abuse for all professionals working within the family court system, and; WHEREAS, the judges and other family court professionals are educated by the FCAMC on the empirical data and research that is currently available including research such as The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study (CDC-Kaiser Permanente), The Saunders Study (Us Department of Justice), and The Meier Study, and; WHEREAS, the FCAMC is fueled by the desire for awareness and change in the family court system while honoring the children in the United States who have been murdered by a parent after a custody court rejected the other parent's plea for protection. THEREFORE, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim November 2021 as FamiCy Court .Awareness ,Month in the City of Meridian and urge our residents to learn ways to prioritize child safety and act in the best interest of children. Dated this Yd day of November, 2021 Robert E. Si son, ayor Treg Bernt, Council President Brad Hoaglun, City Council Vice-President Liz Strader, City Council Joe Borton, City Council Jessica Perreault, City Council Luke Cavener, City Council Page 5 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 : November 91 2021 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals , business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic c� NG� s 1 n s o P(A � o 01 c Cast s �, E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 Changes to Agenda : Item #5, Settlers Square ( H -2021 .0072) — Request to modify existing concept plan at northwest corner of Ustick and Venable ( 112 mile mark between Linder and Meridian ) from 100 % commercial to a mix of multi -family (attached townhome style in 3 and 4- plexes ) and commercial . Applicant is requesting continuance to update the concept plan and provide Staff additional clarifying information following publication of the staff report and Staff' s recommendation of denial . Item #6 : Intermountain Wood Products Expansion ( H -2021 -0042) Application (s ) . ➢ Annexation of . 31 acres with kL zoning district, DA modification , and two FLUM amendments . Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This proposal includes 6 properties, and located near the E . Franklin Rd I S . Locust Grove Intersection . Two of the properties are zoned kL, two properties are currently in the County, and two properties are zoned C-C ( but the C- C zoned properties are only proposed for a map amendment, they are not part of this development) . Adjacent Land Use & Zoning . • North — RUT; Rural agricultural • East — R- 15 and C- N (Single family attached and detached and religious facility) • South — C- C , most recently approved for a child care facility (Learning Tree) • West — kL, Industrial and business park . History . The two lots containing the existing business were annexed in 1996 and platted as the Medimont Subdivision No . 2 . A conditional use was approved for a wholesale building materials building in 2001 , and the CZC was approved in 2003 . The two parcels proposed to be annexed and zoned to kL to allow for expansion of the existing business are presently un-platted . The two additional lots proposed for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (385 and 381 S . Locust Grove Rd ) were annexed in 1999 , and CZCs were issued for or the existing daycare in 2012 and 2017 . Although these lots are being included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment with this application , they are otherwise not part of the development. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Mixed Use Community Summary of Request . 1 . Annex two properties into the City with I - L zoning to construct 59 , 300 sq . ft. warehouse . 2 . Remove a DA requirement for permanent 20400t4de landscaped planning strip along the east boundary . 3 . Two FLUM Amendments . a . The first amendment is to change the designation of the properties to be annexed from mixed use community to industrial to allow zoning to I - L for the warehouse . b . The second map amendment involves the two properties to the south at 381 and 385 S . Locust Grove Rd (not part of the development) being designated from mixed use community to commercial to make them more consistent with the FLUM designations of surrounding properties to the south and west. c . Other than the map amendment changes , the two southern properties are otherwise not part of this development. i Analysis Land Use • The area is presently designated for mixed use community under the future land use map ( FLUM) . • To the east of the subject property across S . Locust Grove Rd is single family attached ( Bellabrook Subdivision) and a religious institution . There are commercial and office uses to the south , and directly adjacent to the west is a 27-acre industrial park . Adjacent to the north are two existing single-family residences , and north of those is a 2 .4-acre property zoned R-40 with an existing development agreement for up to 95 multifamily units . • Given the existing development in the vicinity, the size of the remaining undeveloped properties , and that the UDC requires site circulation to occur from a local street, staff does not believe the subject properties have the accessibility and are viable for the integrated , walkable , synergistic development that is anticipated by the Plan for mixed use community . • Staff does believe a plan amendment is appropriate to allow a change to industrial designation for the subject properties and commercial designation for the properties to the south . i • However, staff does have reservations with how the proposed development will interact with the remaining properties to the north which would still be designated for Mixed Use Community . DA Modification • The existing business is within the Medimont Development Agreement. • DA requires a permanent 20400t-wide landscaped planning strip along the east boundary . • This was required to provide a screen for the adjacent residential properties , two of which are now proposed for the warehouse expansion . • This proposal would create a new development agreement for the subject properties and would remove this requirement. • This buffer was in a common lot owned by the Stonebridge Owner' s Association . • In February of 2021 the portions of the common lot between the existing business and the parcels to be annexed were deeded to the applicant . This was done improperly and a short plat will be required to legitimize the lot split. • Also , when staff went out on a site visit during the initial pre-app , they noted all the trees along the subject property had been cut down . • Staff requested the applicant account for all trees that had removed , and the applicant responded 11 trees had been removed in this area ranging in diameter from 11 . 5 in . to 20 in . to a total of 169 inches . • Staff recommends this number of trees be replaced as a condition of approval . Site Plan • In the staff report, staff noted although we supported the use and FLUM amendments , there were still issues to be worked out with the concept plan and elevations and did not recommend the concept plan be approved . • Concept plan issues included : o Access , including access for trucks , from S . Locust Grove . o Residential buffer that did not meet requirements . o Loading bay that was not at least 300 ' from residential properties . o Cross access was not provided to the north and south . o All of the parking was located between the building and S . Locust Grove Rd . o Building did not appear to meet modulation requirements , • In response to the staff report, the day of the Planning Commission the applicant resubmitted a concept plan that appears to address all the issues except there is still not cross access to the north , a primary access is still occurring to S . Locust Grove and a 5 ' drive aisle strip is required at the south . • Staff recommended the Planning Commission discuss whether they recommend the Council waive requirements for access to be allowed to S . Locust Grove and whether cross access to the north is required . The PC did support this access . Elevations • Original issues included : ` • Nearly the entirety of the building materials being metal siding • Lack of accents of at least 30% along the base of the building • Fagade sections longer than 50 ft. without modulation • Rooflines longer than 50 ft . without roofline or parapet variations , • Possibly not meeting the 30% fenestration requirement or fenestration alternatives . In response to the staff report, the day of the Planning Commission the applicant resubmitted elevations that are a significant improvement. Staff recommends the applicant continue to work with staff to provide elevations to the City Council that comply with the ASM requirements . Written Testimony : Staff has received two letters . One expressed numerous concerns in regard to traffic , lighting , loss of property values , and opposition to the changes to the comprehensive plan . The other was from the property owner to the south (which are being designated to Commercial) . They expressed general support but noted the importance for a southern connection and maintaining access from S , Locust Grove . Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends approval with the conditions as listed in the staff report, with the addition that the site plan that was presented at the October 7 , 2021 hearing be the one that is approved . Council should decide whether they will approve a waiver to allow primary access to occur from S . Locust Grove Rd . Planning Commission : The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on October 7 . 2021 . At the public hearing , the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject annexation , map amendment and development agreement modification request with the October 7 , 2021 concept plan , and supported primary access from S . Locust Grove . Notes : Possible Motions : Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021 -0042, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 9 , 2021 , with the following modifications : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2021 -0042 , as presented during the hearing on November 9 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H -2021 -0042 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance) i I I i I I City Council Meeting November 9, 2021 Item #6: ZONINGFLUM 0042) -2021-Expansion (HIntermountain Wood Products Summary of Request L zoning to construct a 59,300 sq. ft. warehouse-Annex two properties into the City with I• Summary of Request Remove a DA requirement for a landscape buffer• Summary of Request ProposedExisting AmendmentsFLUMTwo • •Land Use Analysis designated for Mixed Use Community.interact with the remaining properties to the north which would still be However, staff does have reservations with how the proposed development will •the properties to the south.industrial designation for the subject properties and commercial designation for Staff does believe a plan amendment is appropriate to allow a change to •community.oriented around open space that is anticipated by the Plan for mixed use accessibility and are viable for the integrated, walkable, synergistic development from a local street, staff does not believe the subject properties have the undeveloped properties, and that the code requires site circulation to occur Given the existing development in the vicinity, the size of the remaining •units.40 with an existing development agreement for up to 95 multifamily -zoned Racre property -family residences, and north of those is a 2.4-are two existing singleacre industrial park. Adjacent to the north -directly adjacent to the west is a 27attached and a church. There are commercial and office uses to the south, and To the east of the subject property across S. Locust Grove Rd is single family •). FLUMuse map (The area is presently designated for mixed use community under the future land •DA Modification condition of approval. Staff recommends this number of trees be replaced as a •to a total of 169 inches. removed in this area ranging in diameter from 11.5 in. to 20 in. removed, and the applicant responded 11 trees had been Staff requested the applicant account for all trees that had •been cut down.app, they noted all the trees along the subject property had -Also, when staff went out on a site visit during the initial pre•plat will be required to legitimize the lot split. deeded to the applicant. This was done improperly and a short the existing business and the parcels to be annexed were In February of 2021 the portions of the common lot between •Owner’s Association.This buffer was in a common lot owned by the Stonebridge •remove this requirement. development agreement for the subject properties and would residential properties. This proposal would create a new This was required to provide a screen for the adjacent •strip along the east boundary.wide landscaped planning -foot-DA requires a permanent 20•DA.MedimontThe existing business is within the Site Plan October 7, 2021 Concept PlanOriginal concept plan Architecture Staff Recommendations elevations, with the revisions being presented to the Council. Staff and the applicant continue to work together on the •Cross access should occur to the north.•be allowed at S. Locust GroveThe Council should decide whether primary access should •following changes:Recommend approval of the October 7, 2021 site plan with the •conditions listed in the staff report with the following changes:changes with the FLUML, DA modification and -zoning to IStaff recommends the PC recommend approval of the annexation, • Commission Recommendations from S. Locust Grove Rd. plan and elevations, and also supported primary access occurring approval, including support of the October 7 revisions to the site At the October 7, PC meeting, the Commission recommended • 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Request for Reconsideration of City Council's Decision of Wells Street Assisted Living/Andorra Subdivision (H-2021-0024) by Jamie Koenig of Babcock Design, Located at 675, 715 and 955 S. Wells St. Page 6 Item#2. IVENS PURSLEYLLP Attorneys and Counselors at Law 601 W.Bannock Street Gary G.Allen Elizabeth A.Koeckeritz Samuel F.Parry PO Box 2720 Charlie S.Baser Neal A.Koskella Randall A.Peterman Boise,ID 83701 Christopher J.Beeson Michael P.Lawrence Blake W.Ringer Telephone:208-388-1200 Jason J.Blakley Franklin G.Lee Michael O.Roe Facsimile:208-388-1300 Clint R.Bolinder David R.Lombardi Cameron D.Warr Jeff W.Bower Lars E.Lundberg Robert B.White www.givenspursley.com Preston N.Carter Kimberly D.Maloney Michael V.Woodhouse Jeremy C.Chou Kenneth R.McClure Michael C.Creamer Kelly Greene McConnell Amber N.Dina Alex P.McLaughlin William C.Cole(Of Counsel) Bradley J.Dixon Melodie A.McQuade Thomas E.Dvorak Christopher H.Meyer Debora Kristensen Grasham L.Edward Miller Kenneth L.Pursley(1940-2015( Donald Z.Gray Judson B.Montgomery James A.McClure(1924-2011) Brian J.Holleran Deborah E.Nelson Raymond D.Givens(1917-2008( Kersti H.Kennedy W.Hugh O'Riordan,LL.M. October 25, 2021 Via email: cityclerk(&meridiancity.org Mayor Simison and Meridian City Council c/o City Clerk 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 RE: Request for Reconsideration in Case No. H-2021-0024, Wells Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision Dear Mayor Simison and City Councilmembers: This firm represents the applicant, Iterra Homes ("Iterra"), in Case No. H-2021-0024, a request for annexation, zoning and preliminary plat approval for Wells Assisted Living and Andorra Subdivision. For the reasons described in this letter, we respectfully request that you reconsider your denial and approve the application. This request for reconsideration is submitted pursuant to UDC § 1-7-10 and Idaho Code § 67-6535. Iterra applied for annexation of 17.5 acres of land with TN-R zoning; a preliminary plat with 61 residential lots on the northern portion(11.79 acres); and a 91 unit nursing and residential care facility and commercial building on the southern portion (collectively, the "Development"). Staff recommended approval of the Development and, on June 15, 2021, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended approval. City Council reviewed the Development on August 17, 2021. At the conclusion of that meeting, Council moved to continue the hearing for one month for Iterra to consider certain feedback from Council. After the second hearing on September 14, 2021, Council denied the application. In its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (the "Findings"), adopted on October 12, 2021, Council found that the proposed development 1) was incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, 2) would result in additional traffic that would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, 3) would result in additional on-street parking that will be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood, and 4) was not in the best interest of the City. We respectfully assert Page 7 Item#2. October 25, 2021 Page 2 that these Findings do not reflect the submitted facts and applicable standards and ask you to reconsider this decision. 1. The Development Is Compatible With The Surrounding Neighborhood. This infill residential and mixed use development provides an ideal transition between the more intense commercial and office uses to the east and south, and the larger single family residences to the north and west. The north portion of the property is designated Medium Density Residential on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), which recommends 3-8 units per acre. Iterra has proposed 4.7 units per acre, which is on the low end of the density the City has planned for this location. As discussed by Mayor Simison in his final remarks, this development provides for the orderly development of Meridian, and the Development's "integration is spot on accurate." Residential abuts residential; commercial abuts commercial. The Development achieves the City's comprehensive planning goals by prioritizing infill development (2.02.02, 3.03.01E) in an area where public services are readily available (3.03.03) in a safe, attractive and well-maintained neighborhood that has ample open space and generous amenities (2.02.01). The Development is also designed to seamlessly fit into the neighborhood and to minimize its impact on the Woodbridge neighborhood to the west. Iterra proposes 5 foot side setbacks between the homes (for a total of 10 feet between homes), although only 3 feet is required in the TN-R zone. These side yard setbacks more closely match those of the Woodbridge neighborhood to the west where side yard setbacks are 5-6 feet for a total of 10-12 feet between homes. In addition, as requested by Council, Iterra increased the rear yard setback of the homes abutting Woodbridge to 17 feet. Iterra also staggered this rear setback between 17 and 27 feet to avoid the appearance of a solid wall of homes to the neighborhood to the west. 2. Additional Traffic And Parking Impacts Are Minimized on Surrounding Neighborhoods. Any development on the property will generate increased traffic to the neighborhood. The traffic generated by this project is less than other more intense residential or commercial uses contemplated by the comprehensive plan for this location. At the request of Council,Iterra moved access to the Development to S.Wells Street,which encourages traffic to turn away from the Woodbridge neighborhood and lessens the traffic impacts within that neighborhood. Iterra initially asked for and received alternative compliance from the Director to provide 32 of the required 244 parking spaces for the homes (4 per residence) on internal private street bulb-outs. After receiving Council feedback at the first meeting, Iterra deepened the length of the lots so that every home has a 2-car garage plus room for two cars to park in the driveway, and alternative compliance was no longer necessary. With these changes, the proposed development Page 8 Item#2. October 25, 2021 Page 3 meets the parking requirements in City Code and also provides 21 spaces of overflow parking on internal private streets. Iterra also requested approval from ACHD to install"no parking" signs on E. Magic View Drive and S. Wells Street, the two public streets fronting the Development, but this request was denied. Iterra has taken every step necessary to minimize traffic and parking concerns while still developing a quality residential neighborhood, consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. Iterra incorporated all parking and traffic recommendations from Council and, as demonstrated in the steps they have taken, parking and traffic impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods from this infill development are minimized. 3. Annexation Is In The Best Interest of Meridian. The Development(i)complies with Meridian's comprehensive plan; (ii)complies with the regulations for the proposed TN-R zone; (iii) is not materially detrimental to public health, safety and welfare and, rather, adds a much needed memory care facility and residences to the area; (iv) does not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services —police and fire have confirmed that the Development is within their response times; and(v) is in the best interest of the City. During the first public hearing, Council provided feedback to Iterra to consider in order to gain approval. The feedback was memorialized in a letter dated September 7,2021 (the"Feedback Letter") and included the following: 1. Committing to a 55+ age-restricted community by reducing the footprint of the homes, deed restricting the homes, and/or limiting the houses to one story; 2. Providing larger rear setbacks to the existing properties in the Snorting Bull Subdivision(Woodbridge)to the west; 3. Removing the access from E. Magic View Drive by providing another access to South Wells Street; and 4. Moving the pool to a location further away from the homes. Based on the Feedback Letter and as mentioned above, Iterra increased the rear setback abutting development to the west;moved the access from E. Magic View Drive to S. Wells Street; and moved the pool to a location further away from the homes. To lessen the impact on the Woodbridge neighborhood, Iterra eliminated second floors on the back portion of the houses by agreeing that no second floor would be closer than 27 feet to the rear property line, and by staggering the rear setback of the homes between 17 and 27 feet. As noted by the City Attorney, it is not legal to require a property to be age restricted. Nonetheless, Iterra will market the homes as a 55-plus community. This Development will be Page 9 Item#2. October 25, 2021 Page 4 marketed to a more affluent demographic who prefer the larger home sizes and extra bedrooms on the second floor where they can be used as hobby and guest rooms. Given the gated community, the smaller yards, and the types of amenities offered within the Development, Iterra's experience in other communities is that these homes will be most desirable to an older demographic. Iterra also welcomes families to the community, should they choose it. Iterra agrees with those Councilmembers at the public hearings who voiced their opposition to deed restrictions-in 20 to 30 years or more this housing type may be most desirable to families. A deed restriction will limit the accessibility of homes to any future changing demographics within Meridian. Iterra is proposing a quality residential development in an area designated Medium Density Residential on the FLUM, and a medical facility and office building in an area designated Mixed- Use on the FLUM. This small infill project transitions the larger single family residential development on the north and west with the more intense commercial uses on the south and east. To the extent possible, all traffic and parking impacts are minimized and are less than could be developed in this location consistent with the FLUM. The Development's impact on the Woodbridge neighborhood is also minimized with increased home setbacks and relocated access. For these reasons,the Development is in the best interests of Meridian and we respectfully ask you to reconsider the denial. Specifically,upon reconsideration, Iterra requests the Council to: (1) Approve the annexation and zoning as recommended by City Planning Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission; and (2) Approve the preliminary plat as recommended by City Planning Staff and the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; and (3) Approve the conditional use permit for the assisted living and memory care facility, as recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the alternative, Iterra requests the Council to provide specific feedback for changes to this Development in order to gain approval. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Page 10 Item#2. October 25, 2021 Page 5 Sincerely, 'os� C x'e" Deborah E. Nelson Elizabeth A. Koeckeritz cc. Bill Nary, City Attorney's Office at bnary@meridiancity.org Community Development Department at planning@meridiancity.org Page 11 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Proposed Winter/Spring 2022 Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department Page 12 Item#3. CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on October 17, 2021 and October 24, 2021, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 9, 2021 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2022 Winter/Spring Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2022 Winter/Spring Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov.2021. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2021. APPROVED: Robert Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 4 page 13 Item#3. CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2022 Winter/Spring Winter/Spring Activity Guide Class Fees: Rec 1 Cheer $35.00 Rec 2 Cheer $35.00 Rec 3 Cheer $40.00 All Star 1.1 Cheer $50.00 All Star 2.2 Cheer $50.00 Tumble & Twist (Mommy&Me) $30.00 Tumble & Twist(Independent) $35.00 Tumbling (Beginning) $35.00 Tumbling (Intermediate) $40.00 Capoeira $35.00 Touch the Sky-Public Tree Climb $30.00 Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00 - $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Amazing Athletes $72.00 Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 Little Pallets Art Classes $20.00 - $60.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 Bigfoot's Cartooning, Anime, & Comics $15.00 CPR Class $50.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Yin&Restorative Yoga $12.00 Jazzercise $59.00 Elite Fitness $80.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Page 14 Item#3. Line Dancing—Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Option days $105.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 Digital Photography 101 $75.00 Advanced Photo Techniques $75.00 Winter Break Kids Camp $185.00 Spring Softball League $566.04 Fall Softball League $424.53 Girl's Fastpitch Softball Tournament Fee $495.28 DATED this day of , 2021. Chris Johnson, CITY CLERK PUBLISH on Oct 17 and Oct 24 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 Page 15 Item#3. 2022 Winter/Spring Activity Guide Class Fees: Current Proposed %increase Rec 1 Cheer $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Rec 2 Cheer $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Rec 3 Cheer $35.00-$40.00 $40.00 07. Youth 1.1 Cheer $45.00-$50.00 $50.00 0% Junior 2.2 Cheer $45.00-$50.00 $50.00 0% Tumble&Twist(Mommy&Me) $25.00-$30.00 $30.00 0% Tumble&Twist(Independent) $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Tumbling(Beginning) $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Tumbling(Intermediate) $35.00-$40.00 $40.00 0% Capoeira $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Touch the Sky-Public tree climb NEW CLASS $30.00 0% Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00-$70.00 $35.00-$70.00 0% Introduction to the sport of Fencing $100.00 $120.00 20% Amazing Athletes $64.00 $72.00 12.50% Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 $40.00 0% Little Pallets Art Classes $15.00-$80.00 $20.00-$60.00 33% Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 $200.00 0% Bigfoot's Cartooning,Anime&Comics NEW CLASS $15.00 CPR Class $50.00 $50.00 75 Yoga-All Levels $42.00 $50.00 19% Yoga-Gentle Yoga $42.00 $50.00 197. Somatic Yoga&Gentle Stretch $42.00 $50.00 29% Unlimited Yoga $54.00 $70.00 19% Yin&Restorative Yoga $10.00 $12.00 20% Jazzercise $45.00-$60.00 $59.00 0% Pickeball101 $80.00 $80.00 0% Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 07. Line Dancing-Improver $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 0% Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 0% Line Dancing-Option days $66.00 $105.00 59% Intermediate 2-step $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% West Coast Swing $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% Intro to Dance $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% North African Dance Fitness $40.00 Digital Photography 101 1 $70.00 $75.00 7% Advanced Photo Techniques $70.00 $75.001 751. Spring Softball League $500.00 $566.04 20% Fall Softball League $375.00 $424.43 20% Girls Fastpitch Softall Tournament Fee $425.00 $495.28 23.53% Page 16 Item#3. 2021 Fall Activity Guide Class Fees: Current Dazzle &Dance Classes $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 1 Cheer $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 2 Cheer $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 3 Cheer $35.00 - $40.00 Intermediate Rec Cheer $35.00 - $40.00 Youth 1.1 Cheer $45.00 - $50.00 Junior 2.2 Cheer $45.00 - $50.00 Tumble &Twist(Mommy&Me) $25.00 - $30.00 Tumble & Twist(Independent) $30.00 - $35.00 Tumbling(Beginning) $30.00 - $35.00 Tumbling(Intermediate) $35.00 - $40.00 Capoeira $30.00 - $35.00 Touch the Sky-Public tree climb NEW CLASS Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00 - $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $100.00 Amazing Athletes $64.00 Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 Time Travel Camp $85.00 Mystery Investigators Camp $85.00 Space Camp $85.00 Rain Forest Adventure Camp $85.00 Little Pallets Art Classes $15.00 - $80.00 Zumbini $120.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 CPR Class $50.00 V''s Elite Basketball Training $100.00 Yoga-All Levels $42.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $42.00 Yoga-Beyond the Basics $42.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $54.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $42.00 Yin&Restorative Yoga $10.00 Jazzercise $45.00 - $60.00 Pickeball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Option days $66.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 Page 17 Item#3. North African Dance Fitness $40.00 Digital Photography 101 $70.00 Advanced Photo Techniques $70.00 Half Day Whitewater Rafting $60.00 Full Day Whitewater Rafting $105.00 McCall Lake Cruise $40.00 Page 18 Item#3. New 30 120 72 Page 19 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 21-2296: A Resolution Adopting New Fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; Authorizing the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Page 20 Item#4. CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 21-2296 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on October 17, 2021 and October 24, 2021, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on November 9, 2021 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the 2022 Winter/Spring Fee Schedule of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto, is hereby adopted. Section 2. That the fees adopted for the 2022 Winter/Spring Activity Guide shall remain in effect as to those classes until such classes are concluded, at which point the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto shall supersede any and all fees for the enumerated services previously adopted. Section 3. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov.2021. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Nov. 2021. APPROVED: Robert Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 4 page 21 Item#4. CITY OF MERIDIAN NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pursuant to the ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 9, 2021, at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, regarding proposed new and amended fees as set forth below. Further information is available at the Parks & Recreation Department at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at the public hearing. Written testimony is welcome; written materials should be submitted to the City Clerk. All testimony and materials presented shall become property of the City of Meridian. For auditory, visual, or language accommodations, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (208) 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public hearing. Proposed new or amended fees: EXHIBIT A 2022 Winter/Spring Winter/Spring Activity Guide Class Fees: Rec 1 Cheer $35.00 Rec 2 Cheer $35.00 Rec 3 Cheer $40.00 All Star 1.1 Cheer $50.00 All Star 2.2 Cheer $50.00 Tumble & Twist (Mommy&Me) $30.00 Tumble & Twist(Independent) $35.00 Tumbling (Beginning) $35.00 Tumbling (Intermediate) $40.00 Capoeira $35.00 Touch the Sky-Public Tree Climb $30.00 Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00 - $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $120.00 Amazing Athletes $72.00 Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 Little Pallets Art Classes $20.00 - $60.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 Bigfoot's Cartooning, Anime, & Comics $15.00 CPR Class $50.00 Yoga-All Levels $50.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $50.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $70.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $50.00 Yin&Restorative Yoga $12.00 Jazzercise $59.00 Elite Fitness $80.00 Pickleball 101 $80.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 4 Page 22 Item#4. Line Dancing—Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing—Option days $105.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 Digital Photography 101 $75.00 Advanced Photo Techniques $75.00 Winter Break Kids Camp $185.00 Spring Softball League $566.04 Fall Softball League $424.53 Girl's Fastpitch Softball Tournament Fee $495.28 DATED this day of , 2021. Chris Johnson, CITY CLERK PUBLISH on Oct 17 and Oct 24 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 3 OF 4 Page 23 Item#4. 2022 Winter/Spring Activity Guide Class Fees: Current Proposed %increase Rec 1 Cheer $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Rec 2 Cheer $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Rec 3 Cheer $35.00-$40.00 $40.00 07. Youth 1.1 Cheer $45.00-$50.00 $50.00 0% Junior 2.2 Cheer $45.00-$50.00 $50.00 0% Tumble&Twist(Mommy&Me) $25.00-$30.00 $30.00 0% Tumble&Twist(Independent) $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Tumbling(Beginning) $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Tumbling(Intermediate) $35.00-$40.00 $40.00 0% Capoeira $30.00-$35.00 $35.00 0% Touch the Sky-Public tree climb NEW CLASS $30.00 0% Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00-$70.00 $35.00-$70.00 0% Introduction to the sport of Fencing $100.00 $120.00 20% Amazing Athletes $64.00 $72.00 12.50% Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 $40.00 0% Little Pallets Art Classes $15.00-$80.00 $20.00-$60.00 33% Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 $200.00 0% Bigfoot's Cartooning,Anime&Comics NEW CLASS $15.00 CPR Class $50.00 $50.00 75 Yoga-All Levels $42.00 $50.00 19% Yoga-Gentle Yoga $42.00 $50.00 197. Somatic Yoga&Gentle Stretch $42.00 $50.00 29% Unlimited Yoga $54.00 $70.00 19% Yin&Restorative Yoga $10.00 $12.00 20% Jazzercise $45.00-$60.00 $59.00 0% Pickeball101 $80.00 $80.00 0% Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 07. Line Dancing-Improver $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 0% Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00-$30.00 $24.00-$30.00 0% Line Dancing-Option days $66.00 $105.00 59% Intermediate 2-step $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% West Coast Swing $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% Intro to Dance $40.00-$50.00 $40.00-$50.00 0% North African Dance Fitness $40.00 Digital Photography 101 1 $70.00 $75.00 7% Advanced Photo Techniques $70.00 $75.001 751. Spring Softball League $500.00 $566.04 20% Fall Softball League $375.00 $424.43 20% Girls Fastpitch Softall Tournament Fee $425.00 $495.28 23.53% Page 24 Item#4. 2021 Fall Activity Guide Class Fees: Current Dazzle &Dance Classes $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 1 Cheer $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 2 Cheer $30.00 - $35.00 Rec 3 Cheer $35.00 - $40.00 Intermediate Rec Cheer $35.00 - $40.00 Youth 1.1 Cheer $45.00 - $50.00 Junior 2.2 Cheer $45.00 - $50.00 Tumble &Twist(Mommy&Me) $25.00 - $30.00 Tumble & Twist(Independent) $30.00 - $35.00 Tumbling(Beginning) $30.00 - $35.00 Tumbling(Intermediate) $35.00 - $40.00 Capoeira $30.00 - $35.00 Touch the Sky-Public tree climb NEW CLASS Kendo-Japanese Fencing $35.00 - $70.00 Introduction to the sport of Fencing $100.00 Amazing Athletes $64.00 Martial Arts for all Ages $40.00 Time Travel Camp $85.00 Mystery Investigators Camp $85.00 Space Camp $85.00 Rain Forest Adventure Camp $85.00 Little Pallets Art Classes $15.00 - $80.00 Zumbini $120.00 Introduction to Rock Climbing $200.00 CPR Class $50.00 V''s Elite Basketball Training $100.00 Yoga-All Levels $42.00 Yoga-Gentle Yoga $42.00 Yoga-Beyond the Basics $42.00 Yoga-Unlimited Yoga $54.00 Somatic Yoga& Gentle Stretch $42.00 Yin&Restorative Yoga $10.00 Jazzercise $45.00 - $60.00 Pickeball 101 $80.00 Line Dancing-Beginner $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Improver $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Intermediate $24.00 - $30.00 Line Dancing-Option days $66.00 Intermediate 2-step $40.00 - $50.00 West Coast Swing $40.00 - $50.00 Intro to Dance $40.00 - $50.00 Page 25 Item#4. North African Dance Fitness $40.00 Digital Photography 101 $70.00 Advanced Photo Techniques $70.00 Half Day Whitewater Rafting $60.00 Full Day Whitewater Rafting $105.00 McCall Lake Cruise $40.00 Page 26 Item#4. New 30 120 72 Page 27 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Settlers Square (H-2021-0072) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave., Adjacent to the Mid-Mile Mark Between Linder Rd. and Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016-097989) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses. Page 28 Item#5. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Settlers Square (H-2021-0072) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave.,Adjacent to the Mid-Mile Mark Between Linder Rd. and Meridian Rd. A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2016- 097989) for the purpose of entering into a new agreement to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 29 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 9 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Settlers Square ( W2021 - 0072 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name � 0tj oc ('R56N wk. tar ply 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#5. C:�*%_ W IDIAN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 11/9/2021 ®�M � 0 Legend DATE: TO: Mayor&City Council Project Location igrRU FROAM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner RUT R.8 208-884-5533 R-1.5. SUBJECT: H-2021-0072 - C-N L-O R1 C-C RUT RUT Settlers Square MDA FRUT 9® C2 LOCATION: The site is located on the northwest %R I -8 u e TN-R RUT R corner of W.Ustick Road and N. ® - ov ER'-8 M R 1$ Venable Avenue, adjacent to the mid- ® RUT RUT K L-O mile mark between Linder Road and �® iiimi Meridian Road, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 ER 4 _ R-8 � of Section 36,Township 4N.,Range 1W. RUT .a I=m m QTTYTMm��Li OJT�rT� mr� Trrm I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-097989) for the purpose of replacing the previous agreement with a new one to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Joshua Beach, Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Drive, Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development,Inc.— 11650 S. State Street,Draper,UT 84020 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing Development Agreement (DA) for the subject property requires the entire site to be developed with commercial and office uses and incorporates two private roads through the development; one north-south road and one east-west. In 2016, Council approved a DA Modification for this site to change the internal roads from public roads to private streets. There are existing DA provisions regarding the desired placement of buildings along Ustick and the desired integration of pedestrian facilities throughout the site for safe pedestrian circulation that Staff finds imperative to keep within the DA to assist in compliance with mixed-use policies and the desired site design. Page 1 Page 30 Item#5. The Applicant proposes to replace the existing DA with a new one for the purpose of incorporating a new conceptual development plan. A multi-family development is proposed to develop on the north half of the site consisting of approximately 60 apartment units,according to the submitted concept plan. Per the submitted plan and conceptual elevations,the apartment units are proposed as townhome style units in the form of two-story 3-plexes and 4-plexes with each unit having a front-loaded garage and parking pad.In addition,the submitted conceptual development plan depicts the east-west street shown on the existing concept plan as remaining but appears to be a public road—this east-west road connects to Venable on the east boundary as the main access point for the site and also provides future connectivity to the west should the adjacent property redevelop in the future. In addition, the public street stubbed to the north property boundary is shown as terminating within the site as part of the multi- family drive aisles instead of continuing through the site which concerns Staff (further analysis is below). Therefore, no connection to Ustick is proposed either via public street or commercial drive aisle with the new conceptual development plan. Furthermore, a rezone application has not been submitted so the proposed multi-family use in the existing C-C zoning district will require conditional use permit (CUP) approval. Staff would analyze specific development criteria and specific use standards at the time of the CUP submittal. Off-street parking would be required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Qualified open space would also be required, per the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27C. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC I1-4-3-27 for multi-family developments is required and would be reviewed with the CUP application. Adjustments may be necessary to the concept plan to comply with these standards and any ACHD required revisions. The subject site is part of a Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)future land use area—this designation calls for a mix of residential and commercial land uses that are thoughtfully integrated. One of the reasons the Applicant has stated for requesting this DA Modification is the subject site has sat vacant in its current configuration and entitlements for over a decade. Within this MU-C area, detached single- family, apartments, office/retail, and Civic uses are existing and planned(future land use designations are not parcel specific so an area of the baseball fields in Settlers Park are within this MU-C area). There is existing multi-family directly south of the subject site on the south side of Ustick; additional multi-family is approved at the southeast corner of the Venable and Ustick intersection. Directly to the east is a relatively small office park with five (5)buildings and is the only commercial component in this MU-C area.Because of the multi-family development on the south side of Ustick,this may be the only area that could develop with neighborhood serving commercial uses.During the review of the Summertown project (SEC of Venable and Ustick), staff did forego recommending a commercial component as part of that project because this property was already zoned for commercial and Staff was in favor of preserving this property for future commercial uses. Although the proposed development would be a new type of residential in this area (townhome style instead of traditional garden style walk-up apartments), the submitted concept plan lacks many of the design concepts shown and outlined in the comprehensive plan for mixed-use areas. In general,the future commercial area is being reduced while increasing the residential area and its impact in this area of the City with little to no neighborhood serving commercial uses. At a minimum, the following mixed-use policies are not met with the proposed plan whereas the existing one does comply: • Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi- public centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play.These areas should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered. Staff does not find the proposed concept plan meets this policy as no integration of the residential and commercial areas are shown; no placemaking or Page 2 Page 31 Item#5. thoughtful integration of the mix of uses is present in the proposed concept plan especially when compared to the existing commercial concept plan. • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas,outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries,and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement.Based on the submitted conceptplan, there are not enough details to show compliance with this plan. The proposed multi family residential area appears to be isolated and no shared areas are shown, as noted in this policy. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Although the proposed concept plan does not require arterial streets for neighborhood access, the plan would force residents from the north to drive through the multi family development to get to the commercial which could force them to utilize Venable for ease of access,further reducing accessibility for this mixed use area. Furthermore, there are minimal pedestrian facilities shown on the proposed plan to connect the existing residential and the proposed residential to the commercial along Ustick;it appears the intent is for residents to use the multi family drive aisles which does notprovide adequate pedestrian safety. • A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone.As noted, not each mixed--use project is intended to provide at least three types of land uses.However, with the existing and approved development in this MU-C area, a vast majority of the area will be medium and high- density residential which is not a desired outcome.Staff finds reducing the last remaining area of undeveloped commercial area to incorporate more residential is in direct contradiction to this policy. Overall, Staff is concerned the proposed plan is more residentially focused, lacks integration with the commercial area,and does not comply with the mixed-use policies in the comprehensive plan.For the reasons and concerns noted,Staff is not supportive of the proposed DA modification and has recommended denial of the request. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends denial of the modification to the DA as proposed by the Applicant and finds the existing concept plan and DA provisions are better suited to address development of the subject property. Page 3 Page 32 Item#5. V. EXHIBITS A. Existing Approved Conceptual Development Plans(dated: October 2016) J . .. . _ 1 M 7 s i '.W Wn,W4 l � r ++�-1 iHsr1WNb�au.v Page 4 Page 33 B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan and Elevations (dated: 9/20/2021) September 2[\ 2O21 Page EXHIBIT Conceptual Site Plan Item#5. September 20, 2021 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Conceptual Architectural Elevations ai A � .. � '•��'_tia_'.'• 45._ • .. -,5 rlti�J��T:�tr N�J+ + 1. __ . Page 6 Page 35 Item#5. C. Legal Description for Property Subject to Development Agreement Legal Description: Parcel I: The South 660 feet of the East one-half of the East one-half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho. Except the East 29 feet. Further Except: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence,along the South section line of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East 2662.19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter corner of said Section 36;thence,leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East 25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence, leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East 639.49 feet to a point;thence,leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88'50'42"West 84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West 639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88°44'00"East 96.71 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Further Excepting: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Parcel II: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence along the South section fine of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East,2662.19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter corner of said Section 36;thence leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East,25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East,639.49 feet to a point;thence leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88°50'42"West,84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West,639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88"44'00"East,96.71 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Except: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Page 7 Page 36 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Intermountain Wood Products Expansion (H-2021-0042) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at 255, 335, 381, and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. and 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way A. Request: To expand existing wood products business located at 220, 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way by B. Annexing 255 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd. with the I-L zoning district. C. Modification of the Medimont Development Agreement for the purpose of creating a new development agreement for the subject properties and removing the requirement for an internal landscape buffer. D. A Future Land Use Map Amendment to designate 355 and 255 S. Locust Grove from Mixed- Use Community to Industrial, and 385 and 381 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Commercial Page 37 Item#6. E IDIAN:--- IDAHO C� PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: November 9, 2021 Topic: Public Hearing for Intermountain Wood Products Expansion (H-2021-0042) by Kent Brown Planning Services, Located at 255, 335, 381, and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. and 300 and 330 S.Adkins Way A. Request: To expand existing wood products business located at 220, 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way by a. Annexing 255 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd.with the I-L zoning district. b. Modification of the Medimont Development Agreement for the purpose of creating a new development agreement for the subject properties and removing the requirement for an internal landscape buffer. c. A Future Land Use Map Amendment to designate 355 and 255 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Industrial, and 385 and 381 S. Locust Grove from Mixed-Use Community to Commercial Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 38 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : November 9v 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Intermountain Wood Products Expansion ( W2021 - 0042 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) if yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#6. STAFF REPORT E IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING November 9,2021 Legend DATE: Pro;e c Lcca ion TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner E`FRANKL'IN`RQ 208-884-5533 Bruce Freckleton,Development `t Services Manager W - 208-887-2211 r __ SUBJECT: H-2021-0042 Intermountain Wood Products -- - -- - - - Expansion IJ LOCATION: The properties are located at 255, 335, LLLLL 381,and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd, and / L 220, 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way, in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 18, Township 3N,Range 1E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to expand an existing wood products business by annexing 3.1 acres of property with the I-L zoning district, and modifying the Medimont Development Agreement to create a new development agreement to remove a requirement for an internal landscape buffer. This application includes requests for two Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments. The first amendment is to change the designation of the properties to be annexed from mixed use community to industrial to allow zoning to I-L for the warehouse. The second map amendment involves the two properties to the south at 381 and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd(not part of the development)being designated from mixed use community to commercial to make them more consistent with the FLUM designations of surrounding properties to the south and west. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 3.1 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Industrial(distribution and warehousing for wood products) Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 6 existing lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) N/A Page 1 Page 39 Item#6. Description Details Page Number of Residential Units(type N/A of units) Density(gross&net) N/A Physical Features(waterways, No known unique physical features. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of June 3,2021,3 attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) The three lots containing the existing business were annexed in 1996(DA Inst.#97072405)and platted as the Medimont Subdivision No.2. (FP 99-010).A conditional use was approved for a wholesale building materials building in 2001 (CUP 01-035)and the CZC was approved in 2003 (CZC 03-007).The two parcels proposed to be annexed and zoned to I-L to allow for expansion of the existing business(255 and 335 S.Locust Grove Rd)are presently un-platted. The two additional lots proposed for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment(385 and 381 S.Locust Grove Rd)were annexed in 1999,and CZCs were issued for or the existing daycare in 2012 and 2017(CZC 12-064,CZC A-2017- 0191,MDA 09-002).Although these lots are being included as part of the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment with this application,they are otherwise not part of the development. B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access presently occurs from S.Locust Grove Rd(arterial) Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) and S.Adkins Way(Local) Traffic Level of Service Better than"E" Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Site plan only shows internal access to the west. Access Existing Road Network S.Locust Grove Rd and S.Adkins Way Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ 7' sidewalk already exists along S.,Locust Grove Rd. Buffers Proposed Road Improvements No improvements required Fire Service No comments submitted Police Service No comments submitted Wastewater • Distance to Sewer NA Services • Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed • Estimated Project Sewer See Application ERU's • WRRF Declining Balance 14.18 Page 2 Page 40 Item#6. Description Details Page • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan W-6 • Comments • Flow is committed • Sewer is available from Locust Grove • Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. • If existing sewer main into the site is not used it must be abandoned at the manhole. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 3 • Estimated Project Water See application ERU's • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Any changes to public infrastructure must be approved by Public Works. • If the existing water main stub is not used it needs to be abandoned at the main in Locust Grove. • Water main will require a 20'utility easement. • Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes, buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences, infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement. • Any well that will no longer be used must be abandoned according to IDWR requirements. Page 3 Page 41 Item#6. C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map rxL- Leend Legend - �Projeo}Lflcafior ��Proje�t Lacafian � I U}stna i �rry 1- + E FRANKLIN RD EX NKL'IN'RD KALISPEiL ST Sri ' b teal - - J J i E r- Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend 0 (fLegend Prn ect Lcca�lan IetF-cject Lflcaicrs I. 1=L _I City L rnr!E _�:� E'FRikNKLIN=RD A— _ N�IN`RD - 5i I - �Ll El 1 RUT � RUTS C-NR-1 � 1 � RUT � R1 C-G EWATEF90WER51- - ---- - — O i -------------- -- RU i C C III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Kent Brown Planning Services—3161 E. Springwood Dr,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Banks Group, LC—PO Box 65970, Salt Lake City,UT, 84165 Page 4 Page 42 Item#6. IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 9/17/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 9/15/2021 Sign Posting 9/17/2021 Nextdoor posting 9/16/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS Background The applicant proposes to annex 3.1 acres of property(the subject property)at 255 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd. in order to construct a 59,300 sq. ft. +/-warehouse for their existing wood wholesale distribution business. The existing business is to the west of the subject properties at 300 and 330 S. Adkins Way. This request also includes a request for a development agreement modification and comprehensive plan map amendments. The existing wholesale and distribution business was constructed in 2003 and is within the Medimont Subdivision(annexed in 1996). The Medimont DA has a requirement for a 20' planting strip along the eastern boundary of the plat area(intended as a residential buffer). This puts the required planting strip between the existing business and the properties intended for annexation and expansion. Accordingly,the applicant proposes a DA modification to remove the requirement for the planting strip in this area. This application also includes a request for two comprehensive plan map amendments. The first amendment is to change the designation of the 3.1 acres of property to be annexed from mixed use community to industrial to allow zoning to I-L for the warehouse. The second map amendment involves the two properties to the south(1.32 acres total)at 381 and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd(already zoned C-C but not part of the existing business or expansion). Until recently this was the location of the Tree House Learning Center daycare. These properties are also designated for mixed use community but are directly adjacent to industrial designation to the west and commercial designation to the south along W. Watertower St. and S. Locust Grove Rd. At the pre-application meeting, staff informed the applicant that it was not preferable to pursue a land use map amendment that would leave a small enclave of mixed-use community designation and encouraged the applicant to work with the adjacent property owners to amend the map to commercial with the same application. There will still be approximately 7.2 acres of property remaining along this side of S. Locust Grove Rd designated for MU-C, staff is unsure how viable the remainder of this property will be for mixed use community development,particularly the two residential properties directly north of the subject property. Annexation The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a new development agreement as part of the annexation approval.The applicant has provided a new legal description of the property boundary subject to the new DA(see Exhibit VIII below). Page 5 Page 43 Item#6. A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) Comprehensive Plan Map Amendments The area is presently designated for mixed use community under the future land use map (FLUM). The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N)areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. To the east of the subject property across S. Locust Grove Rd is single family attached (Bellabrook Subdivision)and a religious institution. There are commercial and office uses to the south,and directly adjacent to the west is a 27-acre industrial park. Adjacent to the north are two existing single-family residences, and north of those is a 2.4-acre property zoned R-40 with an existing development agreement for up to 95 multifamily units (Cobblestone Village AZ 99-005). Given the existing development in the vicinity,the size of the remaining undeveloped properties, and that UDC 11-3A-3 requires site circulation to occur from a local street(S.Adkins Way) rather than an arterial(S. Locust Grove), staff does not believe the subject properties have the accessibility and are viable for the integrated,walkable, synergistic development oriented around open space that is anticipated by the Plan for mixed use community. Staff does believe a plan amendment is appropriate to allow a change to industrial designation for the subject properties and commercial designation for the properties to the south. However, staff does have reservations with how the proposed development will interact with the remaining properties to the north which would still be designated for Mixed Use Community. The two properties directly north of the subject property are still in the County,the two properties north of those are within the City and zoned R-15. Staff has concerns with whether the proposed warehouse will limit future redevelopment in this area. Staff has not received any correspondence from the owners of either of those properties. B. Development Agreement Modification The existing Intermountain Wood Products buildings are within the Medimont Development Agreement,which was approved in 1997 (Inst. 97072405). Provision 4d requires a permanent 20- foot-wide landscaped planning strip along the east boundary landscaped with 6-8-foot-high scotch pines at a maximum distance of 15 ft. each. This was required to provide a screen for the adjacent residential properties,two of which are now proposed for the warehouse expansion. This proposal would create a new development agreement for the subject properties and would remove this requirement. At the time the Medimont No. 2 Final Plat was approved a common lot(Lot 2 Block 2)was platted along the eastern perimeter of the subdivision for the purpose of this landscape screen. This common lot was owned and maintained by the Stonebridge Owners Association. In February of 2021 the portions of the common lot between the existing business and the parcels to be annexed were deeded to the applicant. As the intent of the landscape strip was to buffer the adjacent residential properties from the industrial development, and the properties to be annexed are no longer proposed for residential, staff supports elimination of the DA requirement in this area. However,Lot 2,Block 2 (the common lot)was split improperly. This results in two common lots—a common lot strip north of Page 6 Page 44 Item#6. the subject properties, and a common lot strip south of the subject properties. Also, an unbuildable common lot is now being converted to a buildable lot for a warehouse. This makes the applicant ineligible for a parcel boundary adjustment and a short plat is necessary to legitimize the subdivision. This will require cooperation with the Stonebridge Owners Association that owns the remainder of the common lot. All the trees that were within this portion of the buffer have been removed,which should be addressed. This is discussed in the landscaping section. C. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan): • "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) The subject property is surrounded by the City limits to the south, east and west. City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer of the property proposed to be annexed with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, screening,transitional densities,and other best site design practices." (3.07.01A) The proposed industrial use will be required to provide a landscaped buffer along property lines adjacent to residential uses (i.e. to the north)with development per UDC Table 11-2C- 3. No outdoor storage is proposed with this development. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) Staff does have concerns regarding the present concept plan as will be discussed in the dimensional standards section below. Staff has red-marked on the concept plan that this plan should not be approved and future development should comply with all pertinent regulations and the Architectural Standards Manual. In regard to the proposed use, with appropriate design the proposed warehouse should be compatible with the existing industrial uses to the west and the commercial uses to the south. The required buffer to residential land uses to the north should minimize conflicts between land uses. However, staff does have concerns regarding how industrial development on the subject property could affect future development potential for the properties to the north, which will still have the Plan designation of mixed-use community. • "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development. Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing development."(2.02.02C) The proposed infill industrial development should not negatively impact abutting uses as other industrial uses exist to the west, commercial to the south, and a landscaped buffer is required along the north property boundaries to residential uses which should minimize conflicts.As noted in the Architecture Section below, the building architecture as submitted should not be approved and the warehouse should meet all standards of the ASM at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC). • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development." Page 7 Page 45 Item#6. (3.03.03A) The proposed development will be required to connect to City water and sewer systems with development. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Curb, gutter and sidewalk has already been constructed along S. Locust Grove Rd and S. Adkins Wy, and in their staff report dated September 13, 2021 ACHD noted no additional road improvements were necessary. Hook-up to City water and sewer service is required with development. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross access agreements,access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) The concept plan indicates primary access, including for trucks, occurring directly from S. Locust Grove, an arterial.Also, staff has recommended to the applicant that cross access be provided to the properties to the north and south, although the concept plan does not reflect this. Staff has addressed this in the conditions of approval. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: D. Proposed Use Analysis: The applicant requests to annex and zone to I-L to allow a warehouse. This is an allowed use per UDC 11-2C-2. E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3): There are specific use standards for a warehouse use per UDC 11-4-3-42. This includes a limitation on square footage of office and retail, and outdoor activity areas not being located within 300 feet of an adjacent residence or residential district. The 4,800 sq. ft. office area is well under the 25%limitation on office uses,but the concept plan reflects an outdoor loading area as close as 100 feet from the adjacent residential property to the north.At the time of the certificate of zoning compliance(CZC),the applicant will need to either move the loading bay to conform to the regulation or fully enclose the loading bay. F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The I-L zoning district requires a 35 ft. street setback.A 25 ft. wide landscape buffer is required along S. Locust Grove Rd.,which is the same width required for landscape buffers on any side bordered by residential. Building height is limited to 50 ft. The site plan as submitted does suggest the landscape buffer along S. Locust Grove Rd. is met,but the width of the residential buffer to the north does not meet UDC standards. The site and design standards of UDC 11-3A-19 state that for properties greater than two(2) acres in size,no more than fifty(50)percent of the total off street parking area for the site shall be located between building facades and abutting streets. The concept site plan as submitted shows the entirety of the parking between the building and S. Locust Grove Rd. UDC 11-3A-19 also requires an applicant to extend or improve streets,drive aisles, cross access easements or similar vehicular and pedestrian connections provided from adjacent properties. The concept plan as submitted does not provide access to the properties to the north and the south.As a condition of approval of the development agreement, staff is recommending cross access to these adjacent properties. Page 8 Page 46 Item#6. Staff does have concerns with the concept site plan as submitted because of the comments listed above. Staff has additional concerns regarding the size and visibility of the proposed warehouse as would be viewed from S. Locust Grove Rd.,and is unsure the building as shown would meet all the requirements of the Architectural Standards Manual(ASM).Although staff is overall supportive of annexation of the property for the purpose of the expansion, staff believes additional revisions need to be made to the site plan in order to be consistent with the regulations. Staff is not supportive of the concept plan as submitted. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): The existing business presently takes access from two driveways off of S. Adkins Way, a local commercial street. The two properties to be annexed are currently both rural residential, each with a driveway access from S. Locust Grove Rd. S. Locust Grove Road is classified as an arterial roadway and is improved with 5-travel lanes, bike lanes,vertical curb,gutter, and 7-foot wide sidewalk abutting the site. The concept plan as submitted shows access for this site occurring via a 40 ft. driveway directly from S. Locust Grove Rd. The applicant has mentioned employee, customer and truck access could occur at this driveway. ACHD has noted this proposal complies with all ACHD requirements. The Council can grant a waiver to allow the access,but staff prefers the applicant develop the site plan with internal circulation and send trucks through S. Adkins Way as previously discussed at the pre- application meetings. Staff has concerns with access occurring from S. Locust Grove Rd. UDC 11-3A-3 states where access to a local street is available,the applicant shall reconfigure the site circulation plan to take access from such local street. Also,where access to a local street is not available,the property owner shall be required to grant cross-access/ingress-egress and extend or improve streets,drive aisles, cross access easements or similar vehicular and pedestrian connections provided to adjacent properties. During the March 2021 Pre-Application meeting, it was mentioned to the applicant that the site plan as submitted should be revised to remove primary access from S. Locust Grove, access should be provided to the properties to the north and south, and it would be preferable for truck access to occur via the existing driveway from S.Adkins Way. The concept plan as submitted does not reflect any of these access points. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the access from S. Locust Grove Rd be closed, and the site plan be revised to indicate access from the north, south and west. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): UDC 11-3C-6 requires one space for every 2,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for industrial uses (warehouse). Based on a 53,350 sq. ft. warehouse and 4,800 sq. ft. of office space this amounts to 27 parking spaces required whereas 44 are provided. However, as mentioned above in the dimensional standards section above,the parking configuration as shown on the site plan does not comply with UDC 11-3A-19 in that all parking area is located between building facades and abutting streets. 11-3C-5 requires all off street parking areas to be provided with a substantial wheel restraint to prevent cars from encroaching upon abutting private and public property or overhanging beyond the designated parking stall dimensions.When a bumper overhangs onto a sidewalk or landscape area,the parking stall dimensions may be reduced two(2)feet in length if two(2)feet is added to the width of the sidewalk or landscaped area planted in ground cover. The concept plan does not appear to meet either of these requirements. Page 9 Page 47 Item#6. I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 8 ft. wide sidewalk exists along S. Locust Grove Rd. and sidewalk of at least 5 ft. exists along S. Adkins Way.ACHD has submitted a staff report and does not request any additional sidewalk improvements. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC Table 11-2C-3 requires a 25 ft. wide landscape buffer along arterial roads(S. Locust Grove Rd), 10 ft. wide buffer along local road(S. Adkins Way), and 25 ft.wide landscape buffers when sharing a property line with a residential use. There are also landscaping requirements(UDC 1I- 3B-8C) for parking lots,including not more than 12 parking spaces in a row without at least a 50 sq. ft.planter islands and a 5 ft. wide perimeter buffer adjacent to parking, loading or other vehicular use areas. A landscape buffers meeting the minimum dimensions will be required along S. Locust Grove Rd. There is an existing landscape buffer along S. Adkins Way and the parking lot appears to meet minimum requirements. The residential landscape buffer to the north of the site does not appear to meet the minimum width of at least 25 ft. The properties to the south(381 and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd) are not part of the current development and are subject to a separate development agreement. As mentioned in the DA modification section above,the existing Medimont Development Agreement has a requirement for a permanent 20 ft.wide planting strip along the eastern boundary of the subdivision,planted with 6-8 ft. high pines at no less than 15 ft. apart. When staff initially did the site visit for the pre-application meeting, staff discovered all trees that had been in this required planting strip between the existing business and the properties to be annexed had been cut down. Staff mentioned to the applicant these trees were a requirement of the final plat and DA and could not be removed without a DA modification. Staff requested the applicant account for all trees that had removed, and the applicant responded 11 trees had been removed in this area ranging in diameter from 11.5 in. to 20 in.to a total of 169 inches. As these trees were a requirement of the DA, staff recommends a condition that the applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist to ensure an additional 169 caliper inches of trees meeting the minimum 6-foot height requirement be planted on the property in excess of other minimum landscaping requirements. K. Waterways(UDC la-MA ft There are no waterways known to traverse the property. There is an ACHD detention pond on another property approximately 500 feet to the north. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The existing business has chain link fencing along the sides and rear of the facility. The properties to be annexed currently have, 3-strand wire,chain link and open split rail fencing. The concept site plan does indicate some of the existing fencing along the side property lines will remain. At time of CZC,the applicant will be required to submit a landscape plan that reflects all fencing meets the provisions of UDC 11-3A-7. This includes screening of any outdoor storage as required by UDC 11-3A-14. M. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. See Section VI below for Public Works comments/conditions. Page 10 Page 48 Item#6. N. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): Conceptual elevations have been provided with this submittal. The elevations do not meet the minimum requirements of the ASM. This includes nearly the entirety of the building materials being metal siding,lack of accents of at least 30%along the base of the building, fagade sections longer than 50 ft. without modulation,rooflines longer than 50 ft. without roofline or parapet variations, and possibly not meeting the 30%fenestration requirement or fenestration alternatives. Staff recommends the conceptual elevations not be approved. Also,due to visibility of this property from S. Locust Grove Rd and that it is surrounded on three sides by commercial and residential development, staff recommends a DA provision that requires architecture comply with the commercial,not industrial standards. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map,DA modification and Annexation 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 October 7. 2021.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject annexation,map amendment and development agreement modification request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing_: a. In favor: Kent Brown b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Kent Brown. d. Written testimony: A letter was received from Camy Donahue at 336 S. Truss Lane. She voiced concerns with decrease in property values,traffic,particularly for trucks, lighting, and landscaping e. Staff presenting gpplication: Alan Tiefenbach 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. Commission discussed traffic,particularly the proposed access from S. Locust Grove Rd. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commission noted the updated site plan that was presented at the meeting should be approved with a revision showing a northern cross access to the property at 255 S. Locust Grove Rd. b. Commission recommended approval with staff's recommendations and the additional recommendation that Council approve the S.Locust Grove Rd access. Page 11 Page 49 Item#6. VII. EXHIBITS A. Future Land Use Map—Adopted&Proposed Land Uses Dace: 3129l2021 Adopted Lana Uses 500 1 000 Feet Nigh Density Residential General Industrial MN-C Legend `TMISAP Boundary 1im � Low Density Residerrtial = Medium density Residential ' Med+iigh density Residential ' High Density Regiderlial Commercial office Commercial ® IndUStiai warertpw — ® civic Proposed Land Uses Old Town F—] Mixed Use Neighborhooc 0 Mixed Use Corrm unity �] Mixed Use Regional ® Mixed Use Nor�-Residemial I ® Mixed Use-Interchange ® Low Demity Employment high Density Employment Mixed Employment I J M U-Res metal tutu-C mu-corn dustrial i Lifestyle Center Civic � ' - - - - - � Medium Commercial �DensaF Y Residential Page 50 Item#6. B. Annexation Exhibit(date: June 8,2021) ANNEXATION DESCRIPTION A parcel of land described as Parcel 1 in Warranty Deed,Ins(. No. 2020-012834, and all that certain Parcel described in Warranty Deed,Inst.No. 201 9-1 2 1 778, located in the Northeast 114 of the Northeast 114 of Section 18, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Hoise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, 11), more particularly described a..s follows, CO1V MENCIN C at the Northeast Corner of said Section 18- from which the Eagt 1/4 Confer common to said Section 1 B and Sect]on 17,bears, South 00°00'39"'West, (which is the basis of bearing for this description),for a distance of 2658.72 feet; thence stung the common line of said Sections 16 and 17, South 00'-00'00" East, for a distance of 828.49 feet,from which the North 1116sh corner common to Sections 18 and 17 hears South 00°00'00"East, for a distance of 501.09 feet;thence North 84°11'30"EasL for a distance of 48-01 teet to the westerly right-of- way line of South Locust Grave Road as shown on Record of Survey No. 7075,Ada County Records, the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 00'00'00" Fast along said westerly right-of-way line of South Locust Grove Road, for a distance of 352.i 1 feet to the northerly boundary line❑f that certain Parcel shown on Record of Survey No, 10859,Ada County Records; Thence along said northerly boundary line, South 89°08'55" West(formerly South 89°11'3Q" West),for a distance of 387.80 feet to the easterly boundary line of IVleditnont Subdivision, as recorded in Hook 75,at Page 7794, Ada County Records; thence along said easterly boundary line,North 00'54'14" East(formerly North 00155" East), for a distance of 352.53 feet: Thence North 89°11'30"East, for a distance of 382.24 feet to the POINT OF HEGMNING, The above-dt scribed Parcel contains 3.113 acres, more or less_ -r- - S object to easements of record and not of record. Page 13 Page 51 Item#6. ANNEXATION EXHIDT MAP FOR INTERMOUNTAIN WOOD PRODUCTS LOCATED IN THE NE 1 4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF 5EMON 18, T_ 3 N", R. 1 E„ " Y OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO � _ Toi vp + E. FRANKLIN P(D. 7 8 ov+ _ N99"a1'SO"E #3❑"25' �6.LbCF� FoPARCEL 1 +,0 INARRANTr DrED 6 o INST NO. 2020-01283# Q 48 0o' rt .16 up 'in 58911'.34"w 431 83' -- 0 (S89'1) I/2'IY 4SZ,3') Az Ln u r'7 INARRAN TY DEED a fNST 40- 2019-12MB �►� +�t`; °° ;- W m 4-f ; r ,- ;ti uA-t FAIL CEL A u �-' 4 It o T� 3.t+3� ACREY ��i �Ui m a o F}�z p C3. rY bicu ` U a iEl Y; S RI!}fs'5511 w OC � 48.OT {,d m > *oq 75,7 F 4 C a SB�r�B'5�"14 d35.81' r RECCeD OF SURVEYNO. MR59 I;.+ � Z j' sa�aassw Ui' M1B 41 "/16 QORNEIR Se9b55°W ti90,1 5' l8 17� SCALE, 1"-100' t � r a ° 18 l7 .�il �Aa.�ci BID.: F- fSGRE� ' INTERMOUNTAIN DOD PRODUCTS 220158 o�.SQ�+waLc.;. c SmEf ir P40 r MI, y4lZmvr.AMFlZ-, -u8rM ANNEXATION EXHIBIT � OF 1 Page 14 Page 52 Item#6. C. DA Modification Legal Description and Exhibit(date:August 5,2021) TOTAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION A portion of I t 2, Block 2 of Medimonl SLLbdivii:jicn N-D,1, as rc;eordcd in 13mk 75,at Pic: 7794,Ada County R ords, all of Lots 7, 8,and 9, Block 2-of AMcdimonl Subdivision No.2,w; recorded in R(Nok 79,at Page 8453, Ada County Records,a portion ofthat certain parcel described w%Pmcl 1 in Warranty Deed, lnSt, No, 020-012834, Md a portion of that air1 Parcel described in Warranty Deed, Inst.No.2019-121778,all of which is llocatcd in the Northeast 1/4 of the Northeast 14 of Scelion 18,'Township 3 North, Range 1 L'ast, Boise Meridian.,Ada County, ID,more particularly described as follows,, COMMENCINO at the Northeast Corner of Suction 18;thence along the common line of Sections 18 and 17,which is coincident with the centerline of South Locust Grave road, South 00°30'17"West, for a distance of829.00 feet,from which a 5(8"rebar with a plastic cap, starnpod"CSC PLS 5082,"marking the North 1I1 P corner common to Sections 18 and 17 bears, South 00130'17" West, for ad issance of 500.62 feet; 'I'hence, South 89146'00" Vest,fora distance of48.00 feet to the westerly right of way line of South Locust Gwvo Road,as depicted on Record of Survey No. 7075,the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence, along said right of way Iine.South 00'30'l7" West, for a-distance of 351.68 feet Ic its intersection with the northerly boundary line of that certain Parcel shown otti Record of Survcy No. 10959,Ada County Records; Thence along said northerly boundary line South 89139'34"Vest(formerly Soutb 99"1 F 0-Vest), for a distance of 388.00 feet to the easterly boundary line of Lot 2, Rlu,:k 2 of Mcdimont Subdivision,as recorded in Book 75,at Page 7794, Ada County Records, which bears North 01'25'43"l:;a�t, for a disumce of 1.00 Net from a found 519"ruNr with a plastic car,starnpod"I Ski PLS 7724,"mf=ncc monument; Thence along said easterly boundary line, South 01°25'43"Vest,for a distance of0.44 feet to its intersection with the costerly prnilungation of the southerly boundary line of IAA 9. Block 2,of lvMedimont SubdivisionNo_2,which bears North 01'25'43" Fuss, for adistanvu uf0.56 feet from the afommentioned reference monument; Thence North 89*01'17" West, along the southerly boundary line of said Lot 9, Block 2 and the easterly prolongation thereof, for a distance of 302.23 fcct to a found 112" rehar with a plastic cap, stamped ",GA LF.E, PLS 3260," marking the southwest corner of Lot 9, block 2, which is coincident with the easterly right of way line of South Adkins Way,, Continued an Paige 2 Page 15 Page 53 Item#6. Total Boundary Description Page 2 Thence along the wcstcrly boundary line of Lots 9 through 7, the following courses and distances: North DD 58'43" FALqt. For a distancc of I1 _98 feet to a found If2" rebar with a plastic cap, stamped,"GA LEE, PLS 3260,''marking thy:beginning of tangent curve to the left; 124.55 feet along the arc of said curve, having a radius of 329,00 feet, a central angle of 21°'41'29", and a chord, which bears, North 09152'01" West, for a distance of 123,81 feet to a found V2" rebar with a plastic cap.. stamped 'GA I.EE, PLS 3260," marking the beginning of a reverse curve; 102.60 feet along the are of said curve, having a 271.00 fool radius, a central a sle of 21°41'29", and a chard which bears, forth 09'32'01" West, for a distance of 101.99 feet to a found 112" rebar with no cap; North 00-58'43" East, for a distance of 106.36 feet to a found 1/2" rebar with a plastic cusp, stamped"GA LEE,PLS 3260,"marking the northwest corner of said rot 7, Block Z Thence„ leaving said westerly boundary line, South 89401'17" East, for a distance 320.13 feet along the northerly boundary 1 ino of said Lot 7 and the easterly prolongation thereof to a set 5/8" rebut with a plastic cap, "PLS 12720," on the easterly boundary line of Lot 2, Block 2. of Medirnont Subdivision, Them South l g°Oft'17" Fast,a distance or 79.97 feet along said easterly boundary line of Lot 2, Block 2, which hears,'forth 01"25'43" East, for a distance of 5.00 feet from a found 1 " rebar with a plastic.cap, -starnpud-GA LEE, PLS 3260,witness Corner; Thence South 01°25'43" Nest,for a distance of 18.96 feet to tie northwest corner of that Parcel described in Warty L?eed, Inst.No, 2020-012834; Thence North 99146'00" East,a distan"of 2_31 feet along the northerly boundary line of said Parcel to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 6.416 acres, more ar less. _ Subject to valid casements or reservations_ � EIS OF DESCRIPTION. OF 1t�` � Al"� Page 16 Page 54 Item#6. rs � LL zONRAW O 12, L '6 L O�OOAD S��a 3A010 JSIIOI 'S y ,OU 6z" .L6 004 € SL . d'$. l 99,1S£ M.LL,O�.Ob9 SC PLS 52a2 PLS 5282 - z as h o� 0 oa 006 F— W N n6 a CL D W - ; Igi � - OD � , ~_ I � 4SG 00 o - LS 7l m � W _ (LOT 2 hENT SUB,LLJ CV ~ z LLP 00 i ci # 9 z L CA to In (LOT 9) (LOT 9) CLOT 10) CL w� r Q A LEE 00 PL526 PLS 3Z4 CA PLS 326 LS 3260 PLS 37d - 5 ti F w ; d 47 O h'1 r [y r N I� W w it h'7 O cN O z J ,LOW"W tE� aVWM-mm PM swM 7wom mmoo S"M arse -ON MEN Page 17 Page 55 Item#6. D. Site Plan(date: 4�4''�T 10/7/2021) yyyr FENCE V PMU�EMP�UME EQff,1w ORNL.KAT 35,SQ� fU41M�3 — 1 # A�9 AT _ I ow I MIS . I T MEW" N� I K I OMNO wu.0 I epee 5o FT I.Ift 4PFMEI I I w Pc aEy a t5TY _ a �__-_-_-_ _ I 51d 8GlmILOU- {fGRO+E P4�A I PMCf��Bllim lMS I I I AREA I I I r 11 I I I r x'�elr I I I I I I I i I I I I �I. J - ------ EWWa 11�T•A 2mu em"bId E} THG �d7m 6bISE JIUJITSU Page 18 Page 56 s E:. i _� a� --E *III �� f� •• � ~ ' �' '' Page Item#6. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. 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 on the site shall comply with the non-residential design standards for commercial districts in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 b. The S. Locust Grove Rd. access shall be used for emergency access only,unless waived by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. c. Cross-access easements shall be granted to the abutting property to the north(Parcel# S1118110071)and south(Parcels#R0879824125 and R0879824130); a copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for this site. d. The applicant shall coordinate with the City Arborist on a mitigation plan to ensure an additional 169 caliper inches of trees removed from the property meet the standards set forth in UDC 11-313-10. e. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy,the applicant shall complete a short plat to merge Parcel# S 1118110105 and# S 1118110130 as well as the portion of Lot 2, Block of the Medimont Subdivision that was deeded to the applicant. £ The applicant shall comply with the warehouse specific use standards set forth in UDC 11-4-3-42. The proposed outdoor loading area shall not be located closer than 300 feet from the adjacent residential property to the north or fully enclosed. g. A 25-foot wide landscape buffer shall be constructed on the northern boundary to residential land use as required per UDC Table 11-2C-3, landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-9C,unless otherwise reduced by City Council. B. PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: 1. Ensure sewer services do not cross infiltration trenches. 2. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,fences,buildings, car ports,trash enclosures, infiltration trenches, light poles,etc.)are built within a City utility easement. 3. Unused water or sewer service stubs or mains must be abandoned in accordance with current City standards. GENERAL CONDITIONS: 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 Page 21 Page 59 Item#6. be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 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. 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. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). 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. 5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. 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. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. 10. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 11. 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. Page 22 Page 60 Item#6. 12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 14. 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. 15. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. 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. 18. 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.meridianciny.or"l ublic_works.aspx?id=272. 19. 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. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (ITD) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=234988&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=237340&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=237150&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv Page 23 Page 61 Item#6. IX. FINDINGS A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment 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 amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission finds the proposed amendment from Mixed-Use Community to 3.1 acres of Industrial for 225 and 335 S. Locust Grove Rd. and 1.32 acres of Commercial for 381 and 385 S. Locust Grove Rd. is compatible with adjacent industrial uses in the area and is consistent with the goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of the city. As the adjacent development pattern is industrial to the west and commercial to the south, Commission finds that the proposal to change the FL UM designation from Mixed Use— Community to Industrial and Commercial will provide an improved guide to future growth and development in this area and will be compatible with adjacent industrial uses. 3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals,Objectives and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code. 5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. If Commission's recommendations are followed regarding design and compliance with UDC standards, Commission finds the proposed amendments to Industrial and Commercial will be compatible with other existing industrial and commercial uses in the area. 6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities. Commission finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site. 7. The proposed map amendment(as applicable)provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of the area. Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties. 8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, Commission finds that the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City. Page 24 Page 62 Item#6. B. 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: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The Applicant is proposing to annex the subject property with I-L zoning and develop industrial uses on the property. Although the FLUM presently designates the areas for mixed use community,for the reasons listed in the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment section above stafffinds industrial use is appropriate in this area and supports a plan map amendment. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the proposed map amendment to I-L generally complies with the purpose statement of the I-L district in that it will encourage industrial uses that are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures and is accessible to an arterial street(i.e. S. Locust Grove Rd.). 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the proposed industrial use should be conducted entirely within a structure. 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 City services are available to be provided to this development. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City, if the applicant enters into a new development agreement and adheres to the DA provisions above. Page 25 Page 63 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll "` INTERMOUNTAIN WOODS IandproaATA SITE MAP i tVL f � r d pill I R 9PAw f NIL = F '� 43035'58.46'' N 116022'09.84" W ■ . . emir - - - - May 13, 2021 IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational Scale: 1 inch approx 300 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document. - 'r it I i- --r jv •�,i`".': _ I�yermountai od Flooring �Intermounta in Wood Products - y , A!"00"I 1 �y ti . I PLAT SHOWNG BEL VEAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE NE 1 4 OF NE 1 /4 OF SECTION 18, T.3N., RAE., B.M. MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAH 2019 E. FRANKUN RD. S.7 S. S.18 .S.17 CP&F #107088111 Jv - g1 J FIC 1/2` IRON PIN W.C. PLS 7612 ro w PER RECORD OF SURVEY , IJNPLATTED l ® REPLACE WITH 5/8" I 7729 1.D' W►.C. SOUTH ®39'17"E 387 ° N89 .84' _ ................ . 202.84' 4&01' ----------- -------- - -------------- -- ---------------------_-4-1 A� a - 1 ° —�! 25.0' 21.84 �— =° 1 9 1 5 20 80 0 10 40 120 ®f ° I 0 0 10 1 � i ° w �' SCALE: 1 a-I t N catC40 ® bo IC4 N 1 IF 1 I f •p Zj ' t / " I ,� I FOUND 5/8- IRONPIN NOTED ° 25.0' r-- ° 10.0'-- 1 FOUND BRASS CAP MONUMENT FOUND 5/8 IRON PIN-NO CAP - 4 e- -10.0' ® - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - PLACEDC 7729 1 t c ' 1 o • SET 1/2 IRON PIN NTH CAP L----------------------------------- ---------- ' ,87.39' _9"39'1390.2S _ �20284° - • 589�9`,7'Wf °N 1®16 . C POINT ®_ �� 39®23' 4&01' `J PLS 5082 PLS 3260 REAL PINT CPS #105137704 SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINE LIE TABLE MURDOCH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 OF BEGINNING LOT LINE ®®® ®®® SECMONLINE LINE LENGTH BEARING04 M_ RI T-OF-WAY LINE ......................................... TIE LINE L2 47.26 N120 ', L3 5C79 N1`O7'32-E ---------------------------- EASEMENT LINE LANDSCAPE BUFFER SEE NOTE 9 ———— ———— — —— — —— ACHO PERMANENT T LINE SEENOTE7 CP&F 1/4 051 37705 0 - - - - - - , CROSS ACCESS AND PARIGNG EASEMENT S.18 S.17 - - - - - - - SEE NOTE 6 1. A TEN (10) FOOT WADE PERMANENT PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PROPERTY DRAINAGE EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESqPED ALONG ALL LOT NO. SUBDIVISION BOUNDARY LINES® AS SHOWN THIS PLAT. 2. MY RE-SUBDIVISION THIS PLAT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF RE-SUBDIVISION. * MINIMUM 13UILDING SETBACKS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICABLE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION L REGULATIONS AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMITS. 4. THIS SUBDIVISION MALL BE SUBJECT TO THE DECLARATION OF COVENANM OOND17IONS AND RESTRICTIONS FOR THE MADDYN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 77 2 5. IRRIGATION WATER HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY N A-MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1N COMPLIANCE WITH IDAHO CODE (p��' 1t0 �® SECTION 31- 1.B). LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION WALL BE ENTITLED TO IRRIGATION WATER T% AND WALL BE OBLIGATED FOR ASSESSMENTS FROM THE NAMPA-MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. �`� F or- S. DIRECT LOT ACCESS TO S. LOCUST GROVE ROAD IS PROHIBITED. A PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND Z BLOCK 1 SHALL BE SUBJECT TO A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF LOTS 1 AND 2. BLOCK 1. LOTS , AND Z BLOCK 1 MALL TAKE ACCESS FROM THIS COMMON ACCESS EASEMENT. THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CROSS ACCESS AND PARKING EASBAENT SHALL AS PER THAT *RESERVATION OF CROSS ACCESS AND PARIONG T" INST. NO. 2019-020066 AND AS REQUIRED BY U -11-6C- 8 OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN 7. DaSTING ACHO SLOPE T-INSL NO. 103141562. & CITY OF MERIDIAN OPMENT AGREEMENT INST NO. 100006603 AND AMOCO BY INST. NO. 109074711. 9. 25' WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED BY CITY OF MERIDIAN UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 11-513-7C. I DA W.EMERALD ST. SURVEY /� ISE:,ID ® 704 V JOB NO. 18-064 PH.(206) 70 SHEET I OF 3 GROUP, LLC FAX(208) 9 REVISIONS IDAHO COLLISION CENTERS DATE Al A PRIVATE RESIDENCE u I I I IUI I EXISTING BUILDINGS I Ln INTERMOUNTAIN WOOD FLOORING EXISTING POWER POLE I N \220 SOUTH ADKINS WAY 0 I PARCEL I L 10400 XzON 35.34' FENCE @ PROPERTY LINE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FH U I 36.52' EXI 382.27' 00 o o I I N � I I I I FH � 2633' 2629' _ 2626.29' I THE 0 I - - - _NEW o NEW F- - EXISTING CHURCH RAMP UP io ONE WAY - OF JESUS CHRIST OF Q I _ I LATTER i DAY E I I 2636' / NEW U o O U \ �\1 I SAINTS 190 O I 1 EXISTING + + 1 S LOCUST 0 I GROVE LOCATION 0 \ zl I I � 00 O I -+_ \ N I I N \ L J O `0 NEW TAINING \ WALL \ \ 35'-0" 291'-0" -0' 18'-0 40'-4 1/2" 25'-0" II 4SETBACK I FH p p I __+ Q KALISPELL ST. " 25 - -0 16 0 PROPOSED BUILDING I �z " 62,100 SQ FT (+5860 OFFICE) 2630' Y FF ELEV= 2633.00' NEW I W I � 335 SOUTH LOCUST GROVE ROAD 0 C) I I PARCEL#S1118110130 CJ _z - zo w °' w (.0 U ' Q T -' 271 � O M 0 e�uuz w FH -00 0 < LO EXISTING BUILDING\ S. TRUSS i 12%�� Cl) INTERMOUNTAIN WOOD PRODUCTS I I SUBDIVISION sr roRMW � Z \300 SOUTH ADKINS WAY, M _0 Y PARCEL#R5652610500 30'-6 1/2" L Q I OZONE I I OCopyright 2021, I Guilford A. Rand Architect ® THE PURCHASER IS GRANTED O 11 N A SINGLE USE LICENSE FOR I UNAUTHORIZIEED USE AND/OR IF RTHER U PROHIBITEDI W TIHOUT IS \\ \ 10 WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE \ \ ARCHITECT. _1 \� i F / FW a) I COVERED - // I Q UNLOADING w AREA o _ CD a EXISTING - ONE WAY - - Z O o POWER POLE — - Q o N W O 2635' ' N 25.09 0 EXISTING 2633.38' � 2634.5' > EXISTING EXISTING o I QUALAFAB AUTO PARTS STORE N O N I 387.86' I � Q O Z W 0 0 0 0 m ~ NORTH ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN W rZg&E Lw J a) SCALE 1" = 30'-0" 3.36 ACRES S Cn z U Q 0 U7 Ln Q N PARKING CALCULATIONS SITE TABULATION TABLE O O USE AREA FORMULA SPACES SPACES ADA SPACES AREA PERCENTAGE per Ada County Code REQUIRED PROVIDED per IBC Table 1106.1 BUILDING 67,960 47 SHEET NO. WAREHOUSE 62,100 1 SPACE p q per 2000 S Ft 32 LANDSCAPE 26,540 18 N 44 46 1 REQUIRED O OFFICE SPACE 5,860 1 SPACE per 500 Sq Ft 12 2 PROVIDED HARDSCAPE 52,700 35 /�H _ O . 7 N TOTAL SITE 146,221 100 Ln DATE 01 / 12/2021 0 !i 0 • • 1 • • 1 �. f r • .Aw I � . 'r�Wilmer � t ---- ter. .,�•, r ''" !.`, ,4k' 00 ,, i � `J. R� -�... ?> s '•'4y� �"r-.4.1w'. �,�•,+t �j,.�..i 3 .v 6. li • Mir • - t... .� - .sue �, -.• �lj - ; e. `� '► • 1 , �. oor"'�b• �'� `l ~{c ;45- ;i ftr'w •t,y1SL. . •- Rai'nli i ' r .• ��:. a or T T T f Guilford A. Rand �RArchitect THE PURCHASER IS GRANTED Jlilk .jF ;.• *ram f - o / ■ �� e= �r r 3 .� � 4 i' �. Wilk y1� � 0.,�� A SINGLE USE LICENSE FOR 4. • CONSTRUCTION ONLY. UNAUTHORIZED USE AND/OR ,��.,,�g+,<:Qd... ti '?. 'i" ' � ' i' r ''`yF,.r"'.7...>...� _ ,V�,` - , t Y'._w i ;y,.• '{k. `i. f'� l til.. iv.. FURTHER DISTRIBUTION ->va�i j wt.,. �' � '.fi,. va`�. ,#"4q%� r .ills"� � -t �✓ �• w. — \ �-•'i � PROHIBITED WITHOUT - � I�II�� ■'.i ..ti.za ri�� I�I.I •f - i1 l �,- �' �- 1 .y� ../•'i. � � � PPROVAL OF - - - ---- • 77 • • t �' i • • • • rrrrrr� • • • 1 • REVISIONS DATE Al 4 U LLJ Ln N O I 00 Q 0 z Q 0 0 0 0 z 0 0 LL CD 00 U) a� DN Q0 0 0) I o a O z uCEMaM Q AFAMFEcr M-ma O r O e1P129 i iz1202/zozi GUEUR M A.RAID MARD C) STA18 OF 0 Copyright 2021, O Guilford A. Rand Architect THE PURCHASER IS GRANTED A SINGLE USE LICENSE FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY. UNAUTHORIZED USE AND/OR FURTHER DISTRIBUTION IS PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE 1 ARCHITECT. maw j - w N , - �., a 1" O O O z _ - 0 Q 0 0 � o - _. '. v , CD LLJ " 1' ... �. -..:.., ..:.,r.,.. ., ..� ... -.:. }..u,t ...�:..,y 1� W+11 ..o -..,v %s�, i= ... '4 •, 1 �: . "'� 1. .'h. �1 y - L'�.:,., -..::.. .:_,.. .,,,-..°t by ,s ... .m h a. 1 �. R... x xA. , it` -. . . - 4.' w- -�1 �1�' "iF 7 ♦ Q.,:E,. .. .�-...b a' ``�-♦ 1. a ., '� '6 tr ? •a':�` 2:..,.... - .'t .h: Q i �y A I a 4 5v r , u T w 4 a 4 i t t �Y5'. � Z �.1 ' •alb"-.. t ^dt (��i ♦4 I "`U�rX'1' .l._ �s L�.♦ t; 9� F l� / �tl - gg�� 4 '�, \ '.�! 4 C.' L:: �k7,r,, _,� •'1 `Ql ry ��1�G�' •f� '11i O r , BDr� 1 s M.i v '� ih ti� .�! !��. �ttk�. M. - ��MUM ,9�. �a �L' .4` hi.x I . 0 O + w. 4 ►T W O J C) I l� O NCn SLANTED WALL AT POP INS 00 SCALE in o� SHEET NO. N N A - 2 . 3 DATE 01 / 12/2021 0 77 C� E IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1953: An Ordinance (H-2021-0036 Briar Ridge Subdivision Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southeast % Of The Northeast % and the Northeast % of the Southeast% of Section 36, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 40.992 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance, and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 83 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-161804 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 HEATHER LUTHER 11/10/2021 11:30 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1953 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2021-0036 BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION REZONE) FOR REZONE OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 AND THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST % OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 40.992 ACRES OF LAND FROM R-4 (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO TN-R (TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Endurance Holdings, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4(Medium Low Density Residential)Zoning District to TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION-H-2021-0036 PAGE I OF 3 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned,with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2)plus one(1)of the Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1)reading in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 9th day of November 2021. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO, this 9th day of November, 2021. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 9th day of November, 2021, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E. SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing At: Meridian,Idaho My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022 RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION-H-2021-0036 PAGE 2 OF 3 Item#7. EXHIBIT A A. Rezone Legal Descriptions DESCRIPTION FOR TN-R ZONE BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION A parcel of land located in the Southeast 114 of the Northeast 1/4 and the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 36,T.31N., RAW., B.M.,City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 36 from which the East 1/4 corner of said Section 36 bears North 00°05'08"West,2669.88 feet;thence North 00°05'08"West, 1334.94 feet to the South 1/16 corner of said Section 36 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89112'25"West, 1,322.74 feet to the Southeast 1/16 corner of said Section 36; thence North 00°10'51" East, 1,331.37 feet to the Center-East 1/16 corner of Section 36; thence on the West boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36, North 00134'27" East,20.00 feet; thence on a line parallel with and 20.00 feet North from the South boundary line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of said Section 36,South 89°21'32"East, 1,317.53 feet to the centerline of State Highway No.69,as shown on the right-of-way plans for Federal Aid Project No.STP-3782(101)on file in the office of the Idaho Transportation Department; thence on said centerline the following two(2)courses and distances: 378.93 feet along the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 57,295.78 feet,a central angle of 00°22'44"and a long chord which bears South 00'06'14"West,378.93 feet; South 00°05'08" East,976.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 40.992 acres,more or less. End of Description. a Briar Ridge Subdivision - H-2021-0036 Page 87 ttem#7. EXHIBIT B N SCALE: 1-=300' 0 75 150 300 600 { I + N O'34'27"E --20.00' _ S89'21'32"E 1317_53= 1/4 C-E1/16 - �_- -- ---- ---- 1 S.36 S.31 I I LN 6 I PO LID I I 1 r`I m 1 MI O M rl zl oW Wi TN—R ZONE v Io N V) nl ±40.992 ACRES to o U) 0 o 00 O zl = 10 �� I Z Im co c))m rn 0 o1 0 O I I - I 1 REAL POINT I OF BEGINNIN1-�:' S1/16 SE1/16N89*12'2 W 3-2274' 1334.94' T.3N31 T.2N6 oNPL LAND 5��\I✓ENS 11779 CURVE TABLE CURVE LENGTH RADIUS I DELTA I CHORD BRG. CHORD DIST. �'p09TF OF Cl 1 378.93 57295.78 O'22'44" SO'06'14"W 1 378.93 yM, McCPN`� o DAHO' Ci— e R R r�nn Canc nv L/;;-?l 1 I EXHIBIT DRAWING FOR JOB NO, 17-345 SUITE.WATERTOWER ST. TN—R ZONE SURVEY MERIDIAN I CY Il L SHEET NO. MERMAN,IQ4H083342 BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION 1 1208J B9G65�0 GROUP, LLC LOCATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 AND THE NE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 DWO,DATE fin OF SECTION 36,T.3N.,RAW.,B.M.,CITY OF MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO 2/14/2021 Briar Ridge Subdivision H-2021-0036 Page 88 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L .M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho , hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . ON 24 !!1 & Jeaoo�� William L. M . Nary, tity Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO , 214953 An ordinance (H-2021 -0036 — Briar Ridge Subdivision Rezone) for the rezone of a parcel of land as defined in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from R4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] i i RE-ZONE ORDINANCE - BRIAR RIDGE SUBDIVISION - H-2021 -003 6 PAGE 3 OF 3