2022-01-25 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for Proposed Fire Alarm Communication Devices Fee Update
2. Resolution No. 22-2306: Adopting New Building Division Fees; Authorizing
Building Division of the Community Development Department to Collect Such
Fees; and Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Cavener.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
3. Public Hearing to Convey Real Property to Ada County Highway District for Right
of Way Purposes
4. Public Hearing Continued from December 14, 2021 for Aviator Springs (H-2021-
0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (27.63 acres), L-O (1.64
acres) and M-E (10.72 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of (93)
buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 27.63 acres of land in the
R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning
district, (1) buildable lot on 10.72 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and
(3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt.
Voting Yea: Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman
Hoaglun
Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
5. Ordinance No. 22-1964: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain City-
Owned Real Property to the Ada County Highway District for Right of Way
Purposes Consisting of Approximately 1.66 Acres Located at Discovery Park, 2121
E. Lake Hazel Road; Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on
Behalf of the City of Meridian the Deed and Other Documents Necessary to
Complete the Transaction; 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 Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 7:51 pm
Meridian City Council January 25, 2022.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:03 p.m., Tuesday, January
25, 2022, 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, Bruce Freckleton, Sonya Allen, Scott Colaianni,
Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is January 25th,
2022. It's 6:03 p.m. We will begin this evenings 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: Our next item is our community invocation, which this evening will be given by
Pastor Troy Drake. If you would all, please, join us in the community invocation or take
this as a moment of silence and reflection. Pastor.
Drake: Council Members, Mr. Mayor. If you would join me. Well, Lord God, thank you
so much that we can gather here tonight with city business and I know it's important to
you. All matters of life are important to you. God, I just wanted to ask for a special prayer
for the -- our citizens tonight, anybody in particular who is frightened or hungry or cold,
Lord, that they would find their way to a friend or a relative, some kind of a service, a
church, Lord, that our citizens would be protected tonight from harm. Lord, we are also
thinking of the first responders, the paramedics, firefighters, our police officers, we are so
grateful for them and we pray that you keep them out of harm's way as they protect us.
And, of course, God, just gathering here with these servants here, we just pray that you
would give them much wisdom as they consider the matters at hand and, Lord, you said
that all wisdom comes from above. So, we just pray that you would impart that to them,
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 2- 34
an extra measure of grace for, you know, serving their fellow citizens in our city. So, God,
we just thank you for this great country and this great state and great city that we have
and we -- you know, just bless your name as you bless us and it's your name we pray,
amen. Okay. Thank you.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Thank you. Next up is the adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: I move that we adopt the agenda as published.
Borton: Second.
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.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, nobody signed up.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for Proposed Fire Alarm Communication Devices
Simison: Okay. Then we will move on to action items. First item up is a public hearing
for the proposed fire alarm communication devices fee update and we will open this public
hearing was staff comments. Sam.
Zahorka: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and City Council. Thank you for providing this
opportunity to answer any questions or concerns regarding the new and updated fees for
permitting of installation and replacement of fire alarm systems. The memorandum was
provided to you a few weeks ago, but, in summary, the fee changes for the replacement
of fire alarm communication devices relates to the limited electrical licensed contractors.
This was enacted through the Idaho legislature House Bill 292. We as a city cannot
charge a fee of more than 125 dollars. This update to our fee schedule will bring us into
compliance with the new statutory language. Stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Sam. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you.
Zahorka: Thank you.
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 3- "
Simison: This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide
testimony?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. There is no one signed up. Is there anybody in the audience who would
like to provide testimony or anybody online, if you would like to provide testimony, please,
use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one wishing to provide testimony, do I have
a motion to close the public hearing?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move we close the public hearing on the proposed fire alarm communication
device fees.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
2. Resolution No. 22-2306: Adopting New Building Division Fees;
Authorizing Building Division of the Community Development
Department to Collect Such Fees; and Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Next item up is Item 2, Resolution No. 22-2306.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move that we approve Resolution 22-2306 adopting a new building fee -- new
building division fees, authorizing Building Division at the Community Development
Department to collect such fees and providing an effective date.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 22-2306. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the resolution is agreed to you. Thank you, Sam.
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page,- "
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
3. Public Hearing to Convey Real Property to Ada County Highway
District for Right of Way Purposes
Simison: Our next item up is a public hearing to convey real property to Ada County
Highway District for right-of-way purposes. I will open this public hearing with staff
comments from Mr. Nary.
Nary: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Oh, this is much better. I feel like
a talk show host. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a conveyance of property
for the roadway that is going to be adjacent to the east side of Discovery Park. This is
the new roadway that goes to the south section of the park. This also is the road that will
abut the fire station and police station, as well as a new entry to the park. So, this is
merely the action to convey that right of way to the highway district.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff? This is a public hearing. Is there
anybody from the audience who would like to provide testimony on this item or anybody
online that would like to provide testimony? Seeing no one coming forward, Council, do
I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Move we close the public hearing on the real property -- the conveyance of real
property to the Ada County Highway District for right-of-way purposes.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The
ayes have it and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
4. Public Hearing Continued from December 14, 2021 for Aviator Springs
(H-2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott
Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (27.63 acres), L-O
(1.64 acres) and M-E (10.72 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting
of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 27.63
acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1 .64
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 5 of 34
acres of land in the L-O zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 10.72
acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way
lots on 40 acres of land.
Simison: We will now move on to Item 4, which is a public hearing continued from
December 14th, '21, for Aviator Springs, H-2021-0065. We will continue this public
hearing with any comments from staff.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The only comments is just a
reminder that this meeting was continued to tonight's meeting in order to hold a
community workshop to discuss development impacts and enrollment on area schools
and transportation. The school board met yesterday, but ended up continuing the
discussion pertaining to this matter to February 14th. The applicant's representative
Hethe Clark met with the West Ada School District on January 11th and did submit a letter
summarizing that meeting, which has been included in the public record and he is here
tonight to speak to that if you like. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Would the
applicant like to come forward? If you could state your name and address for the record,
Matt.
Adams: Good evening. Matthew Adams. 462 East Shore Drive, Eagle, Idaho. Thank
you. Hethe Clark is also here presenting with me this evening. He will need some time.
I'm hoping we can get a full 15 minutes.
Simison: Yeah. Your time is counting down, but, yes, you have --
Adams: All right. The continuance on December 14th honestly caught us off guard and
left me frustrated. Time, energy, and creativity has been invested into an excellent project,
a project that we as designers, along with the developer and the city, can be proud of. On
December 15th we requested a meeting with West Ada School District to gain a thorough
understanding of their planning process and we are better for that meeting. Time,
listening and understanding, have eased my frustration. I want to say thank you to this
Council. Thank you for asking a tough question and seeking what is best for the City of
Meridian. Because you asked the tough question on school enrollment, we have gained
a clearer understanding of the district's planning process. Because you asked the tough
question on school enrollment, we come before you tonight confident that West Ada is
positioned to serve the students of this project. So, I would like to talk specifics. Our
team met -- Hethe, myself, a couple other members, met with West Ada staff on January
11th. The goal of this meeting was to gain an understanding of their process. The
takeaway from that meeting. Student capacity does exist for this development. West Ada
is ready to respond to growth in the City of Meridian. West Ada has a data driven process
and works diligently to stay current. Based on this process they have issued a revised
enrollment projection for Aviator Springs. They are projecting 40 students, rather than
the original 67. The process is intentional. It's a planning approach that is efficient and
fiscally responsible. When school capacity is exceeded they implement the school
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 6- —
capacity toolkit. I will go over that in a moment. When new schools are, in fact, necessary
future school sites are available and bonds do pass. The district currently owns ten future
school sites in the area depicted on this map. I would like to note that within the service
areas analyzed in West Ada's updated letter that was sent to Planning staff on the 11th,
there are three elementary school sites, one middle school site and one high school site.
When capacity is reached in the study area and West Ada needs to build a new building,
they have the sites to do it on. West Ada issued the revised letter I mentioned on January
11th to Planning staff. I believe that you have the complete letter in your packet. I'm
showing just a small portion of it on the screen. We have discussed that West Ada
reissued the letter with the new 40 projected students. I want to emphasize some specific
language from this letter. West Ada School District supports economic growth. Assuming
the area's student generation rates remain the same and the developments build out as
projected, the capacity of the elementary schools identified are projected to be at a
maximum capacity upon completion of the 3,089 approved lots. The high school is also
projected to be operating at or above building capacity upon the completion of the
currently approved 6,559 lots. These projections do not take into account the impact of
additional seats provided by education organizations outside of the West Ada School
District, such as charter schools, private schools, home schools. We understand -- our
understanding of this letter is that it clearly states West Ada School District is ready to
serve all the students from all approved lots in the attendance area. It is true at some
point in the future these schools will reach capacity. West Ada School District has tools
available to manage this outcome. Transporting students to alternative schools with
available classrooms, attendance area adjustments, passage of a bond to build new
schools to fit the enrollment needs and portable classrooms placed on the property. It is
in fact there -- it is true that these toolkit strategies are currently being successfully utilized
today in the West Ada School District. Student capacity is available for students from
Aviator Springs and the neighboring developments. West Ada School District has a
planning process in place that is working. West Ada School District will enroll all students
that register for school. Other educational opportunities do exist that will relieve
enrollment to these schools as well. We are, again, requesting approval of annexation,
rezone, preliminary plat. Now, I just quickly want to mention -- or tell a brief story. In 2018
enrollment at Rocky Mountain High School -- 2018 seems like ages ago. Pre-pandemic.
Rocky Mountain High School was at 2,400 students. Capacity of Rocky Mountain High
School is 1,800. So, it's 600 over capacity. In 2018 my daughter Abby graduated after
four successful years with the incredible support of teachers, coaches, staff and
administrators. On May 7th, 2022, Abby will graduate from Idaho State University with
two bachelor's degrees, one minor, and plans to continue with a masters in genetic
counseling. I acknowledge the many challenges faced by City Council. That said, school
capacity is not an issue that is unique to now or to this Council. As this story illustrates,
a Council formed around 2002 approved Brighton Corps' Quenzer Commons Subdivision
and a home was built on Legacy View Drive. That Council's foresight allowed my family
to grow and learn in Meridian, Idaho. It allowed my daughter to attend community
schools. Abby was a Prospect Panther, a Heritage Husky and a Rocky Mountain Grizzly.
It allowed Abby to benefit from amazing -- amazing educators and dedicated
professionals. I ask that you take my experience, Abby's success, as the precedent for
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page , — —
the dedication and adaptability of West Ada School District. Approve this project. Let the
professionals of West Ada School District continue their excellent work. Thank you.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street in Boise.
I'm on a cold streak. I haven't been here for a couple months. It feels -- I'm sure
everybody missed me. I am -- I appreciate Matt's comments and I wanted to add a couple
of different thoughts, kind of a different take on it. You know, given who I am you can
probably imagine where some of that's going to come from. I did really enjoy meeting
with West Ada School District when we -- when we had our discussion. We spent a little
bit over an hour. They went over in great detail the granular level of detail that they use
with this new methodology that was -- resulted in the revised letter. They are tracking
every pre-app, they are tracking every application that comes in, they are tracking every
preliminary plat application approval, they are tracking the final plat recording. They are
looking at the average amount of time that -- between applications coming in and when
homes are actually coming online to be able to identify within each one of their attendance
areas the actual student generation and they are doing it within each quadrant now, rather
than all the way across the city. It's -- it was pretty remarkable and I look forward to when
-- I know they are going to come to the Council and present all that to you and I'm looking
forward to that. It was clear from that meeting that they understand what is happening in
this attendance area and that they are ready to address that growth and there is a couple
of things I really want to stress, that in this attendance area, per the letter, there are two
elementary school sites. So, in other words, they can triple the capacity if you look at the
-- at the --the numbers that are on the -- on the -- the letter. They have one middle school
site and one high school site already acquired. Each of those sites are there, they are
ready to go, they are not searching for them, they don't have to acquire them, they are
ready to go when a bond is ready to be issued. So, that stage is set, but their perspective
is that they have to be good stewards of the taxpayer money and they are not going to
run those bonds until they know that the capacity is being completely used up and so
that's why we see the -- the toolkit and all of these efforts that are being taken to make
sure that the capacity is there and they are not building schools that are going to be
unused. So, where does that leave us? And where does that leave you; right? You know,
we as the applicants are feeling a little bit worried about it and the city obviously feels
concerned about it and we want to make sure that you are not getting ahead of what West
Ada is doing. So, again, the -- there is a couple of points that I would make. The sites
are there. West Ada is ready to run the bonds when they determine that the time is right
for that and it has done so in the past with great success. I mentioned in my letter that,
you know, it's five of the six since 2000 that have approved. Everyone that is tied -- that
we could find that was tied to a specific proposal has -- has been approved, but -- so,
what that tells me is that stopping development, unless there is a bond -- there is like one
hundred percent ironclad certainty that a bond is going to be approved, it's not only
unnecessary, given, you know, West Ada School District's planning and strategy, but for
us as an applicant it places us in -- under an impossible condition, because it's not
something that we can control now, it's something that will happen in the future when the
capacity is -- is there and West Ada makes that determination and that's not even a
determination that you all can make. It also raises questions of, you know, whether the
city is going to have to impose a moratorium if we are going to decide that we can't
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 8 of 34
approve development unless we know for sure that five years from now that bonds are
going to be approved and that's a -- that's also a very significant question. Now, with
regard to this application in particular, it also raises some real significant planning
questions; right? Because if we are going to say we can't approve this application
because of student capacity, really, what we are saying is that, well, what it could be
approved with is a -- maybe a 55 plus or something that's not going to have student
generation and, you know, I look at that and that would just be a terrible outcome for this
site. This site is immediately next to a Owyhee High School and it's immediately next to
a future elementary school site. It will provide safe routes to schools, easy pathways, and
as you have heard in the past it's going to have an LDS seminary site in it and a Boys
and Girls Club side in it and it's teed up for residential development for families to be able
to enjoy this. So, you know, our -- our overall point is, yeah, we -- you know, the lawyer
needs to come here and talk about scary things, like impossible conditions and moratoria,
but, really, what we are talking about here is a situation where West Ada has done the
planning, they have the sites -- again, two elementary school sites, a high school site and
a middle school site in the area and just has to pull the trigger on the bonding when --
when the time comes. So, we would ask for approval on that and we hope that we have
answered the question as -- to the extent that it was asked by the Council. So, we are
happy to answer any questions at this point.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I wasn't present at the last hearing, but I did watch the video, read the minutes,
read through the -- read through the entire project folder, so I think I'm up to speed. But
I would like to ask some questions, because I didn't get an opportunity to do that. Before
I asked those questions --and I will ask the Mayor if I may ask my questions in succession.
They will go fairly quickly.
Simison: You are recognized for three minutes.
Perreault: Too funny.
Simison: Three minutes. Go for it.
Perreault: First -- go Bengals. No. So, thank you for going through that process
yourselves with the district. Everything that you presented this evening I was already
aware of. Most of it Council's already aware of. What we are not aware of is what triggers
the district to start utilizing some of these options. They haven't shared with us that they
have made a policy as to what level of enrollment they have to reach to -- to start putting
these in place. Each one of these would require a minimum of two school years to get
actually implemented. So, while they are constantly tracking their enrollment numbers,
they haven't said, okay, this is what's going to trigger any one of these solutions and that's
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 9- —
something that, hopefully, we will hear from them when we have our conversation. That's
a missing piece for me as a Council Member. I have been reading these letters for five
years. Nearly every hearing have we had conversations about this. So, this is not new
to us. We have already -- West Ada has already shared with us their -- all of this
information. So, we -- we do not -- I mean we would love to have the confidence that --
that Matt shared in the district's -- I'm speaking for myself in this regard. I would love to
have the confidence that the district is sharing with you, but in my years of history now on
this with Planning and Zoning Commission and with Council I haven't seen the follow
through and so that's -- just to share, that's where I'm coming from. But let's get to the
actual questions. So, Achievement Avenue. These are specifics now of the project. Is
that a public road? What is that going to look like? Are there sidewalks on either side?
Is there a curb? You know, I'm thinking -- I have in my mind's eye the road -- if you are
familiar with Compass Charter School, there is a road that runs from Black Cat into the
school that's very undeveloped and I don't want that to be a similar situation where we
have students from two schools using that road, in addition to residents coming in. So,
I'm curious what the -- what the -- that road is going to look like and function like.
Secondly, the road on the south side, is that a private road? It goes to the high school,
so is it --what -- how is that going to function? Third question relates to the -- the Mayor's
concern in the last hearing, which is the Boys and Girls Club and the seminary having
homes that are facing the road, where the public is going to be coming through and
accessing those businesses. Have you had anymore thought put into whether you would
change the -- change the layout, so that that wouldn't be the case? And, then, fourth
question is how are you going to set up the HOA to be successful to deal with these
issues. There is going to be obvious overflow from the high school. You are planning for
that from a parking standpoint, but the HOA is going to be the one that's going to be most
immediately affected by issues with interaction from students coming over and trying to
use the pool, students coming over and trying to use the play area. You know, trash.
They are -- they are the ones that are going to be the first crew that's going to have to
deal with those issues that it's going to bring having this very interactive community. So,
that's my set of questions. Thank you for hearing me out.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, thank you. First of all, I hear what you
are saying about action from the school district. I have a different perspective as someone
who works for the school district and I have done dozens of projects for them. So, we
feel like they are a district of action. So, it's an interesting conversation to have. Multiple
perspectives. I think yours is valid. The -- the roads. Achievement and -- Sonya, I don't
know if you have a site plan, something you might be able to find? Achievement Avenue,
which is on the north, is a public roadway, an ACHD roadway. It is a -- I think they call it
a local collector, but it's one lane each direction, sidewalks both sides and all of the
roadways within the community are public and have sidewalks as well. So, we feel like
we have excellent access. I believe when you say the south road -- there is a stub road
to the south that will continue in the future when the south neighbor develops, but we had
showed a -- shown a secondary emergency access connection through the high school
site that will be gated and only accessible by fire, police, and emergency responders.
Seminary access. The Mayor did bring up a perception or concern that there could be
traffic coming by seven or eight homes. It's interesting -- you know, the parking lot at a
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page ——"
seminary has six parking stalls based on the square footage of the building. ACHD
considers it to be a zero traffic generator. So, I really personally -- I have no personal
experience with a seminary and I do not know how much traffic that creates and if that
would create a conflict. The Boys and Girls Clubs certainly would have people picking
up, dropping off children potentially, so there will be traffic generated by those uses. As
we looked at potential other locations and the relationship to the high school, this location
still feels best from our planning perspective and, then, last, HOA and the parking. Trash.
Students coming into the community, parking, will all be issues and they will work on those
issues until the end of time I believe. I think maybe the lesson there would be we do pay
attention to what happens at Mountain View, Meridian High, Rocky, and we just try to do
better; right? So, on this community we have roadways with extra parking capacity. So,
we have almost doubled the parking requirement of the city code. We are working with
ACHD and Meridian Police Department on signage, which signage is great within -- it has
to be enforced and that puts a burden on police. But we are working with those groups,
those partners, to develop a signage strategy, because parking truly is the greatest
burden on the community next to a high school. You know, the pool -- I'm not sure; right?
Those are gated and you have to have access cards to get in. People can get around
that. I don't know exactly how that would play out. That would be interesting. I think you
bring up some valid points. I think these are issues faced by all communities, especially
those next to schools, and I think that the --what we have done in terms of design, spatial
configuration, dimensional standards, exceeds code and is thoughtful toward all of those
concerns, but I would not stand here and say that they are all solved. I think humans are
going to have to work at being good neighbors to each other. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Just one question. I don't
want to spread rumors, but I heard yesterday that there may be a -- ITD may be looking
at a slight realignment of this roadway. How does that impact this application this evening
and to what extent? And I have no idea if they are looking to going, left, right, elevated
-- I have no idea. But if that were to be the case would you request additional time until
we figured that out or -- and it -- just from the planning from the process up here, I don't
know what happens if we approve something and, oh, they are moving over 50 feet to the
left into your property or more.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, thank you for that. We are not aware of that.
Simison: I haven't heard from anyone official, but --
Adams: As recently as last week we have been coordinating with the engineer on -- over
some different things in this area. So, we haven't heard from their consultants. However,
if this alignment were to change here, it would be highly impactful on Chukar Ridge
Subdivision, which is nearly completed to the north of this, but on our development we
have exceeded the buffer width by such a great dimension we could actually absorb a
pretty tremendous encroachment. The buffer requirement is 35 feet and we have as
much as a hundred in many locations. So, at a pre-plat level I'm actually not too
concerned, because I think we could adjust and, then, what we -- the issue would be
staying compliant with the DA and making sure we have the right number of lots and
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 11 of 34
things. But I -- I think we could remain code compliance, even with a pretty significant
shift. That is said not knowing what that -- if the rumor is true and how much the shift
might be. If I'm -- it's my understanding that ITD closed on this property. So, it could be
that the roadway could shift within the right of way. It could have no impact at all and the
asphalt moves a bit, so -- yeah. They would be buying lots instead of farm ground and it
could be a lot more lucrative.
Simison: So, ITD currently owns the right of way that's on this line, it's not being reserved
for them?
Adams: My understanding is they closed on that about two weeks ago.
Simison: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Adams: Thank you.
Simison: This is a public hearing. Is there anybody else that would like to provide
testimony on this item? Mr. Clark, anyone sign up?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. Travis Hunter.
Hunter: Yes. Just a couple paper exhibits and a USB.
Simison: State your name and address for the record, please. Be recognized for three
minutes.
Hunter: Yes. My name is Travis Hunter. 2628 South Wise Way. I'm in favor of the Aviator
Springs project. I don't have any issues with it. I'm just here before you seeking some
help with a future road alignment. A gentleman that works for us, Todd Tucker, he
presented I believe at the last City Council hearing and I was just coming to bring some
exhibits that would illustrate the request that we are having. So, I'm asking for Meridian
to waive the 30 foot buffer requirement on the southeast corner of the property where the
road intersects at our property, Woodside Avenue Investors, just south of there. So, this
-- it-- it seems like the --the idea of this waiver is contemplated more for a scenario where
there's residential lots or-- or buildings that are close to the highway, such as the northern
portion where you see the buffer in Aviator Springs next to those three lots, but in -- in our
future land plan that we have not yet submitted, but we will, we are going to be having a
road that is going to act as the buffer along Highway 16 there. So, it-- the -- the area that
-- that we are going to be seeking the variance on the buffer, if you could -- so, this first
slide shows how it would be if we didn't get a variance on our application. The second
slide, Sonya, if you could flip to that, shows what we would like it to look like if we do get
a variance or a waiver on our application. And the third slide just shows the reason why
a buffer could be waived in this scenario. So, as you can see this is a scenario -- this is
showing a cross-section of what it would look like with a 30 foot buffer. So, on the right
you see the Highway 16 right of way, a 35 foot landscape buffer, two foot for utilities, five
foot sidewalk, 33 feet between curb to curb, a sidewalk, another two foot space for utilities,
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 12 of—
a setback and, then, in our contemplated plan we are looking at putting multi-family there,
which would have a parking lot that's 75 feet and then -- and, then, structure. So, you
could see there would be a total of 237 feet between like a structure and the future
highway. So, it's just -- having a road act as the -- as the buffer I think would satisfy the
concept behind the buffer that you guys currently require with a road going here and our
property is kind of unique, because it gets pinched as -- as Highway 16 has the
intersection -- or has the off ramp there. It -- our usable space has -- it will be significantly
diminished and, then, also the last thing to note is that's going to be an off ramp there, a
decel lane, so there won't be the same high speed on that section as there would be on,
you know, a main stretch of the highway. So, just for all those reasons I figured I would
show it to you and graphically maybe you could understand it a little bit better. We would
just ask that you could give Aviator Springs a waiver on their 30 foot buffer, just on that
southeast corner where the road might intersect with a future road of ours.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Just to clarify, you -- you are proposing the -- the rendering that shows that
road to run completely flush with the right of way, not -- not the one that shows green
space in between?
Hunter: That is correct.
Simison: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Just I guess as a second question is -- on the maps you show a realignment of
their pathway as well. In the first one it looks like it would continue down -- that a pathway
would connect on the west side -- east side of the roadway.
Hunter: Uh-huh.
Simison: This one it looks like it's going to cross the road into some other location in
theory?
Hunter: Yeah. I think there it would go on to -- it would go onto a sidewalk. It's an
interesting concept, because I don't know who would want to walk between a road and a
highway where that path might continue on to our property. So, having a path between a
road and a highway just seems less likely. Someone might want to walk on the sidewalk
instead.
Simison: So, the top -- this is a design element for them, Not a continuation of something
that's required from the city in a pathway -- not part of our master pathway plan that is
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page ———
somehow being altered because of this proposal. I know it's generally -- they are not
specific. Just want to make sure that that's -- I think that's what that is, but --
Hunter: Yeah. I'm not -- I'm not sure what the master pathway plan is or what the impact
on that would be.
Simison: Okay.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just to comment. From when this came up last time what -- what seemed to
make the most sense, quite frankly, was to -- if this project were to proceed forward is to
keep that road as designed with the 30 foot setback. It's a future Council and a future
application that would determine whether or not what you are requesting is appropriate.
Maybe none of us up here. Who knows. So, your argument I think is for a later date and
if it was as originally designed with the setback as required today, it wouldn't prevent you
from making that request in the future to have it still go south straight to be adjacent to
the right of way. It leaves a little more gap on the east side. But I don't think you will be
precluded from making the request at a future date when that property comes forward.
understand where you are coming from, but the --the project before us today as designed,
still having it go directly south --
Hunter: Yeah. I --
Hoaglun: -- seems to make sense.
Hunter: I understand what you are saying on the -- on the process. If -- if they didn't
move the road slightly to the east it will end up eating up usable area of our real estate if
we can't align the road properly, if we have to bring it straight and, then, move it over, so
it would impact us a little bit and if the applicant -- if the applicant would be welcoming to
that idea, which we have spoken to them and I think they would be, I would request that.
Borton: Sure. And -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: The concern I guess would be the -- at that future application that it creates some
implication that that future council is okay with the waiver and realignment of the road as
you presented. It may, but it may not. So, if we -- we open the door, so to speak, by
doing what's requested, it kind of indirectly ties the hand of that future application to permit
this. So, I don't know whether or not that's going to be appropriate. That's the future. So,
that's just some thought of -- I understand the request, but it might not be appropriate to
adjust this application to that future one. Just a thought.
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 14 of—
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Travis, what is your timing of moving forward with your application?
Hunter: Soon. It will -- it will definitely be in -- we will submit definitely in the next six
months. Waiting on some other moving pieces. Oh. Mayor Simison, as well. So, by the
way, I called Merrill Sharp, he is the project manager for ITD for the Garvey -- the Garvey
projects and I asked him what have you heard about the alignment moving, because this
-- you know, that would be -- we heard the same rumor and -- and he -- he said the
alignment wouldn't be moving to his knowledge, but they might be asking for some
additional easements. So, the core alignment moving to that question -- I don't know if
that's -- I haven't heard official word from them, but I don't think that's the concern, but --
Hoaglun: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: So, what you are asking is is to allow that -- provide that waiver for Aviator
Springs in the event when you come forward it at least allows them to plan that alignment
to match yours if yours goes forward?
Hunter: Correct.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Hunter: And our application will come forth in the next few months.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Hunter: Thank you.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Not a question, just to comment, similar to Council Woman Perreault. I was
absent when this original hearing took place, but I did review all the information in the
previous hearing. I just wanted to make that comment and, then, I will reserve my
comments for the end.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you.
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 15 of—
Hunter: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, anybody else signed up?
Johnson: That was everyone who indicated they wished to testify.
Simison: Okay. Is there anyone present who would like to provide testimony on this item,
if you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record and be
recognized for three minutes?
Wagner: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Sue Waggoner.
W-a-g-g-o-n-e-r. And I reside at 6096 West Becky Drive, right at the intersection there of
McDermott. So, we are pretty much across the road from the new project and I just
wanted to state that I oppose the project.
Simison: Okay. Anything else you would like to add on that for Council?
Waggoner: Just generally speaking, because of traffic and just a --just the quality of life
where we live has just diminished over the six years that we have been there and we are
constantly under construction with roads and -- and traffic and noise and most recently
we are right across from the new high school. So, it's just -- I would like to invite anyone
on the Council, Mr. Mayor, if you would like to come and visit us on West Becky Drive.
We are a small subdivision of 16 homes we are close knit neighborhood. Very nice
people. And perhaps someone would at some point like to hear what we have to say.
Simison: Okay.
Waggoner: Thank you, sir.
Simison: Council, any questions? Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks -- thanks for coming. I think we do want to hear what you have to say.
That's why we have these -- these public hearings. It's -- I know from a -- from a citizen
standpoint it's kind of frustrating. You want the whole Council to come and sit in your
living room and -- and see that and we are prohibited from doing that unless we all come
together, which is a frustration, but that's why we have these -- this process in place is
because I think it's important for all of us to hear from you and hear how this -- this project
would impact you. So, if -- if nothing else, know that we do want to hear and I think that
we get e-mails on applications every day and I know, because I get cc'd, Council Members
reply and they follow up with phone calls when legally they can. We are under some
really strict guidelines about when and how we can talk about an application, just like you
wouldn't want me going to -- to meet with the applicant privately to talk about his project.
We also can't meet with the public privately to talk about that. But, nevertheless, if you
have got more context to share about how this application is impacting you and your
family and your fellow neighbors' lives, I think we are all open to hearing that.
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page ——"
Bernt: Agree.
Waggoner: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Becky --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Sue. I mean -- sorry. Sue. Sue. You live on West Becky Drive. So -- sorry.
So, I just want to ask you -- West Becky Drive, I think we see it here on the map.
Waggoner: You see it --
Hoaglun: Yeah.
Waggoner: -- on the last gentleman's map.
Hoaglun: Right. So, that-- State Highway 16, it sounds like, will shift traffic off McDermott
Road, which may become a --just a local road --access road and shift the traffic, because
you are on the east side of McDermott Road, is that -- do I have that understanding
correct?
Waggoner: Uh-huh.
Hoaglun: Okay. So, that will be the -- McDermott Road becomes kind of an access road
and, then, Highway 16 becomes -- I have heard it termed an expressway, if you will. So,
yeah, your quality of life no matter what happens is going to be impacted by that road.
Even if we approve nothing out there, everything that's approved to the north and to the
south will be going on that road. So, it's one of those things that I -- there is no win here
for you, unfortunately, I don't think. It's just -- and I understand it. Live in north Meridian
and it was a rural place and a dairy farm and it's not there anymore and we are in the
middle of a subdivision, so I -- I sympathize. But, yeah, I just wanted to make sure
understood where you were in relationship and -- and in some ways, though, with
McDermott being a -- more of a private, you know, road for just access, hopefully, that
would -- and if they do the berming and the walls and what they say they are going to do,
then, that -- that should help somewhat take the traffic off McDermott, move that, and,
hopefully, with sound barriers and whatnot that would make it a little more palatable. So,
we shall see. But I just wanted to confirm where you were, so --
Waggoner: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Great. Thank you, Sue.
Waggoner: Anyone else?
Simison: I think we are good.
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page " ——
Waggoner: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide -- come -- state
your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes.
M.Waggoner: Mark Waggoner. Same last name. Same address. Just to share if there
is any frustration it's the density that's being approved. The home to the north of us was
on seven acres. They are putting 24 homes in there. We purposefully moved to the edge
of the county thinking that, you know, the sprawl would -- would open up as we got to the
edge and, you know, quarter acre homes or half acre homes or maybe one acre homes,
but time after time after time it's like, well, we could have put in 29 homes and it's like,
yeah, I guess. So, that's my frustration is -- I have got neighbors that were Emmett
cowboys that are -- they are done. They are out. With that many homes behind them
when they are running horses and cattle, they are worried that kids are going to throw
rocks at them, that kind of thing, because it's just another neighborhood. So, I would say
my frustration that I think to myself is what are the city planners thinking when they are
just packing them in, because we moved from a place where everybody was packed in.
I mean the neighbor sneezed and you feel like you had to say gesundheit. You know, you
could smell the neighbor's cigarette smoke. It's like, okay, well, we will move out here to
the edge and that way even as it gets built, at least it will be bigger, you know, it will be
more space and, yet, we are seeing the opposite of that. So, if you would keep that in
mind I think that's -- that's the only thing I ask, you know. Questions?
Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you.
M.Waggoner: Thank you for hearing me.
Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item this
evening? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments?
Adams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thanks for the opportunity. So, first of all, to the
Waggoners, they are right, there are impacts in west Meridian and if you drive down
McMillan Road and if you drove down it ten years ago it's -- it's shocking. It's dramatic.
think that there is good planning happening and the land development is occurring in a
predictable and positive way. That does not mean it does not impact people who have
lived there over time. So, I hear what they are saying. I still remember we had a pasture
behind our house for 12 years and, then, I have four neighbors along my back fence and,
you know, it took getting used to, but just like me people want to live here and so
accepted that that would happen. Our project, being on the west side of the roadway, the
freeway, should have less impact to them than -- than other projects may have. I will say
-- I do want to address quickly the -- the mixed use nature. So, this -- the land use
designation on the future land use map is mixed use neighborhood. The planning for this
area does require that we have multiple uses. We cannot do just residential. We have
done a residential product and, then, we looked really hard to bring in complementary
uses that could be school, residential -- in --with that new highway edge it's kind of backed
up it's not really -- it's not like a hard corner, like Ten Mile and McMillan. So, the use of
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page ——"
the seminary, the use of Boys and Girls Club, feels as complimentary as possible in that
area. And, then, finally, I do want to just speak to Mr. Hunter's comments. We are also
supportive of their project once it comes before you, because access to the south helps
everybody in this area have a more successful community. We are not opposed to what
they are asking. We think it's implied that you are conditioned without it being a condition
that you need to coordinate with your neighbors and create connectivity with roadways.
That is a code requirement. We definitely will work with them to get that alignment so it
works for us and it sets them up for success in the future. We are not asking for a variance
at this time on that roadway, but we certainly are interested in working with them and
making their project successful as well. I think that's it.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Matt then. To that point on -- on that request for waiver and asking
them on the timing of that matter and the timing of your -- your development if this were
to move forward, is it such that if the waiver is granted in their -- for their project that that
road can be shifted appropriately? Is that normal? I think if we were to approve an
application tonight, then, I don't know how we would do that. So, I don't know if that's --
that's doable. So, that's --that's kind of a conundrum is don't know what's going to happen
with this one, let alone the next one, so it's kind of hard to make decisions on -- on these
types of things when they are -- they are in this order, so -- any thoughts on how -- how
that can be adjusted if everything were to be approved? And, again, no idea if it will be.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, that is an excellent question. So, our -- our
timing -- let's talk about our timing. We feel pretty good, but, you know, I don't know what's
going to happen, but I feel pretty good that we will get approval. If we move forward we
are immediately into construction documents to move toward with permit submittal.
Immediately. Right now with the workload, it's months; right? So, there is time before we
submit to ACHD and the city for permit, construction permit to do that coordination. What
I do not know, because I have never saw it in this type of variance, I do not know the
timing of when it's appropriate for that to be granted. If it's a final plat, construction
document, or pre-plat I do not know.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: If I might ask whether it's development staff or Bill Nary. This is -- this is kind
of unusual. I mean I have no idea -- I would think if we were to approve this, it would
have to be with that waiver to allow that alignment to occur, because I don't think we could
go back if this were approved and Hunter Homes development comes before us and if
we were to approve that, to go back and say, oh, by the way, you now have a waiver,
because there is no application before us. Is that -- my thinking correct on that or are you
going to be like my wife and tell me I'm wrong?
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page ———
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess -- I have been uncomfortable with the
request for the same reason that Councilman Borton raised. One, the applicant hasn't
asked for that. It's not in the application. There has been no notice of that. It is a request.
And I get it and I get why they are making the request and I get that -- that Mr. Adams
isn't opposed to it, but no one's asked for it anywhere, except here in testimony. I mean
there is no writing for that. So, that's a little concerning to me. Secondarily, as Mr. Borton
stated, I mean you are, essentially, tacitly approving the waiver on the project below
without having it in front of you. It may not make sense to either this Council or a future
Council, because of where the roadway alignment is or what it looks like or -- you know,
again, I -- I get they want to meet their neighbors and they would like to work with their
neighbors and do that and certainly if it were to be as quick as possible certainly at the
preliminary plat stage I think Mr. Adams could design that and to be in general
conformance with what's being requested. I think that may be okay. I don't know if
planning has a different perspective on that. But I am a little more troubled with just
approving it, when it's not really been requested, it's not really been thought as part of this
application, but it's really a part of a future application. I think that can be problematic,
because, again, the future application isn't here and it may not make sense when it is.
Adams: And Mr. Mayor --
Allen: Sorry.
Simison: Yes, Sonya.
Allen: If I may just add to what Mr. Nary said, a variance isn't applicable in this situation.
The code actually reads that in the event of a hardship applicants can request alternative
compliance to the standard, which is a director level approved application staff level. So,
if it's something that we deem may be appropriate in the future, we could handle at a staff
level. But it's -- having no -- no street buffer -- and this -- this isn't the subject of our
application tonight, so we really probably shouldn't be going there. But it appears from
the drawing that the applicant -- or the developer to the south is not wanting to provide a
street buffer and if that's the case we don't have a variance for that. Thank you.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council, I do want to be a good developer, neighbor to the -- neighbor
to the south. However, I'm satisfied with my code compliant road alignment and I'm not
requesting a variance on that this evening.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, we have spent most of the evening discussing the residential piece. Can
you talk with us a little bit about the mixed employment area and how you are expecting
that that will be accessed off of McDermott Road? Just give us a flavor for -- I don't know
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 20——
whether there is going to be a requirement for -- I think there is a concept plan
requirement, but I don't know if there is going to be a requirement for a CUP for individual
portions of the project or how exactly that's going to work or-- or what. So, can you share
with us -- I know you may not have end users yet, but just give us an idea of what your
concept plan is -- you know, what you are expecting to have happen.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault -- and, Sonya, I don't know if you have a
site plan that shows the Acclima parcel or the east most parcel. Good question. So, to
meet the requirement of the multiple uses for mixed use neighborhood we did include a
mixed employment -- ME zone parcel on the east side between the future highway and
the McDermott Road. We are showing -- we are showing two access points -- drive
approaches, basically, to a single commercial parcel to access that property. The -- that
owner in our concept plan that was in the packet indicates a 20,000 square foot research
and development building with office space and some storage and a greenhouse building.
and, then, on the remaining acreage it would be test plots for testing moisture sensors for
agriculture. So, it's plots of grass. Blueberries. Raspberries. Grapes. Apple trees.
Those kinds of things. So, I think what you would see is you would see a 25 -- a 20,000
square foot building. Sounds big. It depends on what it's next to I suppose. And, then,
you would see a lot of landscape and moisture sensing, which is equipment about the
size of a deck of cards that gets buried in the ground. So, it would look very agricultural
in nature and would be very appropriate for the current kind of character of that area. And
I did not bring a graphic of that today. I think you have it in your previous packet. Does
that -- I hope that answers your question. But I'm willing to talk more if you have more
questions.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Yes, it does. I -- I thought I looked through the whole packet. I didn't see it.
But I will review it again. I will look again and see what I can see. One more quick
question. Construction. What is going to be your primary construction access and will
there be rules around that --that access if it's going through near the school and whatnot?
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, that's a great question as well. Primary
access for construction of this development would be Achievement Street. So, it would
be Owyhee Storm Ave. and Achievement Street and, then, we would enter from the
northwest corner of the property and, of course, we have to meet -- we would meet all
city code for time of construction -- time of day trash collection, those kinds of things.
There will not be access through the high school site for our construction. That access
agreement is limited to emergency vehicles only of the City of Meridian that actually can
move through that high school parcel. If we are successful here tonight we will be
required to get the two landowners to sign a City of Meridian emergency access
agreement and we will submit an application for that agreement to the city.
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 21 of—
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I have got to challenge you and -- and utilize your -- you and Hethe, get some
information from you. The last topic one of the items was school capacity. So, the first
question is -- and I think Hethe used the word granular detail. I think he did. So, what's
your understanding of what happened in your conversations with West Ada at the October
14th letter says it generates 93 kids and the January 12th one says 40. So, some of
these are some of the questions we don't have answers to. So, share with us what you
know that West Ada determined it's less than half than originally thought for student
generation.
Adams: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, I will ask Hethe to jump in if I get off track. It was
67 in the original letter. Revised to 40. They use a multiplier of .7 1 believe, which is the
old method. So, it was 93 lots times .7 gave us 67 projected students that would be
housed in the development. The -- Marcy Horner, which has been with the district a
couple of years now, they are using what Hethe described as the more granular approach.
So, they are tracking every application. Once it gets built they track how many kids
actually live in those houses based on the zoning, based on the size of the home. They
project actual information onto this and they have come up with a different multiplier. So,
it's a more accurate multiplier that they are using. Do you want to add to that?
Simison: If I could just supplement. Part of what they are -- what you will hear from them
is they are looking at like -- like type neighborhoods and seeing what the actuals are and
trying to apply those to projections in the future. What they choose in that process that's
on them, but that's part of this new direction that has not been yet -- I don't really know if
it needs to be approved by the board, but that is part of the conversation that they are
looking at sharing with us.
Borton: Could I ask a few more?
Simison: Go ahead. Councilman Borton.
Borton: I mean the reason I said 90 -- the letter says 93. That's why I said 93. It says 93
students will be generated. Yeah. I'm looking at it. The letter of October 14th.
Nonetheless, the new letter says 40. So, I mean it's -- the burden doesn't all fall on this
application. I get it. But I mean the -- I think the confusion is only compounded by the
new letter. I mean I have no idea what they are talking about with determining and
extrapolating some similar neighborhood. What does that mean? I mean a 50 -- I have
no idea. So -- and the reason that's just kind of -- is -- is somewhat relevant is we are --
we are looking for data that alleviates concern that there is not capacity. So, I just don't
know how to utilize the January 12th letter either, because if it's not, you know, .43
students per household, for example, with the new letter if it's some other, I don't know
what to make of, you know, 5,700 approved plats in Owyhee High School and is that a --
utilizing the new unknown formula, is that a big number, is that a really small number?
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 22——
The letter doesn't provide a lot of context. So, what I was getting at is if you -- if you knew
and could just describe any granular detail of how they are going to determine student
generation that would be super helpful.
Clark: Yeah. I would be happy to do my best. Obviously we are the messenger and not
even the messenger, we are just the third party. You know, we -- that's kind of trapped
here between two agencies that are deciding how they are going to do their future
planning. So, we are asking the city to -- to be reticent -- or to acknowledge that in the
sense that we are trying to portray that information for you and -- and -- but, you know,
we have a project that we -- based on that discussion believe will be adequately served.
And here is -- here is I think the -- a little bit more information to help answer that and,
you know, if Marcy is watching, you know, and I get any of this wrong, I'm hoping that she
will -- she will send smoke signals up or something to make sure you guys understand
that. But as I understood it, what they are doing now is rather than the .7, you know,
student generation that applies across the board, what they are doing is is that they are
-- they have -- they have created spreadsheets that apply throughout the district and take
data that includes types of zones, densities, types of uses and, then, they overlay that
with PowerSchool and they can actually tell how many students are coming out of each
different type of zone. They, then, take that data and within a grid that applies to the
entirety of the city, they look within each of those grids and say, okay, these are the types
of uses that are there. These are the types of generations that we are experiencing based
on this type of zoning throughout the district and so if you have that zoning, these types
of subdivisions, we anticipate that the student generation rate is going to be X. So, it -- it
actually allows for a lot more nuance. So, you can have student generation in parts of
the district that is .3. You could have student generation in parts of the district that's .9,
you know, higher than what it was before and so I --to me it gave a lot of comfort, because
it was like, okay, the city has looked at this, they put together a comprehensive plan, they
have said these uses are going to be there. The West Ada is following all those
applications. They are tracking the pre-app meetings. They are tracking the approvals.
They are actually averaging out the amount of time it takes to go from approval to actually
having building permits and, then, to having kids show up on PowerSchool and, then,
being able to plug that into their model and say, okay, you know, we overshot here with a
.7, where if we continue with a .7 we are going to be building the school too early. So, we
are going to go look at this, we are going to use actual data and we are going to say, okay,
it's actually a .43 or whatever the number might be. So, unless you think I got anything
wrong there, Matt, I think that -- like I said, I thought it was a great meeting and I was very
impressed with this new methodology. I mean it's -- the tough part about it for you and
for us is that it is somewhat reactive in nature. Right? You know, they are -- they are
going to push the bond when they hit the threshold and we don't know exactly what the
threshold is. But we -- you know, we as an applicant look at this and say, okay, we are
proposing a project in an area that has an attendance area, we know what the attendance
area is, we know that within that attendance area there is two elementary school sites, a
middle school -- middle school site and a high school site, so -- and we know that they
have compared areas that are very similar to this with zoning that it's like this and they
understand what the trip generation rates are -- not trip generation. I'm used to saying
trip generation, because that's what we are usually dealing with. They know what the
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page———
student generation rates are, so they can -- you know, we had to have some idea of when
it's coming Meridian voters have been very -- very supportive of these bonds when they
have been required and so, you know, from our perspective, you know, what we are
asking for and -- is don't -- don't saddled us with an impossible condition, because we
can't control when West Ada is going to -- going to push that bond, but we are very
comfortable that they are in a position to run the bond when it's necessary, you know,
especially given that we have the extra school sites that are already available in this
location and they have provided with -- you all with this additional data.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I had a similar conversation with our own staff Miranda -- our own planning
staff. She shared with me that although they are reviewing this data and they have been
consistently reviewing data -- not to this level, so they have --they are stepping up to how
they are managing their data and reviewing it. They typically have not made any
decisions about what they are going to do with that information until they do a facilities
plan, which they have not done on an annual basis. They are going to start doing that,
but that's not going to be for a while yet this year. So, we really don't -- we know that they
are in -- in the process of gathering data for themselves. We still don't know when they
are actually going to do anything with it and I don't know what their new facilities plan
review is going to look like. I don't know what the timing of it is. I don't know how long it
will take them to actually take that information and act on it and they can't tell us that yet
until the -- until the plan -- you know, until their facilities plan is reviewed. They can't say,
hey, we are going to take Meridian's information and our information and here is what our
capacity is and here is our building capacity, here is our programming capacity and we
are not saying we are going to wait until we have all those nuts and bolts to make these
decisions. We can't. We have to have some level of trust; right? But we -- we really do
want and are seeking some more confirmation from them that --that -- that they are really
-- they really do have a plan to do this and so I just want to share that, because it's my
understanding that, yes, they are -- you are correct, they are reviewing this. They are not
going to do anything with it until they do a facilities plan review and we don't know yet
when that -- what that's going to look like or when that's going to be. So, I'm not sure if
they shared that timing element of it with you.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, no, they haven't. As I understand it, it is
going to be more regular than -- than in the past, which I think is a good thing, too. You
know, we are all living in an environment that's a lot different than eight or ten years ago.
We are all trying to understand how to keep up with this. You know, for purposes of this
Council's review, you know, I would just say that you -- there is a lot of fair questions that
you are asking. Not all of them do I have the answers for, because those are the eternal
-- internal machinations of West Ada School District that none of us have control over.
But you do have a letter from West Ada that says exactly what the situation is, all the data
that they have and they are not saying we don't have capacity for this, what they are
saying is is that once we start reaching build out of the lots that are approved in this area
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page--"
we are going to have to do those four things that Matt described, we are going to have to
look at redistrict -- or moving boundaries, we are going to have to look at temporaries, we
are going to have to look at busing and, then, we are going to going to bond once we
know that the capacity is taken up and as I understand it what West Ada is asking for,
which I think you are asking for from your constituents, is that everybody just be patient
with them, that they are going to have to go through all of that at that point before they
get to the point where they feel comfortable that they need to build a new facility. Council,
any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
Clark: Thank you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: We are going to have some discussion I presume before we close the public
hearing, just -- I said it before, it's not this applicant's burden to solve this problem and at
this particular time. This is step 32 of their 32 step process. So, I appreciate the added
context with the school district. I do -- I just have a different take on the magnitude of the
concern. I don't have a problem with this particular application by itself. I wouldn't suggest
we move the roadway if we were to go forward 45 feet as the request--just for the reasons
stated. I don't think that would be appropriate. But what I do think exists, even in the
January 12th letter, is you have so many -- we have so many approved parcels within the
city that is far more than ever could be transferred to another school without capacity. Not
this applicant's concern. But there is -- and you could run that model today that there is
not available capacity in all the schools to bus them around. For example, the average
-- or the approved lots in attendance area, these are two to three thousand kids and if you
have got 9,000 lots in one middle school attendance area, assuming it's .3 per -- I mean
it's thousands. At least that's the data we have. If that's all wrong let's get it figured out.
But it's thousands of kids. There is not thousands of seats in current schools. What, are
schools in portables -- our kids -- thousands of kids in portables of 45 in a classroom or
double shift, I'm just saying the same thing again, if those are the --those are the solutions
I don't like that. Hethe is going to be -- if I misspoke on a statistic let me know.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, if I may, you know, the -- Council Member Borton, the -- the letter on
January 11 th actually gives you the numbers in terms of the projected students from the
approved development. So, the projected students from improved development for the
Pleasant View Elementary area is 680. That's approximately the same as Pleasant View
and there are two existing acquired elementary school sites within the attendance area.
So, there is potentially three times the capacity at that point and in terms of acquired sites
you are actually beyond what the approved numbers are. So, the numbers are there. We
are not -- we are not speculating and I understand that there is -- that -- I think -- I get the
impression that you don't necessarily -- I don't want to put words in your mouth. You don't
necessarily trust the methodology is what I'm hearing, but the methodology is the one
that's being provided by the provider and we have to -- we as an applicant need to know
that we can -- you know, this is the agency that's providing you the comments and I -- I'm
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page 25——
having a hard time with the --the idea that we are --we are looking at the agency providing
the comments and saying we don't trust the data. That -- that puts us in an impossible
position.
Borton: It -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If I could respond. And this is the bigger conversation we have to have with West
Ada. But, for example, if there is now some new formulation that says they have taken
this application, they have compared it to like subdivisions and, for example, determined
that this subdivision generates middle schoolers at a -- at a teeny fraction of the
magnitude that it generates high school students, how in the world is there any data set
that can do that, because they are saying 9,000 approved middle school lots generates
913 kids, but 6,500 approved lots within a high school zone generates more high
schoolers. It just -- I have got a thousand questions for them. Again, it's not your burden
to answer, but what happens and the reason why I have these concerns is if this letter
provides any value to us, I need to feel comfortable that the underlying analysis makes
sense, because I have this discomfort by philosophy and the school district will certainly
service these kids -- and put kids -- they will put them somewhere. They are not going to
put them on the street. So, of course, there is always a way to get around it. I'm not
comfortable and this is why this is -- this topic is going to get pressed this spring with a
solution that kids can get packed in or bused around and ship them off or 2,400 kids in
Rocky Mountain is atrocious then. It's not fair to the kids. I don't know if there is a public
resource that's more important that we have some indirect responsibility for. So, again,
love the debate and challenge, but their letter has created more questions for their
methodology. If we are supposed to look at it and say, okay, I feel comfortable that these
schools can fill all of these students and in light of the bond tolerance, so --
Clark: Let me ask -- let me just point out a couple of things. First of all, when they do the
analysis they actually generate student generation figures for elementary, middle, and
high school that are different. So, they actually have a specific number for what they
expect from elementary, middle, and high school. It's not a -- just toss it out there and
those numbers can shift between the three. The larger question and -- and I appreciate
you saying that, you know, this isn't, you know, ourjob to solve it on this one and 1, again,
feel like I'm suddenly been knighted as West Ada's spokesperson on all of this. But I --
you know, the questions that you are raising, Councilman Borton, I think are -- raise a lot
of pretty difficult implications for the Council's relationship with agencies. Like for
examples, so do we, then, say we don't trust the trip generation rates on an ACHD report
and so, therefore, we are not going to -- we are not going to -- I mean -- but I think it's -- I
think it's a fair point, Council Member Borton, because that's -- it's almost the exact same
point you are making here and I'm looking at this and saying that, you know, these are --
these are agencies that have provided -- the agencies that are directly responsible for
providing the service, that they have provided the letter, I'm having a -- having difficulty
with saying that the letter is not trustworthy and can't be relied upon by the Council,
because, then, what can you rely upon and what could we bring before you? Because,
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page———
you know, obviously, we -- you know, as a due process matter we need to be able to have
the Council relay to us, you know, what are the standards that you are applying to this
application? What are the actions, if any, that we could take in order to get an approval?
And what I'm hearing is that -- that you don't trust the agency and so, therefore, there is
-- I don't know what the standard is. Now, I appreciate that sounds --
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: So, let me be crystal clear. This has nothing to do with trust. This is
understanding the methodology. If it is to have any import on whether we make a
discretionary annexation decision and whether, amongst all of the things we consider --
and school capacity being one of 30 different things -- if there is any weight that we can
give the data it's helpful to understand the methodology behind it, because what's
happened in the last 90 days and, hopefully, for the better, but there has been a drastic
shift, as if the prior data must have been wildly inaccurate or have less value than we had
originally thought, because perhaps this new formula is of much greater value, perhaps
it's more accurate. I can't wait for that discussion with them. But it's just really different.
The bigger question is a broader policy consideration or it could be spot on. Maybe 67
was spot on. That broader consideration is everything presumes that bonds get passed
and -- and we will talk about ability to bus, ability to change district boundaries in light of
existing school capacity. You know, these other -- how broad are these other solutions to
find space for 900, to 1,100 kids if there is not another school? Again, not your problem
to solve. I would love the discussion. I really appreciate it. But to you and anyone from
West Ada that's listening, this has nothing to do with trust. This is just trying to understand
and it provides value and weight to what they are sharing, so we can make a good
decision. That's all. Appreciate the discussion.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Hethe, do you know -- you know, Star Middle School shows big numbers for
the approved lots per attendance area and whatnot, but do you know -- happen to know
-- and, again, you might not and that's fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the bulk
of Star Middle School is located in Star, which is a growing community, and they are
moving forward with their growth. Do you have any idea what -- by chance what that
might be? They are the majority of the lots in that particular attendance area.
Clark: Council Member Hoaglun, I don't have the specific dimensions for that. You know,
whenever we are doing this it's a snapshot in time and so, you know, that's the -- that's
the data that exists as of now.
Hoaglun: Yeah. And, Mr. Mayor, I guess --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page— ——
Hoaglun: -- it's difficult to ferret that out I realize, but at the same time we look at doing
one thing and the communities that surround us that are in West Ada do another, we are
going to feel the impacts, we are going to have to approve bonds for growing schools for
-- if we are not approving any growth it's their growth and yet our taxpayers will still -- still
-- still be paying for that and so it's just this interesting dilemma that we find ourselves in
and --and I think your application was a victim of timing of when --when this came forward
following a discussion of an application in south Meridian and that's -- that's an
unfortunate part of this, but it's a good project. So, now we have to figure out what we
are going to do with this information and do we say, okay, West Ada, you provided us with
this updated letter, this is what you say it's going to generate, there is no trust issue here,
then, okay, then we make that decision based on that information and, again, I have talked
about this before, this has been a priority growth area for our community. We are invested
-- we are investing in a fire station, we are investing in a police precinct, with ACHD on
the roads and maximizing and expanding those -- those roads to handle that -- the traffic
loads that are out there. So, it's hard to for me to step back and say, okay, we are -- we
are going to have to disregard this to some degree and I just -- I just can't go there. So,
that's -- that's -- that's -- that's the dilemma with this and I know it's a struggle with a lot of
Council Members and it's something we have given a lot of thought to and we will probably
come down on different sides of a conclusion, but, you know, we all have to reach that
point of what we find acceptable or not and -- and to me this is what the school district
says, then, okay, that's what we have before us and that's what we base our decision on.
So, I'm comfortable with that.
Clark: And, Mr. Mayor, if I could just quickly. You know, in addition to it being a priority
growth area, it is right next to Owyhee High School. It is right next to a proposed
elementary school. You know, that's -- that's where we want kids to be living and walking
-- walking to school, so -- and this is the evidence that's in the record before you is the
January 11 th letter from West Ada School District. That's the evidence that's in the record
that should be considered for purposes of this -- of this decision.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Hethe, in your conversations with West Ada did they share with you their
priority plan for when these elementary schools will build out? And the reason I ask that
is two reasons. One, I know that the bond that they were ready to put on the ballot in
March of 2020 was only going to include an elementary school that was in the south side
-- southeast Meridian. To my knowledge that priority hasn't changed. So, the next bond
that will come will not include either of these elementary schools, which is still another --
if we pass the bond next year, best case scenario, and it gets built in two years from then,
you are at least three or four years out before you are going to build the school they do
intend to build. No idea what their plans are for bonding for the two that are in northwest.
So, that's why I asked if there is some information they shared with you that we are not
aware of. As you are saying to us, hey, you should trust this, because they are -- they
have real estate for two schools, but the difference in your analogy between something
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page———
that ACHD does and something that West Ada does is I have a five year plan with ACHD
that says here is how much revenue we are bringing in, here -- here is how much we think
it's going to cost, here is the time frame for when we want to build it. Do they have the
right to modify that every year? They do. But at least we have a plan to look at that says
here is how we got to these -- here is how we got to these determinations and why. We
don't have that with the school district. So, yeah, they are two different things. We can't
lump them all in the same group and say, hey, they are another government agency, are
you going to trust them or not trust them. So, yeah, I'm just curious if you -- if you have
heard anymore about what their plans are, because it's not my understanding that they
had any plans to bond and -- and, truthfully, if we are going to talk about bonds, I will
share this with anyone who asks me, I feel like they missed -- missed a good window of
not running the bond in 2020 that they were planning on running in '19 and at the time, at
the end of 2019. They were one hundred percent convinced that that bond was
immediately necessary and they chose to hold off, not because they don't think it's still
not necessary, it's because they -- they were concerned that COVID would create an
unnecessary burden on taxpayers, that there would be tax implications for people as they
lost their jobs and potentially lost their homes. It had nothing to do with their enrollment
going down or not having a need for that bond to be passed and they still yet haven't
decided when it's going to get passed and we are three years later. So, I just -- these are
the kinds of things as -- you know, we -- these are the kinds of things we are needing and
seeking to understand, so --
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, I -- I don't have an answer for that. Ada --
when we talked to West Ada one of the things they said to us is that we can't promise a
school site too far in advance or we just catch heck from everyone forever, because we
didn't end up building the school that we promised and that the realtor told us was coming
and so that's a lot of the reason why they don't do that, as I understand it. Again, I'm not
West Ada's spokesperson here. With regard to the ACHD versus West Ada comparison,
I wasn't suggesting that they are one and the same and totally the same, but they do have
technical analyses that's based on formulas that they internally understand and that we
defer to, because they are the expert agency that provides all those -- that provides those
services and, again, that's the evidence that's in the record and, you know, obviously, all
of our decisions have to be based on evidence that's in the record.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Unless anybody has further questions and I would like to spare Hethe the duty
of responding on behalf of West Ada on a lot of these things, I would move to close the
public hearing on H-2021-0065.
Cavener: Second.
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page—of—
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Hoaglun: Well, Mr. Mayor, just to kick off conversation and --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- and see if we can move something forward here. We have had this
discussion, it's been dominating in our conversations in a lot of developments. Each one
is different and -- but one of the arguments is based on -- on school capacity and for me
on this one it -- it just turns to the fact that Ada -- West Ada has indicated that this -- they
find it acceptable, that the 40 school aged children from that is not burdensome. We know
down the road that there might be issues. I -- no doubt about that. Councilman Borton,
you -- you are looking at data that is correct and how they handle that is in their court and
their timing and I just -- until we hear from them that -- with absolute certainty they have
imminent peril, to use the words used earlier today, for-- for students in the district, I just
don't feel comfortable turning -- turning down a development application that meets
everything that we are asking and so I guess to just kick things off and see where it goes,
I would move to approve -- after considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I
move to approve file number H-2021-0065 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of January 25th, 2022.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Do I have a second?
Bernt: I will second for discussion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second and recognize Councilman Bernt for discussion.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I -- my thoughts haven't changed on this development from the last
time. I -- you know, I -- again, I sat with Matt on the -- different committees with regard to
the Planning Department and Comprehensive Plan committee and open space
committee and -- and -- and many others and -- and looking at this application I think
there is a lot of really good things about it that get me excited. I thought it was very well
planned out, some unique amenities for the kiddos and some passive open area that I
think that a lot of folks are looking for in development. I think that it's in our priority growth
area. Sitting right next to a high school and other potential school sites. At the end of the
day I'm only able to -- and this is my opinion and no disrespect to my fellow Council
Members. I have an enormous respect for their opinions as well. Just this is mine. I feel
like it's -- it's important for us to make decisions based upon what's in the packet and
what's -- the information that's in front of us. I don't think it's fair to --to deliberate on what
West Ada may or may have said in conversations. I echo the words of Council Member
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page———
Borton -- and I'm really excited -- I think we are all really excited to sit down with West
Ada and to hash this out. I'm grateful for Marcy. I'm grateful for Miranda and for the
continued dialogue between our two bodies. I think that's extremely important. I think
that we have never -- as long as I have been on Council we have never had such great
information regarding schools and school enrollment. So, with that said, until we sit down
and chat with West Ada and -- and hear from the horse's mouth what this information
looks like, how did they get there, why are they recommending it, I have to go with -- with
what's in the packet. I have to go with what's in front of me and those are the decisions
that I --that I will make and so this evening I'm -- I'm in favor of this application this evening
and I -- with the caveat of very excited to sit down with West Ada and to figure out once
and for all what this looks like going forward.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I have a lot of thoughts, but I think there is a lot of merit to the idea of
batching annexations going forward to help with planning discussions. This was
continued specifically to hear directly from West Ada and I think the disconnect is caused
by West Ada, because they have had representatives of West Ada in their personal
capacity not share the same commitment to the action items that could alleviate capacity
issues and they themselves have said that they have a looming issue. So, for me I need
to hear from them. I'm super glad that the applicant has been proactive in meeting with
them, but a letter about a meeting that I wasn't part of doesn't help me with my overall
concern with the data, with their commitment as an agency to maximize their capacity
and, in fact, as they said, we are in alignment and our philosophy is to maximize capacity
and here are the steps we are going to take, that's the exact kind of information I'm looking
for, but in the absence of that I see a huge pipeline of potential development, I see a pretty
robust amount of deliveries that are coming -- I better wrap this up before my voice goes
away. But there have been a lot of issues I think with what are their steps going to be
going forward and the commitment of that board to redrawing boundaries. I also feel like
this isn't the right time for this annexation. I think that this application would benefit greatly
from a delay, not only so we can discuss with the West Ada School District that would put
this applicant on the same timetable as other applications that have been continued for
that same conversation and I also think that the potential for Highway 16 to move around
is a pretty big point and we would benefit from figuring out if that's going to happen. That's
where I'm at. I'm in favor of a continuance. I don't expect the applicant to solve the school
district's problems, but I do think there is enough of a concern that we need to get to the
answer and that a continuance for a few months to do that is the way to go, particularly
-- I understand this is next to a high school, but it is in a priority growth area that is on the
edge of town currently. Those are my thoughts.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page— ——
Cavener: I was pretty much in favor of this project when we saw it a month and a half
ago. I think it's location, amenities, density-- I think we have got 93 buildable lots in about
40 acres seems to really fit well with the area. I was really supportive of the continuance,
because I wanted to hear from West Ada and, Councilman Borton, I appreciate -- it's not
an issue of trust at all. I think that it's because we trust them so much that I think there
are some concerns, but the fact of the matter is we have received inconsistent data. The
data that we received this month is different than the data we received last month, which
is different than the data we received a year ago on projects that come from West Ada
and so I'm concerned about the inconsistency of data that we are getting. Council
Member Strader did an excellent job of summarizing some of the public testimony that
we heard and why that's so important, particularly from folks who work in -- in West Ada.
So, it's hard, because I wanted that conversation so I could feel really confident in moving
forward. I think that we need to get some consistent information from them and we need
to hear some better communication from them. It's not just to know -- they can't turn
students away; right? They don't get to put up a closed sign. So, the amount of students
that any project generates they have got to accommodate. I really want to hear from them
that not only will they continue to do that, because they have to, but they have got a plan
in place to be able to do that and Council Member, to your comments, what does that look
like over a ten year period? Because we do -- we have this as a priority growth area. It's
one of the reasons I have been resistant and reluctant to priority growth areas is I think
when we start driving traffic we start to create some of these problems, but I don't have
enough information to feel like a denial is warranted. We had a significant amount of
testimony with public in favor of it. It is right next to a school. It's a high quality
development. I think more than anything it reinforces that we have got to be more
selective in annexations and whether that means batching or more deliberative in our --
in our denial process, but there is not enough of a threshold for me to be supportive of a
denial tonight. So, if the motion was for approval I'm certainly supportive of that.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I agree with Council Woman Strader and Councilman Cavener. I really would
like to hear from the district and don't have a comfort level of approving really personally
in any area of our city where we are having conversations about school capacity until we
have that meeting and I am sympathetic very much to the applicant's feeling of being
caught between two agencies, but certainly is not purposeful, but our duty is to really
make sure that we are doing what's best for our city as a whole and sometimes factors
come into play that aren't specific to the individual application and design and so the only
thing I would add in addition to Council Woman Strader, who I thought did an excellent
job with her explanation, is that Councilman Borton expresses concern about the
considerable decrease in students proposed. From a common sense standpoint you
have a 93 lot development next to a high school, with a pool and a lot of green space.
You are going to sell these homes to people with children and 40 students are -- is less
than -- it's like half a student per home. Less than that. So, the real -- realistically 40
students just doesn't even make common sense, whether they use the student generation
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page——"
rate or not. It -- I mean it doesn't. So, that's another reason why I just really want to hear
from the district before I make a decision. I had two respected developers call me this
week and ask me why -- you know, is the city going to -- going to share their thoughts
with us? Are we going to hear some consistent messaging from the Council Members.
They are feeling this pull that you are feeling now, which is that we all have different
thoughts and opinions on these things and they asked me to, please, start working on a
consistent message. So, since we recently continued an application for this exact same
purpose in a different area of the city, I'm in favor of doing the same with this.
Simison: Anybody else like to make any comments?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I do have one comment. I just wanted to make sure people understood my
motion. I did not include anything about that waiver of the 30 foot buffer in the southeast
corner. I think Councilman Borton made a very good point that that's a future application
and that the applicant is not requesting that and, you know, Mr. Nary's comments helped
solidify that for me. So, that -- that's not part of this at all. So, just wanted to make that
clear.
Simison: Ask the Clerk to call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
nay.
Simison: Four ayes. Two nays. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO NAYS.
Simison: Thank you and much more conversation to come.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
5. Ordinance No. 22-1964: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of
Certain City-Owned Real Property to the Ada County Highway District
for Right of Way Purposes Consisting of Approximately 1.66 Acres
Located at Discovery Park, 2121 E. Lake Hazel Road; Authorizing the
Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on Behalf of the City of
Meridian the Deed and Other Documents Necessary to Complete the
Transaction; Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and
Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Next item up is No. 5, which is Ordinance No. 22-1964.
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page"—"
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of certain
city-owned real property to the Ada County Highway District for right-of-way purposes
consisting of approximately 1 .66 acres located at Discovery Park, 2121 E. Lake Hazel
Road; authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute and attest on behalf of the City of
Meridian the deed and other documents necessary to complete the transaction; 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. Would anyone
like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1964 with the suspension of rules.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance 22-1964 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 ordinance is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I think there was -- there was remarks of ways that we might manage our
applications and be creative and try and craft solutions. Some of the issues we have
confronted -- this is just another example of -- of -- of confronting capacity concerns that
are incremental and bits by bits where individual applicants have individual incremental
impact and we are -- we struggle with perhaps recognizing the compounding effect and
having an effective way to deal with it. So, let's put on a future meeting topic perhaps a
workshop discussion amongst the seven of us of some creative tools we might utilize and
just for illustration purposes, the comment about batching annexation applications,
hearing them as they come in and, then, continuing them to a date certain and, then,
deciding them on an aggregated date is just an illustrative example of let's try and be
creative. Help ourselves make more -- I guess informed decisions based on aggregated
data and compounding impact, so --
Simison- Duly noted.
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. January 25,2022
Page———
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: At the Mayor and President -- Council President's pleasure, I would like to
have a conversation at some point about whether we still believe our priority growth areas
to be what we would like them to be in relationship to all the concerns that we have been
discussing in the last few applications. I'm not necessarily suggesting a proposal that we
change them, just --just as I'm -- I'm hearing, you know, we -- we have stated that there
are areas that we would like to grow and yet we continue to run into challenges that cause
us to -- to question whether we are going to annex and I think that I feel a personal desire
to have that conversation, so the public can understand where we are coming from,
because there is confusion being had and -- and I would just like to see what we can do
about that. See how we can clear that up I suppose.
Simison: Duly noted. Anything else? Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn.
Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay?
The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:51 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST: 2-8-2022
DATE APPROVED
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 66
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.
i
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET
Date: January 25, 2022
Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and
provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of
the Public Forum:
• DO NOT:
o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning
and Zoning or City Council
o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters
• DO
o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first
o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic
is deemed inappropriate for this forum)
Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Proposed Fire Alarm Communication Devices Fee Update
Page 3
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: January 25, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 1 1
PROJECT NAME: Proposed Fire Alarm Communication Devices Fee Update
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
f
2
i
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
ADVERTISING PROOF
PRESS >�p
1-20R1DlAN PRH55 c/o ISj Payment Processing Center
Local News Worth Holding mom. �'; Emmett PO Box 1570,
BOlSEWEEKLY® Messenger Pocatello,ID 83204
/ndex
Ph. (208)465-8129 Fax: (907)452-5054
ACCOUNTBILLING DATE: NO:
01/10/22 21410
ADRIENNE WEATHERLY
1 MERIDIAN, CITY OF
33 E. BROADWAYAVENUE
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
AD# DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT
191012 PH 1/25/2022-NEW F 01/14/22 01/21/22 2 $161.68
Payments:
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount
Discount: $0.00 Gross:$161.68
Surcharge: $0.00 Paid Amount:$0.00
Credits: $0.00
Amount Due:$161.68
We Appreciate Your Business!
191012
Page 4
12AD#
I1tem#1.
LEGAL NOTICE
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 its meeting on Tuesday,January
25,20229 at 6:00 p.m.,at Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho,regarding adoption
of proposed new fees,as set forth below.Further information regarding these proposed fees is available in the
Finance Department at Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho.Any and all interested
persons shall be heard at said public hearing,and the public is welcome and invited to submit written comments
and/or provide verbal testimony at the hearing.Verbal testimony may be limited to three(3)minutes per person.
For auditory,visual,or language accommodations,please contact the City Clerk's Office at 208-888-4433.
DATED this 10th day of January,2022.
CHRIS JOHNSON,CITY CLERK
OLD FEE NEW FEE
FEE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AMOUNT
Commercial Plan Plan review and inspection of new fire $150 plus$4.25 $150 plus$4.25
Reviews alarm system per device(if over 35) per device(if over 35)
Inspections Inspection of replacement fire alarm New fee $150 plus$4.25
system per device(if over 35)
Inspections Inspection of fire alarm system replaced New fee $125
or installed by limited electrical contractor,
limited electrical installer,or employee of a
company holding a limited electrical contractor
license(per Idaho Code section 54-1016(2)(h))
January 14,21,2022 191012
Page 5
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 22-2306: Adopting New Building Division Fees; Authorizing
Building Division of the Community Development Department to Collect Such Fees; and
Providing an Effective Date
Page 6
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 22-2306
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW BUILDING DIVISION FEES; AUTHORIZING
BUILDING DIVISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO
COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,the Idaho Legislature has amended Idaho Code section 54-1016(2)(h) to, inter
alia, waive licensing and design review requirements for limited electrical contractors, limited
electrical installers, and employees of companies holding a limited electrical contractor license
where such persons are replacing or installing fire alarm communication devices;
WHEREAS, Idaho Code section 54-1016(2)(h) further requires such persons to obtain a
permit for such replacements or installations, and limits the fee for inspections related to such
permit to one hundred twenty-five dollars ($125);
WHEREAS,this update to the City's fee schedule is necessary in order to comply with Idaho
Code section 54-1016(2)(h) as amended and to clarify the processes and fees applicable to other fire
alarm system installations and replacements;
WHEREAS,pursuant to Idaho Code section 63-1311A, following publication of notice on
January 14, 2022 and January 21, 2022, and public hearing on January 25, 2022, the Meridian City
Council did,by formal motion, approve new updated fees as described herein;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO:
Section 1. That the following new and updated fees are hereby adopted and shall be included
in the FY22 Citywide Fee Schedule:
FEE DESCRIPTION OLD FEE NEW FEE
AMOUNT AMOUNT
$150 plus $150 plus
Commercial Plan Plan review and inspection of new fire $4.25 per $4.25 per
Reviews alarm system device (if device (if
over 35) over 35)
$150 plus
Inspections Inspection of replacement fire alarm New fee $4.25 per
system device (if
over 35)
Inspection of fire alarm system replaced
Inspections or installed by limited electrical New fee $125
contractor, limited electrical installer, or
employee of a company holding a limited
ADOPTION OF NEW AND REVISED BUILDING FEES PAGE 1 page 7
electrical contractor license (per Idaho
Code section 54-1016(2)(h))
Section 2. That the Finance Department of the City of Meridian is hereby authorized to
incorporate into the FY22 Citywide Fee Schedule the changes set forth herein.
Section 3. That the Building Division of the City of Meridian Community Development
Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of fees as set forth herein.
Section 4. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its
publication.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 25thday of January, 2022.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, his 25thday of January, 2022.
APPROVED:
Robert E. Simison, Mayor
ATTEST:
Chris Johnson, City Clerk
ADOPTION OF NEW AND REVISED BUILDING FEES PAGE 2 page 8
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing to Convey Real Property to Ada County Highway District for
Right of Way Purposes
Page 9
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: January 25, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3
PROJECT NAME: Convey Real Property to
Ada County Highway District for Right of Way Purposes
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
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
'temp. ADVERTISING PROOF
PRES� >�p
1-20R1DlAN PRH55 c/o ISj Payment Processing Center
Local News Worth Holding mom. �'; Emmett PO Box 1570,
BOlSEWEEKLY® Messenger Pocatello,ID 83204
/ndex
Ph. (208)465-8129 Fax: (907)452-5054
ACCOUNTBILLING DATE: NO:
01/06/22 21410
CHRIS JOHNSON
1 MERIDIAN, CITY OF
33 E. BROADWAYAVENUE
MERIDIAN, ID 83642
AD# DESCRIPTION START STOP TIMES AMOUNT
190067 PH 1/25/2022-RESOL 01/09/22 01/09/22 1 $66.73
Payments:
Date Method Card Type Last 4 Digits Check Amount
Discount: $0.00 Gross:$66.73
Surcharge: $0.00 Paid Amount:$0.00
Credits: $0.00
Amount Due:$66.73
We Appreciate Your Business!
190067
Page 10
T67AD#
Item#3. LEGAL NOTICE
SUMMARY OF ACTION TAKEN REGARDING
INTENTTO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY
AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
SUMMARY OF ACTION TAKEN:On the 4th day of January,
2022, the City Council of the City of Meridian approved Res-
olution No.22-2304 declaring the intent of the City to convey
to the Ada County Highway District approximately 1.66 acres
of real property located at Discovery Park off of E.Lake Hazel
Road.The City of Meridian intends to convey the real property
without consideration because it is in the City's best interest
that the Ada County Highway District take ownership of the
property for right-of-way purposes.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN:Pursuant to the Ordinances of
the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho(includ-
ing but not limited to Idaho Code section 50-1403), the City
Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the
Meridian City Hall,33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho,
at the hour of 6:00 p.m.on Tuesday,January 25th,2022 for
the purpose of considering and approving the proposed real
property conveyance.
For further information,please contact the City Clerks Office
at 888-4433.
CHRIS JOHNSON,CITY CLERK
January 9,2022 190067
Page 11
E IDIAN.;---
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Page 4
Item #4: Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065)
th
This project was previously heard by Council on Dec. 14 and continued to tonight’s meeting in order to hold a community workshop to
discuss development impacts on enrollment at area schools & transportation. The school board met yesterday but ended up continuing
thth
the discussion pertaining to this matter to Feb. 14. The Applicant’s representative Hethe Clark met with WASD on Jan. 11 and
submitted a letter summarizing that meeting, which has been included in the public record.
Applications:
Annexation & Zoning
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 40 acres of land zoned RUT in Ada County, located at 3235 N.
McDermott Rd.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-N
Summary of Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31.59 acres), L-O (1.64 acres) and M-E (6.77 acres) zoning districts.
The Applicant proposes to develop the site with 93 SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3.0 unit/s per acre (or 4.38 units/acre if
only the developable area is included in the calculations, excluding the street buffer along future SH-16), an LDS seminary, and
donation of a lot to the Boys & Girls Club for a facility on the west side of future SH-16 and research & development uses on the east
side of SH-16. Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision of the Comprehensive Plan per the
analysis in the staff report. Although the proposed density is below that desired in MU-N designated areas (i.e. 6 to 12 units/acre) and
there are no supporting services for the residential development, Staff believes the proposed development is appropriate for this area
based on the lack of access available to the site from collector or arterial roadways. The proposed uses will provide a mix of uses as
desired in the Comp Plan (i.e. residential, civic and commercial) and an LDS seminary and Boys & Girls Club will provide religious and
childcare facilities within close proximity to the high school on the abutting property to the west which will be a benefit for area residents
and the community. If Council feels additional housing types (i.e. alley-loaded, SFR attached, townhomes) should be provided, it would
increase the density for the development. Staff did not include a recommendation for additional housing types to be provided due to the
limited access available in this area and lack of employment uses provided in the residential area. Given the limitations with
surrounding land uses, existing development pattern, poor access and bifurcation of the property with the extension of SH 16, it is not
feasible to achieve full integration of uses as desired in MU-N areas. However, the applicant’s narrative does discuss how they believe
the proposed development is consistent with the MU-N designation.
Preliminary plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of (93) buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 31.59 acres of land
in the R-8 zoning district; (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1) buildable lot on 6.77 acres of land in the
M-E zoning district; and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land. Two (2) phases of development are proposed; the first phase is
nd
the area on the west side of future SH-16 and the 2 phase is the M-E zoned area on the east side.
Access is proposed to the western portion of the development via the extension of two (2) local streets from the north from Chukar
Ridge Subdivision. Future SH-16 is planned to bisect this site on Lot 1, Block 5. Access is proposed to the eastern portion of the site
via N. McDermott Rd. Direct access via future SH-16 is prohibited. One (1) stub street is proposed to the south for future extension and
interconnectivity.
Qualified open space is proposed in excess of UDC standards. Based on the area of the plat (40 acres), a minimum of 4 acres is
required (10%); 7.64 acres (or approximately 23.8%) of common open space is proposed which includes a large common area
adjacent to future SH-16 which will provide a buffer to residential uses.
A minimum of two (2) qualified site amenities are required. A swimming pool with changing rooms, pedestrian pathways, additional
qualified open space of at least 20,000 square feet in area and children’s natural play structures are proposed as amenities in excess
of the minimum standards.
As noise attenuation for future SH-16, a 6’ tall berm & 6’ tall wall on top of the berm is required within the street buffer.
Conceptual building elevations for the residential portion of the development were submitted as shown. The non-residential buildings
are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Matt Adams, The Land Group
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: Todd Tucker, Boise Hunter Homes (BHH)
iv. Written testimony:
Todd Tucker, Boise Hunter Homes – Requests the stub street to the south is shifted approximately 45’ to the east so
that it abuts the east side of future SH-16 ROW to provide a better alignment w/the street connection planned to the
south on the Boise Hunter Homes property. Note: If this were to happen, it appears there wouldn’t be adequate area for
the required street buffer along future SH-16.
Matt Adams, The Land Group (Applicant’s Representative): In full agreement with the Commission recommendation in
the staff report.
v. Key Issue(s): 1) BHH requested the stub street to the south be shifted further to the east to align with the planned location of the
street in their future development; and 2) The Applicant stated they’d like to pursue development of the LDS seminary and
residential portions of the development first and restrict development of the Boys & Girls Club lot until a second public street
access is available consistent with the ACHD conditions of approval.
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: 1) The single public street access to this development; and 2) Secondary emergency
access and parameters of the M-E zone.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: None
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Letters of testimony were received from Bart Hamilton, David Austin, Holly Miller,
Jen Johnson, Jennifer Reese, Lance & Camie Olsen, Maile Thomas, Mathew & Nicole Gamette, Megan Roos, Trish Dildine, Troy Ball,
Greg Borup, Paula Horsager, Melanie Evans, all in favor of the LDS seminary building that is proposed with this development.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0065, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of January 25, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0065, as presented during the
hearing on January 25, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0065 to the hearing date of __________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
City Council Meeting January 25, 2022
Item #4: Aviator Springs PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Annexation & Preliminary Plat–
RAnnexation Area E Zone-M O Zone-L8 Zone-
Preliminary Plat (Revised)& Phasing Plan
Landscape PlanOpen Space Exhibit
Cross& Natural Play AreaPedestrian Pathways Roadside SwalesConnection to Chukar RidgeNorth Landscape Buffer Sections-
Parking ExhibitCirculation Exhibit
Conceptual Building Elevations
Exhibit pertaining to Boise Hunter Home’s request
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from December 14, 2021 for Aviator Springs (H-
2021-0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (27.63 acres), L-0 (1.64 acres) and M-E
(10.72 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93) buildable lots and
(13) common open space lots on 27.63 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots
on 1.64 acres of land in the L-0 zoning district, (1) buildable lot on 10.72 acres of land in the M-E
zoning district, and (3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land.
Page 12
Item#4.
E IDIAN:--
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: January 25, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from December 14, 2021 for Aviator Springs (H-2021-
0065) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 3235 N. McDermott Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (27.63 acres), L-0 (1.64
acres) and M-E (10.72 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93)
buildable lots and (13) common open space lots on 27.63 acres of land in the
R-8 zoning district, (2) buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-0 zoning
district, (1) buildable lot on 10.72 acres of land in the M-E zoning district, and
(3) future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 13
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: January 25, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4
PROJECT NAME: Aviator Springs (H-2021-0065)
4
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please 1
provide HOA name
1
1-Yk V �
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#4.
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING January 25,2022 Legend
DATE: Continued from:December 14, 2021 ( Ppdjec- t Lc=ton
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2021-0065
Aviator Springs—AZ,PP
LOCATION: 3235 N. McDermott Rd.,in the SE '/4 of
Section 32,TAN.,R.1 W. (Parcels r
#R7824220044&#R7824220042) ---- --
I
�5
r
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 40 acres of land with R-8 (34 39 27.63 acres),L-O(1.64 acres) and M-E(6—.7-7 10.72
acres)zoning districts; and Preliminary plat containing a total of 112 lots consisting of(93)buildable
lots and(13)common open space lots on 31.59 27.63 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; (2)
buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1)buildable lot on 6-.7-7 10.72 acres of
land in the M-E zoning district; and(3)future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 40 acres
Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Neighborhood(MU-N)
Existing Land Use(s) Agricultural land
Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)&a church(seminary)
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 112 lots(96 buildable/13 common/3 future ROVE
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases
Number of Residential Units(type 93 SFR detached dwellings
of units)
Density(gross&net) 3.0 units/acre(gross);3.92 units/acre(net)
Open Space(acres,total 7.64 acres(or 23.8%)common open space
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities Community swimming pool&changing rooms,multi-use
pathway,qualified open space in excess of 20,000 square
feet.
Page 1
Page 14
Item#4.
Description Details Page
Physical Features(waterways, The Eight Mile Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this
hazards,flood plain,hillside) site.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of 7/7/21; 3 attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) None
B. Community Metrics
Description Details P
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access is proposed via the extension of two local streets(N.
(Arterial/Collectors/State Keklik Ave.and N.Alameda Creek Ave.)at the north boundary
Hwy/Local)(Existing and of the site.
Proposed)
Traffic Level of Service Ustick Rd.—Better than"E" —
Stub A stub street is proposed to the property to the south for future
Street/Interconnectivity/Cros extension.
s Access
Existing Road Network A north/south collector street(Owyhee Storm Ave.)exists'/4 mile
to the west of this site,which provides access via a local street to
this site through Chukar Ridge Subdivision to the north.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ NA
Buffers
Proposed Road Ustick Rd. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Star
Improvements Rd.to McDermott Rd.between 2026 and 2030.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 4.5 miles
• Fire Response Time Falls outside the 5:00 minute response time area-nearest station
is Fire Station#2—cannot meet response time goals. When Fire
Station#8 is constructed in late summer of 2023, it will be within
the 5:00 minute response time area.
• Resource Reliability 85%-does meet the target goal of 80%or greater
• Risk Identification 2—current resources would be adequate to supply service
• Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround.
Project will require a secondary emergency access in order to
exceed 30 lots or buildings will need to be sprinklered.
• Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;cannot meet this need in
the required timeframe if a truck company is required.
• Water Supply Requires 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours,may be less if
buildings are fully sprinklered.
• Other Resources
Police Service
• Distance from 4.2 miles
police station
Page 2
Page 15
Item#4.
• Police Response Priority 3 (goal is within 3 to 5 minutes): 3:47
Time Priority 2(goal is within 8 to 10 minutes): 7:06
Priori 1 (goal is within 15 to 20 minutes): 10:43
West Ada School Approved prelim Approved MF
D1StY1Ct plat parcels per units per 'Miles
Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area
• Distance(elem, Pleasant View Elementary 546 650 3089 21 2.9
ms,hs) Star Middle School 823 1000 7967 278 7.1
• Capacity of Owyhee High School 1477 1800 5782 58 0.0
Schools School of Choice Options
• #of Students Chief Joseph School-Arts 507 700 N/A N/A 6.8
Enrolled Barbara Morgan-STEM 659 750 N/A N/A 4.5
• #of Students
Predicted from 93 school aged children predicted from this development by WASD.
this development I School Impact Table
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent
Services
• Sewer Shed North McDermott Trunkshed
• Estimated Project See application
Sewer ERU's
• WRRF Declining 14.21
Balance
• Project Consistent Yes
with WW Master
Plan/Facility
Plan
• Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed
• Property is subject to the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer Reimbursement
Agreement
Water
• Distance to Water Directly adjacent
Services
• Pressure Zone 1
• Estimated Project See application
Water ERU's
• Water Quality None
• Project Consistent Yes
with Water
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns See Public Works site specific conditions
Page 3
Page 16
Item#4.
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
(fLegend (fLegend
Project Lcca-fior BSI I Projeot Lucafon S
'IU II�f
Dens i Re�r�ntia
Residential
IY
f4
MU-C
,U
-� -- r --ante #�r
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend - - 0 Legend
0Prejec, Lcca=or BSI IetProject Lacafkm
RUT ;_ City Limit
- R-4 — Planned Parcels
R-4
VT
r+ r}
A. Applicant:
Matt Adams, The Land Group,Inc.—462 E. Shore Dr., Ste. 100,Eagle,ID 83616
B. Owner:
Acclima,Inc.— 1763 W. Marcon Ln., Ste. 175,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
Page 4
Page 17
Item#4.
III. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
10/5/2021 11/28/2021
newspaper
Notification mailed to property
owners within 300 feet 10/5/2021 12/2/2021
Applicant posted public hearing
notice on site 10/11/2021 12/2/2021
Nextdoor posting 10/5/2021 12/6/2021
IV. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS(Comprehensive Plan)
The Future Land Use Map(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
Mixed Use -Neighborhood(MU-N).
The purpose of the Mixed-Use designation is to provide for a combination of compatible land uses
within a close geographic area that allows for easily accessible and convenient services for residents
and workers. The intent is to promote developments that offer functional and physical integration of
land uses,to create and enhance neighborhood sense of place,and to allow developers a greater
degree of design and use flexibility.
NOTE: Given the limitations with surrounding land uses,existing development pattern,poor
access and bifurcation of the property with the extension of SH 16,it is not feasible to achieve
full integration of uses as desired in MU-N areas.However,the applicant's narrative does
discuss how they believe the proposed development is consistent with the MU-N designation.
The purpose of the MU-N designation is to assign areas where neighborhood-serving uses and
dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to avoid predominantly single-
use developments by incorporating a variety of uses.Land uses in these areas should be primarily
residential with supporting non-residential services.Non-residential uses in these areas tend to be
smaller scale and provide goods or services that people typically do not travel far for(approximately
one mile)and need regularly. Employment opportunities for those living in the neighborhood are
encouraged. Connectivity and access between the non-residential and residential land uses is
particularly critical in MU-N areas. Tree-lined,narrow streets are encouraged. Developments are also
encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-N plan depicted in Figure 3B of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development consists of a total of 93 single-family detached dwellings, an LDS
seminary, a lot to be donated to the Boys and Girls Club for a future facility and commercial(research
&development)uses consisting of one(1 20) 000 square foot(s.f.)research and development facility
and one(1) 12,000 s.£ research and development greenhouse with 8,000 s.f. tenant offices. The gross
density of the residential area is 3.00 units per acre,which is significantly less than the desired range
of 6 to 12 units per acre in MU-N designated areas. The primary use proposed is residential as
desired; however,no supporting non-residential services are proposed. Although commercial uses
(i.e. employment opportunities)are proposed on the east side of the development,they are not
directly accessible from the proposed neighborhood due to the future extension of SH-16 through the
site which will separate the residential from the commercial uses.
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas:
(Staffs analysis is in italics)
Page 5
Page 18
Item#4.
• Development should comply with the items listed for development in all Mixed-Use areas as
follows:
o 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. The proposed development includes three (3) four
k&different land use types (i.e. residential, commercial office and civic).
o Where appropriate,higher density and/or multifamily residential development is
encouraged for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and
when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.Due to limited access
for the western portion of this site and constraints due to the future extension of SH-16
through this site with no access allowed via the highway, Staff is of the opinion a higher
density development is not appropriate for this site. Additionally,for the same access
constraints, the western portion of this site is not viable as an employment center.
o Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an
annexation or rezone request, a development agreement will typically be required for
developments with a Mixed-Use designation.
guidelines ape et in the a s,,nee of a eoneeptual e+ ept ,nt plan. A conceptual
development plan was submitted after the Commission hearing for the non-residential
portion of the development as shown in Section VIT H.A development agreement is
required as a provision of annexation with the provisions listed in Section VIII.A.1.
o In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the
buildings should be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a
plaza or green space.
area on Me east side ej9CHtui-e SH 16, Me site sheuk4 be designed and bHildings arqianged
in and wiM ''i wide ine. The conceptual development plan shown in Section VILH
depicts a plaza area between the two commercial buildings.
o The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between
commercial and existing low-or medium-density residential development. Commercial
uses consisting of research &development facilities and tenant offices are proposed on
the east side offuture SH-16. The future highway will provide a separation between the
commercial and residential uses.
o Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks,
daycares,civic buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use
developments.An LDS seminary and a lot for a future Boys& Girls Club is proposed on
the L-O zoned lots which will provide community-serving uses within the development.
o Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but
not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas,open space,libraries, and schools
are expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.A high school(Owyhee)
abuts this site on the west.A plaza is proposed on the conceptual development plan
between the two commercial structures.
o 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.Although a mix of residential, civic and
commercial uses are proposed, this isn't a typical mixed-use development due to the
Page 6
Page 19
Item#4.
limited access&connectivity available to the site and the future extension of SH-16
through this site.
o 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. Two vehicular accesses (local streets)with pedestrian sidewalks alongside and a
pathway through a connected common area (i.e. Lot 9, Block 2) are proposed between
the development to the north (Chukar Ridge) and the subject development. Pedestrian
connections are also proposed for interconnectivity between the high school campus to
the west and the proposed seminary and lot where a Boys & Girls Club is anticipated to
develop along the west boundary of the site. A multi-use pathway is proposed through the
common area along the east boundary of the site, which will provide a connection
between adjacent developments to the north &south. Because SH-16 will bisect this site,
it's not feasible for the commercial portion of the site to be connected to the
residential/civic portion of the site.
o A mixed-use project should serve as a public transit location for future park-and-ride lots,
bus stops, shuttle bus stops and/or other innovative or alternative modes of transportation.
Because this site doesn't have direct access via a collector or arterial street, a public
transit facility is not feasible on this site.
o Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between
residential densities and housing types.Roadways are proposed as a transition between
residential and civic uses. Only one housing type (i.e. single-family detached) is
proposed.
o Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town, development is not subject to the
Mixed-Use standards listed herein. This guideline is not applicable.
In reviewingdevelopment evelopment applications,the following items will be considered in MU-N areas:
(Staf's anal
vsis in italics)
• Development should comply with the items listed for development in all Mixed-Use areas.
See analysis above.
• Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 40%of the development area at gross
densities ranging from 6 to 12 units/acre.Residential uses comprise 76%of the developable
area including open space;however, the gross density proposed of 3.0 units per acre is
significantly below the target density noted in the guidelines for development in MU-N
designated areas. Because this site does abut a future highway, staff has also calculated what
the residential acreage would be if the buffer along the state highway was removed. With the
buffer removed, the developable acreage would total approximately 21.22 acres; increasing
the density for 3 units to the acre to 4.38. Staff is of the opinion that additional density can be
accommodated within the proposed development. The applicant could provide a more diverse
mix of dwelling units in the form of alley-load, townhomes, or secondary dwelling units, as
submitted one type of dwelling is proposed. The feasibility of multi family in the area is
desirable as there is no employment proposed for the portion of the property that is mostly
residential. Staff anticipates higher densities to development on the property directly south of
this one based on its designation of Mixed-use Regional. In making the finding for
consistency with the plan the Commission and Council should determine if the proposed
density is appropriate for this project due to the limiting factors noted in this section of the
report.
Page 7
Page 20
Item#4.
• Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with residential buildings.
Future civic buildings should comply with this guideline.
• Three specific design elements should be incorporated into a mixed-use development: a)
street connectivity,b)open space, and c)pathways. Street connectivity, open space and
pedestrian pathways are proposed in this development and connect to the abutting residential
development to the north and the future development to the south.
• Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and commercial
land uses,maximum building size should be limited to a 20,000 square-foot building
footprint. For the development of public school sites,the maximum building size does not
apply.None of the proposed structures exceed a 20,000 square foot building footprint.
• Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places such as parks,
plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space,libraries,and schools should comprise a
minimum of 10%of the development area. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count
towards this requirement.Although not on this site, a high school exists on the adjacent
property to the west; a large amount of open space (S+/-acres) is proposed along the east
boundary of the residential development abutting the SH-16 corridor.A total of 19.1%
qualified open space is proposed overall.
• Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development
above the minimum 10%,the developer may be eligible for additional residential densities
and/or an increase to the maximum building footprint.None are requested.
• A straight or curvilinear grid or radiating street pattern is encouraged for residential areas,
and most blocks should be no more than 500' to 600' long, similar to Old Town or Heritage
Commons; larger blocks are allowed along arterial streets. The proposed development
generally meets this guideline.
The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development:
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
Only one housing type,single-family detached, is proposed in this development. Other housing
types(i.e. single-family attached units, townhomes,secondary dwellings or multi family)could
be added to this development for variety, which would increase the density of the development
more in line with the guidelines for mixed use designated areas. However, because of the
limited access to this site, Staff is hesitant to recommend more units be provided in this
development. If Commission feels a variety of housing types at a higher density should be
provided more in line with the MU-N designation, Commission should require revisions to
the plat accordingly.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities
and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of
service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer service is available in Chukar Ridge Subdivision to the north and can
be extended by the developer with development in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. The
emergency response time for the Police Dept.falls within the established goals. At this time,
the emergency response time for the Fire Dept.falls outside of the 5-minute response time
area; once Fire Station No. 8 is constructed in the summer of 2023, it will meet the response
time goal.
Page 8
Page 21
Item#4.
• "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00)
Staff believes the proposed uses and site design are compatible with each other and with the
existing high school to the west.
• "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."
(3.03.03A)
The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are
required to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans.
• "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,
easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of
usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A)
A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the common open space area adjacent
to future SH-16, which stubs to the north and south for interconnectivity with adjacent
development; other pathway connections are proposed to this pathway throughout the
development. A pedestrian pathway is also proposed to the high school campus to the west.A
substantial amount of usable open space&quality amenities is proposed in this development.
• "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic
Plans in all land use decisions (e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A)
A Traffic Impact Study(TIS) was required by ACHD for this development and was taken into
consideration in ACHD's report.
WASD submitted comments stating that approximately 93 school aged children are estimated
to be generated by this development; enrollment at the affected schools is currently under
capacity.
The closest City Park to this site is Seasons Park, a neighborhood park consisting of 7.13
acres, to the southeast of W. Ustick Rd. and N.McDermott Rd.A future City Park is
designated on the FL UM within a half mile of this site to the northwest.
• "Require all 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 site design features a large linear common open space area as a transition and
buffer between the proposed residential area and future SH-16. Lots proposed along the
northern boundary are compatible in size and area with those in Chuker Ridge.
• "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and
gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are proposed as
required with this development.
In summary, Staff believes the proposed development plan is generally consistent with the vision
of the Comprehensive Plan per the analysis above.Although the proposed density is below that
desired in MU-N designated areas and there are no supporting services for the residential
development, Staff believes the proposed development is appropriate for this area based on the
lack of access available to the site from collector or arterial roadways. The LDS seminary and
land proposed to be donated for a Boys & Girls Club will provide religious and childcare
Page 9
Page 22
Item#4.
facilities within close proximity to the high school on the abutting property to the west which will
be a benefit for area residents and the community.
V. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE ANALYSIS( L0
A. Annexation:
The proposed annexation area consists of 40 acres of land with R-8 (31..59 27.63 acres),L-O
(1.64 acres)and M-E(6777 10.72 acres)zoning districts. As discussed above in Section IV.,the
uses proposed in this development are consistent with the MU-N FLUM designation.
The proposed residential use(i.e. single-family detached homes) is principally permitted in the R-
8 district; future development should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table
11-2A-8. The LDS seminary(i.e. church or place of religious worship)is principally permitted in
the L-O district, subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-6;the Boys&Girls
Club(i.e. civic, social or fraternal organization) is a conditional use in the L-O district, subject to
the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-7; and research and development is a principal
permitted use in the M-E district—future development should comply with the dimensional
standards for the applicable district in UDC Table I1-2B-3.
The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and west and is within the City's
Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area
along with individual legal descriptions and exhibit maps for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts are
included in Section VIII.A.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure future development is consistent with the
development plan proposed with this application and with the Comprehensive Plan, Staff
recommends a new DA is required with this application,containing the provisions noted in
Section VIII.A, as discussed herein.
Beeause a eeneeptual develepmen4 plan wasn't ineluded in this appheation for-the eeaffner-eial
develepmen4 plan for-that;Pva dhat is; eensistent with the development guidelifies in the
Comprehensive-Plan for-the MU N designation. After the Commission hearing, a conceptual
development plan was submitted for the commercial M-E zoned portion of the site that is
consistent with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan for the NU-N designation.
B. Preliminary Plat:
The proposed preliminary plat consists of a total of 112 lots consisting of(93)buildable lots and
(13)common open space lots on 3 1.5927.63 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district; (2)
buildable lots on 1.64 acres of land in the L-O zoning district; (1)buildable lot on 6—.7-7 10.72
acres of land in the M-E zoning district; and(3)future right-of-way lots on 40 acres of land for
Aviator Springs Subdivision. The future ROW for SH-16 totals 7.9 acres and the McDermott
ROW is 0.8 of an acre.
The subdivision is proposed to develop in two(2)phases as shown on the preliminary plat. The
first phase will contain the land on the west side of future SH-16 and the second phase will
contain the land on the east side.
The Applicant requests approval for one building permit for the LDS seminary building to be
issued prior to subdivision of the property. Because there are no structures on this property, Staff
is amenable to the request.
Page 10
Page 23
Item#4.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures or site improvements on this property; it's currently agricultural
land.
Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3):
Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and
improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets and block
face. The proposed plat complies with these standards.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3)
Access is proposed to the western portion of the development via the extension of two(2)local
streets from the north from Chukar Ridge Subdivision.A temporary emergency access easement
has been granted to the subject property by WASD through the school property until such time as
another acceptable secondary access is provided to the site that meets Fire Dept. requirements.
Future SH-16 is planned to bisect this site on Lot 1,Block 5. Access is proposed to the eastern
portion of the site via N. McDermott Rd. Direct access via future SH-16 is prohibited. One(1)
stub street is proposed to the south for future extension and interconnectivity.
Typically,a street generally paralleling the state highway is required with development to provide
connectivity and access to all properties fronting the state highway that lie between the
Applicant's property and the nearest section line road and/or half mile collector road.Because the
developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge&Gander Creek) did not provide such a road, Staff
is not requiring one with this development. The stub street to the south is located at the back edge
of the street buffer along future SH-16,which can be extended to the south to Ustick Rd. in
accord with UDC 11-3H-4B.3.
Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Garages
and parking pads in driveways are proposed to satisfy this requirement.
The proposed street sections accommodate on-street parking on both sides of the streets for guests
in addition to driveway parking spaces on each lot; 146 spaces are proposed for guests in the
residential area along with another 28 spaces as depicted on the parking plan in Section VII.E.
Staff is of the opinion sufficient parking can be provided for this development.
Off-street parking is also required for the 600 square foot building/changing rooms at the
community swimming pool. A minimum of(1) space is required; a total of 11 spaces are
proposed, including(1)ADA space,in excess of UDC standards.
Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8):
The Pathways Master Plan does not depict any required multi-use pathways on this property. A
10' wide multi-use pathway is proposed within the common open space area adjacent to future
SH-16. The pathway is required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public use easement,which
shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal for City Engineer signature
on the final plat(s)for Phase 1.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Sidewalks are required to be provided adjacent to all streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17.
Detached sidewalks are proposed within the development as depicted on the landscape plan.
Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along all internal public streets where detached sidewalks
are proposed. All parkways should be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3A-17E.Because tree-lined streets are desired in MU-N designated areas, Staff recommends
Page 11
Page 24
Item#4.
trees and landscaping are added within all parkways per the standards in UDC 11-3A-17E
and 11-3B-7C.
Landscaping(UDC 11-381:
A 35-foot wide street buffer is required on both sides of future SH-16, a state highway and
entryway corridor. Landscaping is required to be installed within the buffer per the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-7C,which require a mix of trees and shrubs, lawn, or other vegetative
groundcover—shrub should be included in the buffer in accord with this standard.A dense buffer
is proposed on the west side of future SH-16 consisting of a mix of deciduous&coniferous trees;
shrubs should be added as required by UDC 11-313-7C. No buffer is depicted on the east
side of future SH-16; a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required in a common lot or a
permanent dedicated buffer with landscaping included on the landscape plan in accord with
UDC standards.
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3G-3E. At a minimum, one tree per 8,000 square feet of common area is required to be provided
along with lawn or other vegetative groundcover. Landscaping is proposed in excess of UDC
standards as shown on the landscape plan in Section VII.C.
Landscaping is required adjacent to all pathways per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C. A 5' wide
landscape strip is required on both sides of pathways planted with a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn
and/or other vegetative ground cover. The Landscape Requirements table should include the
linear feet of pathway with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate
compliance with UDC standards.
Landscaping is required within parkways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-
7C. The Landscape Requirements table should include the linear feet of parkways within
the development with the required vs.proposed number of trees to demonstrate compliance
with UDC standards.
Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is
required for developments over 5 acres in size. Based on the area of the plat,40 acres, a minimum
of 4 acres of qualified open space is required. The open space exhibit in Section VII.D depicts
7.64 acres(or approximately 23.8%) of common open space for the development in excess of the
minimum standards. The exhibit includes all of the street buffer along future SH-16,whereas only
50%of the buffer qualifies per UDC 11-3G-3B.4; however,the amount of open space still
exceeds the minimum standards.
Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G�•
A minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity is required for developments over 5 acres in size
and up to 20 acres,with one(1)additional amenity required for each additional 20 acres of
development area.
Based on a total of 40 acres of the residential development area, a minimum of two (2) qualified
site amenities are required.A swimming pool with changing rooms,pedestrian pathways,
additional qualified open space of at least 20,000 square feet in area and children's natural play
structures are proposed as amenities in excess of the minimum UDC standards.
Storm Drainage:
An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City's
adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow
Best Management Practices as adopted by the City. The Applicant submitted a Limited
Geotechnical EngineeringReport for the subdivision.
Page 12
Page 25
Item#4.
Pressure Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-1 :
Underground pressurized irrigation water is required to be provided for each and every lot in the
subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-15.
Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Utilities are required to be provided to the subdivision as required in UDC 11-3A-21.
Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
The Eight Mile Lateral is a large open waterway that crosses the southwest corner of the site lies
within a 50-foot wide irrigation easement that is proposed to be piped.
The UDC allows waterways such as this to remain open when used as a water amenity or linear
open space as defined in UC 11-1A-1; otherwise,they are required to be piped or otherwise
covered per UDC 11-3A-613. The decision-making body may waive this requirement if it finds
the public purpose requiring such will not be served and public safety can be preserved.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7)•
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A 6-foot tall open
vision metal fence is proposed adjacent to internal common open space areas to distinguish
common from private areas. A 6-foot tall solid vinyl fence is proposed at the back edge of
landscape buffers along local streets and at the rear of building lots facing future SH-16. A 6
Noise Attenuation Wall(11-3H-4D):
Noise abatement is required for residential uses adjoining a state highway. A berm or berm and
wall combination is required to be constructed parallel to the state highway that meets the
standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D. A 6-foot tall fence/wall is proposed on the landscape plan that
does not meet the required standards as there is no berm proposed.
In accord with City Council's direction on previous developments to the north(i.e. Chukar
Ridge& Gander Creek subdivisions),Staff recommends a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall
wall on top of the berm is constructed within the buffer along future SH-16.The berm/wall
is required to be a minimum of 10-feet higher than the elevation at the centerline of the
state highway; the wall must meet the standards in UDC 11-311-41).3.A detail of the
proposed berm/wall combination that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in
UDC 11-311-41) and as recommended by Staff should be was submitted with the*ir^' ^'^*
for-the first phase of developm after the Commission hearing.Alternative compliance may
be approved by the Director as set forth in UDC 11-5B-5 where the applicant has a substitute
noise abatement proposal in accord with ITD standards and prepared by a qualified sound
engineer per UDC 11-3H-4D.4.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Two(2)conceptual building elevations were submitted for future homes in this development as
shown in Section VII.G. Single-family detached dwellings are exemptfrom the design standards
in the Architectural Standards Manual.
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted for the
non-residential portions of the development and approved prior to submittal of applications for
building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design standards listed in
the Architectural Standards Manual.
Because homes on lots that abut future SH-16 will be highly visible,the rear and/or side of
structures on lots that face the highway should incorporate articulation through changes in
two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses,step-backs,pop-outs),
bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other integrated architectural elements
Page 13
Page 26
Item#4.
to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public
street.Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat with the requirement
of a DA with the conditions noted in Section VIII per the Findings in Section IX.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 21,2021. At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP
requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Matt Adams, The Land Group
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Todd Tucker,Boise Hunter Homes(BHH)
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting,pplication: Bill Parsons
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony
a. BHH requested the stub street to the south be shifted further to the east to align with the
planned location of the street in their future development,
b. The Applicant stated they'd like to pursue development of the LDS seminary and
residential portions of the development first and restrict development of the Boys
Girls Club lot until a second public street access is available consistent with the ACHD
conditions of approval.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. The single public street access to this development,
b. Secondary emergency access and parameters of the M-E zone.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 14,2021.At the public hearing,the
Council moved to continue the subject AZ and PP requests to January 25,2022.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Matt Adams,The Land Group: Ron Hopper
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Todd Tucker,Boise Hunter Homes
d. Written testimony: Bart Hamilton,David Austin,Holly Miller,Jen Johnson.Jennifer
Reese,Lance&Camie Olsen,Maile Thomas,Mathew&Nicole Gamette,Megan Roos.
Trish Dildine, Troy Ball, Greg Borup,Paula Horsager,Melanie Evans:Matt Adams
The Land Group
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. Many letters in support of the LDS seminary were submitted:
b. The Applicant submitted a response to the Commission recommendation(in agreement):
Page 14
Page 27
Item#4.
C. Todd Tucker,Boise Hunter Homes,requested the stub street to the south be shifted
further to the east closer to future SH-16 to alien with the planned location of the street
in their future development:
d. Concern pertaining to impacts on water usage and from traffic generated from this
development and public safety.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council:
a. Mr. Tucker's request for the stub street to the south to be shifted further to the east
closer to future SH-16:
b. Concern pertaining to this development's impact on enrollment at area schools: and.
c. Concern pertaining to this development's impact on transportation in this area.
4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation:
a. None—The Council opened the public hearing back up and continued this pro*ect to
Jan. 25'in order to hold a community workshop to discuss development's impacts on
enrollment at area schools and transportation.
Page 15
Page 28
Item#4.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation/Zoning Legal Descriptions& Exhibit Maps
�
TH LEGAL DESCRIPTION
BLAND Page 1 OF
GROUP
July 9.2021
Project No.: 120124
EXHIBIT"N'
ANNEXATION!REZONE
AVIATOR SRINGS SU BID IVISION
ACCLIMA INC,
An area of land being the Northeast one quarter of the Southeast one quarter of Section 32,
Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Eloise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly
described asfollvws:
BEGINNING at the East One Quarter corner of said Section 32(from which the Southeast
corner of said Section 32 bears South 00'29'50"West,2633.22 feet distant);
Thence South 00'29'5W West,13 16.11 feet,to the South One Sixteenth East corner of said
Section 32;
Thence North 89'20'147'West, 1324.23 feet,to the Southeast One Sixteerth corner of said
Section 32;
Thence North 00'33'03" East,1316.33 feet,to the Center East One Sixteerrth corner of said
Section 32;
Thence South 89'1Y 39r'Easy, 1323.00 fieet,to the POINT OF BE(3INNIN 3:
The above described area of land contains 40.0 acres,mere or less.
PREPARED BY:
The Land Group,Inc.
Michael Femeniar PLS Q�
D
OF 1
�4%9
Page 16
Page 29
Item#4.
CE lfI th S699i 023.00' E7/4
f — — _ an
S_32
PIIN + i
Annexation I Rezone
for
Accltma Inc.
Being the HE 1 A of the SE 1 A of Section 32
Township 4 North.Range 1 West.Boise Meridian
Ada County.Idaho I
2021
va
w
MINE1LAMN j REZONE
AREA=±40.0 Acres
NE OFTHE SE
1-3
I I .
} SE 1j1M 5 1JIM E
— — — f'l89+'2+U14'4hI132423' —
I
,4NL LA
5.32 T
3a-
0
� 1 � s.5 s_a-
L SE CDR SEC 32
OF
S.
Exhihit 'B" 25 '
2 Horizontal Scale:1'=25(Y 12U194
� o-�e��s�uarre:JuY�s,2UZ11
t �
THE Annexation I Rezone �—
a LAND Aviator Springs Subdivision �
�y 11MIMEdDROUP Acclima Inc.
VH
Page 17
Page 30
Item#4.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE
L A
N D Page 1 OF 2
GROUP
October 18,2021
Project No.:120194
EXHIBIT"A"
AVIATOR SRINGS SUBDIVISION
ACCLIMA INC.
ZONE R,8 REZONE DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4
North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particu larly described as follows:
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West, [from
which point the South 1/16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00°29'50"West,
1316.11 feet distant);
Thence North 89°19'39"West,a distance of 262.39 feet on the east-west mid-section line of said
Section 32 to a point of curve,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence 673.35 feet on the a rc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 13,000.00 feet,
a central angle of 02'58'04",a chord bearing of South 08"15'S9"West,and a chord length of
673.28 feet on the proposed centerline of Highway 16;
Thence South 09'45' 00"West,a distance of 657.04 feet on the proposed centerline of H ighway
16 to a point on the south line of said Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32;
Thence North 89'20'14"West,a distance of 865.18 feet on said south line to the southeast
1/16th corner of said Section 32;
Thence North 00'33'03"East,a distance of 570.42 feet on the west line of said Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32;
Thence South 89"25'18"East,a distance of 217.12 feet;
Thence North 00'40'21"East,a distance of 176.Q0 feet;
Thence North 89'25'18"West,a dista noe of 217.49 feet to a paint on the west line of said
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32;
Thence North 00'33'03"East,a distance of 19.62 feet on said west line;
Thence South 89"25'18"East,a distance of 217.54 feet;
Thence North 00'40'21"East,a distance of 155.94 feet;
Thence North 89'19'39"West,a distance of 41.70 feet to a point of curve;
Thence 25.23 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 67.00 feet,a
central angle of 21"34'42",a chord bearing of North 78"32'18''West,and a chord length of
25.08 feet;
Thence South 22"15'03"West,a distance of 11.20 feet;
Thence North 89'25'18"West,a distance of 147.39 feet to a paint on the west line of said
Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32;
462 East Shore Drive,suite 100_Eagle. Idaho 03616 208.938_4041 thelandgroupinc_com
Page 31
Item#4.
October 19,2021
Page 2
Thence North 00'33'03" East,a distance of 399.96 feet on said west line to a point on the
east-west mid-section line of said Section 32;
Thence South 89"19'39"East,a distance of 1060.61 feet on said mid-section line to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.
The above described contains 27.63 acres more or less.
PREPARED BY:
The Land Group,Inc.
P. '7880
10-19-2021
1P O
Ot�4
James R.Washburn R WA,�
Page 19
Page 32
Item#4.
CE 1116th N8919'391W 1323,00, S.32 S.33
589°19'39"E 1060.61' 262.39'
522-15-03-W 11.20' C2 PDB E1/4
07 N89'25'18"W
I .--- — -- II 147.39 N89°19'39"Plr T; I } +
M 41.70'
r1 x
I� wI !U
v ua
Im
589'25'18"E 21IT54 _ p '
w — NOW33'031 19.62' _ r
c '18"W 217.4
-- I — °25—N89 9
0 0
o a �
— u7
N
WI �I
DETAIL o i $
Q I �
I" $
LL
cm58 a----672 '18'—E217.12'----�
Ic DETAIL
ZONE R-B SCALE:1"=100
AREA:1,203,692 I T2 i
(27.63 AC)
N89`20'14'W 865,18' _____ 459,05'
5E 1/16th —-- N89'20'14"W 132423' S 1/16th E
Curve Table
LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH � T
a 880 �2 Cl 673.35' 13,000,00' 2°58'04' S081151591W 673.28' r
1 0/1 912 0 2 1 S.32 S.33
° C2 25.23' 67,00' 21°3442' N78'32'18"W 25.08'
T'qT�OF k��� S.5 5.4
]?,WA SE COR SEC 32
0 250' 500'
Exhibit "B"
s_
120194
Horeantal Scale;1'=250' Date of Issuance:1W1W021
THE Rezone Exhibit
Mfg LAND Zone R-8 0
d CrOGROUP
d��
Page 20
Page 33
Item#4.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THE
LAND Page 1 OF
MEL GROUP
August 20,2021
Project No_:120194
EXHIBIT"A"
AVIATOR SRINGS SUi3UIVISION
ACCLIMA INC_
REZONE—ZONE L-0
A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4
North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particularly described asfollows:
Corn mend ng at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West,(from
which poi nt the South 1f16th cornercommon to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South00°29'S0"West,
1316.11 feet distant);
Thence North 89'19'39"West,1323.00 feet onthe east-west mid-section Iinetothe Center East One
Sixteenth corner of said Section 32,
Thence South 00°33'03"West,a distance of 399.96 feet on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 32 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 89'25'18'Easy,a distance of 147.39 feet;
Thence North 22°15'03'East a distance of 11.20 feet to a point of curve,
Thence 25.23 feet on the arc of a curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 67_OD feet,a
centra I a ngle of 21'34'42",a chord bea ring of South 78"32'18'East,a nd a chord length of
2512 feet;
Thence South 89'19'39'East,a distance of 41_70 feet;
Thence South 00'40'21'West,a distance of 155.134feet-,
Thence North 89'25'18"West,a distance of 217.54 feet to a point on the west line of the
North east Qua rter of the So utheast Quarter of Section 32,
Thence North 000 33'03'East,a distance of 150.33 fleet on said west line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Th a above d es€ri bed parcel contains 33,162 square feet(0.76 acres)more o r less_
TO13MEFt WITH
REZONE—ZONE L-0
A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4
North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, being more particu la rly described as follows:
Commendng at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West,(from
which the South 1f 16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00029,50"West,
1316.11 feet distant);
452 East Shore DFIVe, Salle 140, Eaglle. Mahn B31616 2a9.939 4a41 thelandgroupine corm
Page 21
Page 34
Item#4.
August 20,2021
Page 2
Thence North 89°19'39"West,1323.CO feet on the east-west mid-section line to the Center East One
Sixteenth corner of said Section 32;
Thence South 00°3T03"West,a distance of 569.91 feet on the west line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Southeast Quarter of Section 32 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 89025'1r East,217.49 feet;
Thence South 00°4('2 r West,a distance of 176.00 fleet;
Thence North 89 025'18"West,a d ista nce of 217.12 feet to a point on the west line of the
North east Qua rter of the So utheast Quarter of Section 32;
Thence North 00°33'03"East 176.00 feet on said west line to the POINT OF BEGINNING_
The above described contains 38,246 square feet(028 acres) more or less_
PREPARED 6Y:
The Land Group, Inc. �+ N
"7880 :
9-24-2021
James R_Washburn rr pF�
Site Planning•Landscape Architertu re■UVil Engineering•Surveying
462 E_Shore Drive,Su'rte 100.Eagle,Idaho 83616+P 208.939AM1+www_thelandgroupin€_cam
Page 22
Page 35
Item#4.
C E 1}1ljttt
� N99`f 9'3�'ywf 1323.OD' E1{4 —-- 5-33
r — — — — — 5-32
N22'15?03'E 11.29--\
I 747.3 " M919-39-E
�o POBg1 41-79'
I
ZONE L-0 r—
�•��• —� Mw" AREA±33,162 FV
1 �I
r r
f+199°291M 217.54'
� r j ses57a'—�i�.asr
DETAIL r + ZONE L-0 I
AREA±3d,2ilS W T I
� Q I
I r
N895'18'SY— I
DETAIL
I
5E 11161h — — SCALE:1'=1 OLI' S 1{I Btlr E
1
F19�°2b14"W 1324.23'
� LA �
r Curve Table 6I�
r o CURW LEN" RADIUS Or-.-A L[IORD HEARING CHORD LENGTH
- 0-2021 G1 25.23' 67.00' 21'34'4� S78'32115'E 25.09 S-32 S-33
)0 5.5 5-4
�',k WA SE COR SEC 32 —+
r
Exhibit mBm 0 250 501Y
Hodzontal Scab:1'=L1170 120194
Din of 6sUa E:MI 1,TD21
THE Rezone Exhibit
LAND Zane L-0
- RDUP ,r
Page 23
Page 36
Item#4.
�� ��, LEGAL DESCRIKION
.: .` THE
10 LAND Page 1 OF 1
�. GROUP
October 19,2021
Project No.:120194
EXHIBIT"A"
AVIATOR SRINGS SUBDIVISION
ACCLIMA INC.
ZONE M-E REZONE DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land located in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32,Township 4
North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the East Quarter Corner of Section 32 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West, (from
which point the South 1/16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33 bears South 00°29'50"West,
1316.11 feet distant),said East Quarter Corner of Section 32 being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 00"29'50''West,a distance of 1316.11 feet on the east line of said Section 32 to
the South 1r16th corner common to Section 32 and Section 33;
Thence North 89'20'14"West,a distance of 459.05 feet on the south line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 32;
Thence North 09'45'00"East,a distance of 657.04 feet to a point of curve;
Thence 673.35 feet on the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 13,000.00
feet,a central angle of 02'58'04",a chord bearing of North 08'15'59"East,and a chord length
of 673.28 feet to a point on the east-west mid-section line of said Section 32;
Thence South 89'19'39"East,a distance of 262.39 feet on said mid-section line to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 10.72 acres more or less.
PREPARED BY:
The Land Group,Inc. LAN'0
.0
a 7880
1D-19-2021
dy 9T or
James R.Washburn .WA�
462 East Shore Drive,Suite 100,Eagle, Idaho 83616 208.939.4041 thdandgraupinc.com
Page 24
Page 37
Item#4.
E114 z 1 S.33
589°19'39"E 1323.00' POe
—
CE 1 J16th — — 1060.fi1' — — � i 262.39"
S.32 I
� 1 r
r r �
F3 ZONE M-E r r
AREA:467,071
W (10.72AC)
g �w
PROPOSED CENTERLINE OF HIGHWAY 16 — r
�r r
r r �
865.18' 459,05'
1,LA1Vb SE 1,116th N89°20'f4"W 1324.23' S 11167E
Curve Table
7880 CURVE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH a
1 011 81202 1 r
�° C1 673.35 13,000,00' 2a58'04' Mall 659"E 673.28'
S.32 S.33
R,w S.5 S.4
T SE COR SEC 32
a
s
E
0 250' 500'
Exhibit "B"
s
3 i Horizontal Scale:l'=250 12C194
Date(if Issuance:1gr W021
# s
a �
THE Rezone Exhibit
r
LAND Zone M-E o
GROUP T
Page 25
Page 38
Item#4.
B. Preliminary Plat&Phasing Plan (date: °/%r12/2/21)-Revised
yiciuiLy Nap:
THE
is E
e LA
L
Ii. xo
.I
' i ] rmsrs,E
-- �.
- A
Lepq: PwPen1'Puner.
rJ� II.J rJr�rr- �..;.�• .i'�:' �;;' I � oe.elacer
�•• — `\,'� .m,., �...,.u< Planner,En�tl f V J •• ••• �I °„ ginee,,Landscape AmNrect:
6-- —_-- ��r o..�n y •:'`.��• v Y —r�jr Mzm r.,-nu.n r.n, �v Q
20
.J dd•: :.rc...y".���.s� y
• � m
Jar 11w. — •.`'•r ..
16
CD M
CJ
Benchmark.RAVD•BE Datum �
I r_ •::'�I�il.�.i�w I�fl.:.!I�•I.�.i.',�`�• '"^�.' I� - .�-a
i L W L J L J
r v - .�
-- _,,,,, �Ir=1l. Il�li• wl!�!=1F .un,x wnu M«sa�-va „v,�,r,. nur[m[
13
�� LJ JLs'LJL -a.� ----- -------
III Preliminary Plat-Dvervier
yi ••- PP-01
Page 26
Page 39
�' �11l111s � ra I
e L
��,,E3R�11�l�►���
-
a
m
00
�.
111111 ®il�lriifi
.. 0■ �fi,
.o ��►� 111111�, �q F- ,.
®d, SSSIvrl■ri
�-•_ r
�t
Item#4.
r� LAND
aoM IaItlB:Bpe Butter-conmctlnlm polar Wage 9JGGnngn
G
O
3
H J
C13J
!A�
a
ao�ne 8�91e t p
+1
�I C3reoemrannu.yeamaaurs�gaiarea r ��•���•
Phi LPm03
Page 28
Page 41
Item#4.
D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 9/3/21)
OPEN SPACE CALCULATION:
I I QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE: a
I 332,967 SR FT Q=
TOTAL BOUNDARY SQUARE FOOTAGE: W=C
uwe RINE Tueo1rIsIEN• 2,506-SF i 1,742,400 SQ FT =act I=
4,783-SF — ' i BOUNDARY SQUARE FOOTAGE MINUS HWY 16- Ca
4,169-SF r 1,399,10E SIG FT
_ PCT.OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE OVERALL= 1
19.1%
PCT.OF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE MINUS HWY 16-
238% IS/►1'I1i■
. ALL
8,365-SF ; �I
--- , "NOTE-OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS DEPICTED ON
- THIS SHEET ONLY INCLUDE FUNCTIONAL OPEN
SPACE AREA COMMON/OPEN SPACE LOT
CALCULATION ON PRE-PLAT OVERVIEW INCLUDES
10,873 SF GEA AND THE EC R E SE
CONDARY MERG NCY
ACCESS.CALCULATIONS INCLUDE BOTH
_r 215,356-SF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.
FUTURE HWY 16 LOCATION
7,126-SF
Ism J
35,013-31' �
Imo.
C17 •"�
-� 2.48C-S= a.. >Z
8-MIME L.-__A_IR:.1,3A.TIChJCm
a 0 250' 50C' Cn
g Preliminary Plat-Open Space Exhibit -cc d —
�.. Horizonhal Scale:1"_?5T PrajedAo,:12h191 LP-04
�� Dale o1 I�NnCz D9,0.3JA21
Page 29
Page 42
Item#4.
E. Parking Exhibit
II Legend:
1 1 REGIOEMAL USE Q=
OVERFLDWSTNEET
PARKING WCD
aw.awwu�Na,r 28 SPACES `=Q
_ VNTOR OVERFLOW r CM
1 21 SPACES `�— SREEPFRRING
I
I
14 SPACES 5 SPACES _
UI 22 SPACES I�'. PARKING CALCULATIONS:
RESIDENTIAL USE PARKING:
III 3-4 BEDROOM RESIDENTIAL LOT P LOTS @ 4R}U]
= REQUIRED:372
PROVIDED:372(INCLUDES COVERED
I J GARAGE PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS
7 SPACESIN
I� POOL AMENITY PARKING:(600 SF @ 1 PER 500 SF)
18 SPACES ff +II REQUIRED:2;1 ADA
ILPROVIDED:10;1 ADA
li RESIDENTIAL USE OVERFLOW STREET PARKING:
— 4 SPACES f REQUIRED:0
r19 J I PROVIDED-146 .y
SPACES
.=10
VISITOR OVERFLOW STREET PARKING:
fl j I' REQUIRED-0
+ PROVIDED:28 C4
v
Ch SPALS� j 'I =J
12 SPACES Ca
1 17 717
1 CA i17 r
3 17 SPACES_J y, i >Z
3 h CJ
a29 0 250' 50c, Cr) y d
g Preliminary Plat-Parking Exhihit d 4 —
LP-05
�.. Horizorrtal Scale =25ff ar4ec+wo,:nG I�s�
1 D31c 0 Isom 09,0.3=
.ma
Page 30
Page 43
Item#4.
F. Circulation Exhibit
LANO
4 w = GROUP
91
FUTURE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL
L- I CHUKAR RIDGE SUB 11
mom
• -AcrwEarENr siruFr '-- �- ,,
• e o �
` OWMEEHIGH
W SCHOOL ..... - x
i a
31
a` cr
1. m =
Il FUTURE � CL
- BY OTHERS
ENDEAVOR STREET
= ' FUTURE
BY OTHERS
--.USHCK ROAD
ui oN Surrounding Areas
Ex
Page 31
Page 44
G. Conceptual Building Elevations
i'
Low
Page 32
k,6�
r
3
A
�,yJl k
r � _
Item#4.
H. Conceptual Development Plan(dated: 9/3/21)
ProPerN - amotec rsenrecoei¢ THE
LUD
�...—.�.— El
.. NM
rreiece oeecnoton nntx nmtea
,.. �. semimemeno-
I - --------------
armor
1 ---ASsHTRh r�7
o "&E2 < RA 0
a�
i LDT1B1�5 16)� x =J
�� ArA*' SOD ovo®DoaaoOti�•. e
. �_ •• pDpaOOD oovoa0000aoa��d'
= rArf A DODOpO D r A r D O O Du o 0
oo000....
00op[I0 Q:•
a Q
� A �aDaoppo� oaoa00000a000 O p p R •, ::
A��A a a o 00000000000aoo p p �`�' rr��
0.4.fl.ovon 4o0.0.Q.Q •:::4-f.. Sd .. . . .. ..... ...... ... ...
------------
Preliminary Plat-Acclima Concept Plan Lot 2 Block 5
.. PP-11
Page 33
Page 46
Item#4.
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian and the property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA
shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Development of the subject property shall be generally consistent with the preliminary
plat,phasing plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit, conceptual development plan and
conceptual building elevations.
b. A mix of uses shall be developed on this site consistent with that proposed(i.e.
residential, church/civic and commercial) and as required in the MU-N designation.
c. Pfie,-t deyel,,,.. en4 f the AST E�eaed.,.,t4ie .f the site the development. ee a4
shall be amended to inelude a eeneeptual development plan t44 is eensistent with UDG
standards and the guidelines for-development in the MU N designation. if filultiple The
commercial buildings ffe proposed in the development area on the east side of future SH-
16,the bu ldingr shall be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a
plaza or green space in accord with the development guidelines in the Comprehensive
Plan for Mixed Use—Neighborhood designated areas and as shown on the conceptual
development plan in Section VII.H.
d. One building permit for the LDS seminary building shall be allowed prior to subdivision
of the property.
e. Noise abatement is required to be provided within the street buffer along future SH-16 in
accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D and as required by City Council in
previous developments to the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge and Gander Creek Subdivisions -
6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall on top of berm).
2. The final plat shall include the following revisions:
a. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along the east side of future SH-16 in a
common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer on Lot 1,Block 5; include a note stating
the buffer will be maintained by the property owner or business owner's association in
accord with UDC 11-313-7C.2.
b. Include a note prohibiting access to future SH-16.
3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall be revised as follows:
a. Add Class II trees and landscaping within all parkways within the development in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11-313-7C as desired in MU-N
designated areas.
b. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along the east side of future SH-16 either in
a common lot or a permanent dedicated buffer on Lot 1,Block 5; depict landscaping
within the buffer in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C. Include shrubs
within all required street buffers.
Page 34
Page 47
Item#4.
c. Include calculations in the Project Calculations table that demonstrate compliance with
the standards for pathway(11-3B-12C)and parkway(11-3B-7C)landscaping; include
required vs.provided number of trees.
d. Include a detail of the berm or berm and wall combination required for noise abatement
along future SH-16 that demonstrates compliance with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3H-4D and is consistent with what City Council required on previous developments to
the north(i.e. Chukar Ridge&Gander Creek—a 6-foot tall berm with a 6-foot tall wall
on top of the berm); or apply for alternative compliance as allowed by UDC 11-3H-4D.4
as set forth in UDC 11-513-5.
4. A 14-foot wide public use easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division for the multi-
use pathway within the common open space area along future SH-16 prior to submittal of the
Phase 1 final plat for City Engineer signature.
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district and 11-2B-3 for the L-O and M-E zoning
districts.
6. Off-street parking is required to be provided for all residential units in accord with the
standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
7. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that are visible from future SH-16 shall incorporate
articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,
recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material types,or other
integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are
visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this
requirement.
8. Non-residential buildings shall be proportional to and blend in with residential buildings as
set forth in the Comprehensive Plan.
9. All waterways on this site shall be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6B unless otherwise
waived by City Council(i.e. the Eight Mile Lateral).
10. A conditional use permit application is required to be submitted and approved for the Boys
and Girls Club(i.e. civic, social or fraternal organization)in the L-O zoning district as
required by UDC Table 11-2B-2. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC
11-4-3-7 is required.
11. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review applications shall be submitted for
the non-residential portions of the development and approved prior to submittal of
applications for building permits. All non-residential structures shall comply with the design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by GeoTek,Inc. indicates some very
specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence
of these recommendations.
1.2 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer
Reimbursement Fees in the amount of$265.25 per building lot. The aggregate amount of
the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid with the first
final plat application.
Page 35
Page 48
Item#4.
1.3 The applicant shall be required to pay the Oaks Lift Station Pump Upgrades
Reimbursement fees in the amount of$185.43 per building lot. The aggregate amount of
the reimbursement fees for the entire preliminary plat area must be paid prior to city
signatures on the first final plat.
1.4 Ensure infiltration trenches are located so that sewer service lines do not pass through
them.
1.5 Install blow-off valve per standard drawing W 13 at the southern property boundary.
1.6 Ensure no permanent structures(trees, fences,bushes,buildings, car ports,trash
enclosures,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc.) are placed within utility easements.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is
three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate
materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments
Standard Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and
water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a
reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of
public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall
be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be
dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of
Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for
reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public
Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,
which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"
map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be
sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a
note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,
and approved prior to development plan approval.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-
round source of water(MCC 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.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the
final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject
to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with
MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,
intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall
be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply
with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
Page 36
Page 49
Item#4.
2.7 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.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for
this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all
uncompleted fencing,landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on
the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and
construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the
issuance of a plan approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set
a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is
to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have
been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be
required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record
drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be
received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any
structures within the project.
2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light
plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.orglpublic_works.aspx?id=272.
Page 37
Page 50
Item#4.
2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the
amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=237898&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
i &cr=1
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=237478&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=239097&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=238412&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=239724&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=239278&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C
hty
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.ory/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=240021&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
hty
J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240082&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
Page 38
Page 51
Item#4.
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-8,L-O and M-E and subsequent
development is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to surrounding land
uses, existing development patterns,future extension of Hwy 16 and limited access.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment will allow for the development of single-
family detached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available
within the City consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by
any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited
to, school districts; and
The Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse
impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services
within the City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
The Commission finds that the proposed plat is generally consistent with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan due to surrounding land uses, existing development patterns,future
extension of Hwy 16 and limited access. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section
IV. of this report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
The Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with
development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers)
Page 39
Page 52
Item#4.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City's capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the
proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police,
Fire, ACHD, etc.). (See Section VIII for more information)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and,
The Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated
with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist
on this site that require preserving.
Page 40
Page 53
E IDIAN.;---
Applicant's Presentation
Page 4
Aviator Springs Subdivision January 25, 2022 Council Hearing
West Ada School District: Long Range Planning proven track record and past bond passage has a Future school sites are existing School Capacity Toolkitefficient & fiscally responsibleIntentional,
Reactive approach: 40 students (previously 67)Revised enrollment projection: Data driven, real time process
WASD Enrollment Projection Revised-
School Capacity Toolkit placed on the property Portable classrooms to build new schools to fit the enrollment needs Passage of a bond adjustments if there is availability in a nearby
school Attendance area students to an alternate school with available classrooms Transporting
Summary Zone, and Preliminary Plat-REQUEST APPROVAL: Annexation, Re Other educational opportunities exist that relieve enrollment in public schoolsWest Ada School District will enroll
all students that registerWest Ada School District has a planning process in place that is working Student capacity is available for the students from Aviator Springs Sub
E IDIAN.;---
Public Presentations and Documents
N11■■1111■M11■
M..
_ '� _= 11111��IIIII�IIII�
• Ek 111111111111111111
� - V'�e�� Tad ��talat�ral �
P;�fM1MI- 1Rd - -- -- - — - V41c Millbn Rid
la e Dr
NINE
MWAIII � f
y � /
r /
� IIIII/I/ — ■�■ �'�r n,�/III
III/Aw
I/
II ■
11111111 �� ///I � � � 1111111
11► II/j/ , MINErill
1
- IIIIII/ • ::.-1�.,.� r � 11111111
III
■ ■■ - �' 11111� I,
- ■■ � � � .
D-3hi.m c Lai ra k
n AllLN
"
�A ii«u• ' � a 1 P
■ -
fill"
E IDIAN.;---
Public Presentations and Documents
'� � •�-'_'Jt. i ., I;r:IrW li„Ij-1,-1't-;
r �J�
L J L JL JL JLrJ
---- .L ; r�nnr-1nr�rri—�r•� III '
i �:i: .i. _: ,_. _ •���� .—� ! LJL JL JLJL�I•LJ "1
T T T T
Lebo - - --Jk — .I
LaJ L!]
rJr I Jrlf— '��•—
Q '! � � - • �!I;vil,�i�il.�.ilwll,�:il W{• l � i.
��'"' LJL JL J$�•JL JL JL JL J" it
Y
• - -JL JL JL SL JL.•�
ir
BF. IM F
t
'� � •�-'_'Jt. i ., I;r:IrW li„Ij-1,-1't-;
r �J�
L J L JL JL JLrJ
---- .L ; r�nnr-1nr�rri—�r•� III '
i �:i: .i. _: ,_. _ •���� .—� ! LJL JL JLJL�I•LJ "1
T T T T
Lebo - - --Jk — .I
LaJ L!]
rJr I Jrlf— '��•—
Q '! � � - • �!I;vil,�i�il.�.ilwll,�:il W{• l � i.
��'"' LJL JL J$�•JL JL JL JL J" it
Y
• - -JL JL JL SL JL.•�
ir
BF. IM F
t
y y }
J J Q
�i 2 _ ........._...:
a
� �N N _`_
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1964: An Ordinance Authorizing the Conveyance of Certain
City-Owned Real Property to the Ada County Highway District for Right of Way Purposes
Consisting of Approximately 1.66 Acres Located at Discovery Park, 2121 E. Lake Hazel Road;
Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute and Attest on Behalf of the City of Meridian the
Deed and Other Documents Necessary to Complete the Transaction; Providing for a Waiver of
the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 98
ORDINANCE NO. 22-1964
CITY OF MERIDIAN
BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN CITY
OWNED REAL PROPERTY TO THE ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT FOR
RIGHT OF WAY PURPOSES CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 1.66 ACRES
LOCATED AT DISCOVERY PARK, 2121 E. LAKE HAZEL ROAD;
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN THE DEED AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE TRANSACTION; PROVIDING
FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code 50-1401, the City Council has statutory
authority to sell, exchange, or convey any real property owned by the city which is
underutilized or which is not used for city public purposes; and,
WHEREAS, when it is determined by the City Council to be in the City's best
interest, the Council may by Ordinance duly enacted, authorize the transfer or conveyance
of the real property to any tax supported governmental entity without compensation; and,
WHEREAS,the proposed transaction would result in the disposition of real property
that is no longer needed for City purposes; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held at the regular meeting of the Meridian City
Council on January 25, 2022 and at the conclusion of said hearing, the City Council moved
to approve the conveyance of the property, subject to certain terms and conditions, and
directed staff to bring forth this Ordinance authorizing the conveyance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO:
Section 1. That a public hearing on the proposed conveyance was held at the January
25, 2022 meeting of the Meridian City Council.
Section 2. That the City Council determined after the public hearing that the subject
property is no longer needed for City purposes and that it is in the City's best interest to
transfer the real property to the Ada County Highway District without compensation.
Section 3. That the City Council has reviewed and approved the legal description of
the Subject Property as identified and depicted on the attached Exhibits A and B,
incorporated herein by this reference.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 1 of 4
Section 4. That the Mayor and City Clerk shall be authorized to execute and attest a
standard form warranty deed, associated licenses and easements (both permanent and
temporary), and any other documents necessary to complete the conveyance authorized by
this Ordinance.
Section 5.That all City of Meridian ordinances,or resolutions,or parts thereof,which
are in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed.
Section 6. 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 251" day of
January 2022.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 25th day of
January 2022.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Robert E. Simison,Mayor Chris Johnson,City Clerk
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY:
William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the
summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate
notice to the public.
William L. M. Nary, City Attorney j
i
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1964
An ordinance authorizing the conveyance of approximately 1.66 acres of city owned real
property to the Ada County Highway District for right of way purposes located at
Discovery Park, 2121 E. Lake Hazel Road in Ada County Idaho; and adopting a savings
clause. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at Meridian City Hall, 33 E.
Broadway Avenue,Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of
publication of this summary. Ordinance Exhibit B (Map) shall be published as part of this
Summary.
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 2 of 4
Item#5.
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Legal Description
Discovery Park Site
City of Meridian Right-Of-Way Dedication
A parcel being located in the E Y2 of the NW X.of Section 5,Township 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise
Meridian,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of the NW%4(N%4 corner)of
said Section 5,from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said Section 5
bears N 89°57'43"W a distance of 2663,79 feet;
Thence S 0'01'18"W along the east boundary of said NW%a distance of 500.00 feet to a point
marking the northeast corner of the Permanent Easement as shown in Instrument No.2018-053318,
Ada County Records,and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said boundary and the easterly boundary of said Permanent Easement S
0°01'18"W a distance of 1372.46 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said boundaries N 89°58'42"W a distance of 67.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0'01'18"E a distance of 143.60 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°58'42"W a distance of 8.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0'01'18"E a distance of 80.81 feet to a point;
Thence S 89°58'42"E a distance of 3.00 feel to a point;
Thence N 0°01'18"E a distance of 98.71 feet to a point;
Thence N 5°28'36"E a distance of 168.32 feet to a point on a curve;
Thence a distance of 135.80 feet along the arc of a 1038.50 foot radius non-tangent curve right,said
curve having a central angle of 7°29'32"and a long chord bearing N 3°51'38"E a distance of 135.70
feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Thence a distance of 45.22 feet along the arc of a 961.50 foot radius curve left,said curve having a
central angle of 2°41'41"and a long chord bearing N 6"15'34"E a distance of45.22 feet to a point
on the westerly boundary of said Permanent Easement;
Thence N 0°01'18"W a distance of 701.44 feet to a point;
Thence S 89"58'22"E a distance of 42.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 72,131 square feet(1.66 acres)more or less and `p�'pL LANDS
is subject to any easements existing or in use. �0 5 r E GAF
D 1
O
Clinton W.Hansen,PLS a 11118 x
Land Solutions,PC �-L iol ls -z =
December 1,2021 < rF of \o
TaN W.NP
Land bl 1$!ons Discvery Park
J■�aa� u"9 Meridian ROW De6lca114
Job No.14-114
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 3 of 4 Page 101
Item#5.
EXHIBIT B -1
DEPICTION OF REAL PROPERTY
DISCOVERY PARK SITE
CITY OF MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
LOCATED IN THE E 112 OF THE NW 114 OF SECTION 5, T.2N., R.1 E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
BASIS OE BEARING 32 33
31 32 N89-57'43'W 2663.79 1/4 32 589'S6'49'E 2659.20' _
6 5 W. LAKE HAZEL ROAD 5 5 4
� o '
0
589'58'22"E \
vi 42.00' 1
POINT OF BEGINNING \
1
it
—1 r a?.
I I
aI I \
n
WI
�I I
dl I
=I I
I I
I I�
I I�
1 p
I I�
I�
to
511�1.
wl c�I
'ry• dl
w
�M1 u?I
NO'01'18"E �I
S89'56'42'E 3.00'--j �1
NO.01'18"E 80.81� ^
N89'55'42'W S 00'� \ONPL LAN
N0'01'18'E-/I 1 5 S rER G�
143.60' 1_a-- --- ---- / O
0' 150' 300' 600' s7.OQ o
N89'S8'42"W 111 8
' Nib I'Lf o4 2.(ZO
2
OF
CURVE TABLE D W.
CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD L Olutlo
C1 135,80' 1038.50' 729'32' N3'51'38"E 135.70' Land Surveying and Consulting
231 E.5TH ST..5TE A
C2 45.22' 961.50' 2'41'41° N6'15'34"E 45.212' MERIDIAN.ID 63642
(208)28B-2040 (208)286-2557 fe.
w Iandsclutmns.ha AB Q.19-:
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY-Page 4 of 4 Page 02
Discovery Park Phase 2/SUBP21-0152
Recreation Avenue
T 2N, R 1 E, Sec 05
WARRANTY DEED
THIS INDENTURE made this 25th day of January_, 2022 , by City of
Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, the "GRANTOR". and ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY
DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, the "GRANTEE";
WITNESSETH:
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the GRANTOR has granted, conveyed, bargained and sold,
and does hereby grant, bargain, sell, convey and confirm to the GRANTEE and its successors
and assigns forever, that certain real property situated in the COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF
IDAHO, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a
part hereof,
TOGETHER with all and singular the buildings, structures, improvements, and fixtures thereto,
the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging or in anywise appertaining,
the reversion and reversions, remainder and remainders, and rents, issues and profits thereof(the
"Premises").
SUBJECT TO general taxes and assessments for the current year which are not yet due
and payable, easements of record or obvious on a physical inspection of the Premises, any
recorded reservation of oil and/or mineral rights and covenants of record.
Subject to those exceptions to title to which this conveyance is expressly made subject
and those made, suffered or done by the GRANTEE: (a) the GRANTOR covenants to the
GRANTEE, its successors and assigns, that the GRANTEE shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful
possession of the Premises; and (b) GRANTOR warrant to the GRANTEE, its successors and
assigns, that GRANTOR are the owners of said Premises in fee simple and have the right and
authority to convey the same to GRANTEE, and GRANTOR will defend the GRANTEE's title
from all lawful claims whatsoever.
The current address of the GRANTEE is:
Ada County Highway District
3775 Adams Street
Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this WARRANTY DEED has been duly executed by and on
behalf of the GRANTOR, the day, month and year herein first above written.
Warranty Deed, page 1
(10/27/01)
S:\DSREVIEW\1-Subdivisions\Discovery Park 2\Easements\Discover Park 2-City of Meridian-DEED.doc
GRANTOR
Robert E. Simison, Mayor
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO )
ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 1-25-2022
[date]
by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the city of Meridian, in their capacities as
Mayor and City Clerk, respectively.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires 3-28-2022
Residing in Meridian, Idaho
Notary for Idaho
The Ada County Highway District(ACHD) is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and related regulations and directives. ACHD assures that no person shall on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, gender, disability or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any ACHD service, program or activity.
Warranty Deed,page 2
(10/27/01)
S:\DSREVIEW\I-Subdivisions\Discovery Park 2\Easements\Discover Park 2-City of Meridian-DEED.doc
Item#5.
DISCOVERY PARK SITE
CITY OF MERIDIAN RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION
LOCATED IN THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.2N., R.1 E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
BASIS OF BEARING 32 33
31 32 N89'57'43"W 2663.79' 1/4 32 S89'S6'49"E 2659.20' _
6 5 W. LAKE HAZEL ROAD 5 5 4
0 0 0
Cr o
o w
� CJ.D
o Q
00 Cn
cn
� o
S89'58'22"E o
vi 42.00'
POINT OF BEGINNING
42'
�I I
wl I
0o L
zI l
I 1
I I�
I I�
I IN
1 1'-
Nf I3
U hco
to
UI�I.
Cv wI31
°CI
'EMI (DI
�N� �i
zl
NO'01'18"E U,
98.71''] M
S89'58'42"E 3.00'- N
NO'01'18"E 80.81�
N89'58'42"W 8.00''A I NPL LA IVO
NO'01'18'EJI I 5 S T£,Q G,p
143.60'
0' 150' 300' 600' N867
58 402"W o. 1 1 1 8
'9 P
OF
CURVE TABLE N W.
CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD Lan futions
C1 135.80' 1038,50' 7'29'32" N3'51'38"E 135.70' Land Surveying and Consulting
231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A
C2 45.22' 961.50 2'41'41" N6'15'34"E 45.22' MERIDIAN,ID 83642
(208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax
www.landsolutions.biz JOB
Page 105
Item#5.
Legal Description
Discovery Park Site
City of Meridian Right-Of-Way Dedication
A parcel being located in the E '/2 of the NW'/4 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of the NW'/4(N '/4 corner) of
said Section 5, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of said Section 5
bears N 89057'43" W a distance of 2663.79 feet;
Thence S 0001'18" W along the east boundary of said NW'/4 a distance of 500.00 feet to a point
marking the northeast corner of the Permanent Easement as shown in Instrument No. 2018-053318,
Ada County Records, and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said boundary and the easterly boundary of said Permanent Easement S
0001'18"W a distance of 1372.46 feet to a point;
Thence leaving said boundaries N 89058'42" W a distance of 67.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0001"8" E a distance of 143.60 feet to a point;
Thence N 89°58'42"W a distance of 8.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0'01'18" E a distance of 80.81 feet to a point;
Thence S 89058'42" E a distance of 3.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0001'18" E a distance of 98.71 feet to a point;
Thence N 5028'36" E a distance of 168.32 feet to a point on a curve;
Thence a distance of 135.80 feet along the arc of a 1038.50 foot radius non-tangent curve right, said
curve having a central angle of 7029'32" and a long chord bearing N 3051'38" E a distance of 135.70
feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Thence a distance of 45.22 feet along the arc of a 961.50 foot radius curve left, said curve having a
central angle of 2041'41" and a long chord bearing N 6015'34" E a distance of 45.22 feet to a point
on the westerly boundary of said Permanent Easement;
Thence N 0001'18" W a distance of 701.44 feet to a point;
Thence S 89058'22" E a distance of 42.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 72,131 square feet (1.66 acres) more or less and \pNp L LA No sG
is subject to any easements existing or in use. � S T 6R �G
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS
11118
Land Solutions, PC ��7-101 (2VZ
December 1, 2021
T�/V
/t.IAJ11� OIil � 1 Discovery Park
Q__ '- Land Surveying and Consulting Meridian ROW Dedication
Job No. 19-11
Page 1 of page 106
Discovery Park Phase 2/SUBP21-0152
Recreation Avenue
T 2N, R 1 E, Sec 05
PERMANENT EASEMENT
THIS PERMANENT EASEMENT (the "Easement"), is made and entered into this
25th day of January , 2022 , by and between the City of Meridian, an
Idaho Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTOR," and ADA COUNTY
HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, hereinafter
referred to as "ACHD."
WITNESSETH:
FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, IT IS AGREED:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
1 .1 GRANTOR owns the real property located in Ada County, Idaho more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein (hereinafter "Servient Estate").
1 .2 ACHD has jurisdiction over the public highways, including sidewalks, and
public rights-of-way which adjoin and are adjacent to the Servient Estate (hereinafter the
"Dominant Estate").
1 .3 ACHD desires to obtain an easement on, over and across the Servient Estate
for the purposes hereinafter described, and, for the consideration and on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth, GRANTOR is willing to grant such easement to ACHD.
SECTION 2. Grant of Easement and Authorized Uses.
GRANTOR hereby grants to ACHD a permanent exclusive easement over and
across the Servient Estate for use by the public, including motorists, pedestrians and
bicyclists, and the following uses and purposes:
(a) placement of a Public Rights-of-Way as (as defined in Idaho Code, section 40-
117);
Permanent Easement - 1
(2/11/14)
Item#5.
(b) construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance and placement of a
Highway (as defined in Idaho Code, section 40-109) and any other facilities or
structures incidental to the preservation or improvement of the Highway;
(c) statutory rights of ACHD, utilities and irrigation districts to use the Highway
and/or Public Right-of-Way.
SECTION 3. Permanent Easement; Covenants Run with the Land.
This is a permanent easement. This Easement, and the covenants shall be a
burden upon the Servient Estate and shall run with the land. The Easement and the
covenants and agreements made herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon,
ACHD and GRANTOR, and Grantor's successors and assigns to the Servient Estate.
SECTION 4. Appurtenant.
The Easement herein granted is appurtenant to the Dominant Estate and a burden
on the Servient Estate.
SECTION 5. Maintenance.
Upon acceptance of the Highway, ACHD shall maintain the physical integrity of
this easement in good condition and repair and as required to satisfy all requirements of
applicable laws, the policies of ACHD and sound engineering practices. The repair and
maintenance of the physical integrity of the Easement shall be at the sole cost and
expense of ACHD; provided if the damage to the physical integrity of the Easement is as
a result of the activities of GRANTOR, GRANTOR'S guests, invitees, contractors or
agents, the repair shall be at the sole cost and expense of GRANTOR. This Section shall
not release GRANTOR'S obligation to provide routine maintenance required under any
applicable state or local law, ordinance or regulation as to the pedestrian facilities that
may be placed on the Servient Estate.
Permanent Easement - 2
(2/11/14)
Page 108
Item#5.
SECTION 6. Indemnification.
ACHD shall, subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, indemnify, save
harmless and defend regardless of outcome GRANTOR from expenses of and against
suits, actions, claims or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs,
expenses and attorney fees caused by or arising out of any negligent acts by the ACHD
or the ACHD's officers, agents and employees while acting within the course and scope
of their employment, which arise from or which are in any way out of ACHD's construction,
use and maintenance on the Servient Estate. Any such indemnification hereunder by the
ACHD is subject to the limitations of the Idaho Tort Claims Act (currently codified at
chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code). Such indemnification hereunder by the ACHD shall in no
event cause the liability of the ACHD for any such negligent act to exceed the amount of
loss, damages, or expenses of attorney fees attributable to such negligent act, and shall
not apply to loss, damages, expenses, or attorney fees attributable to the negligence of
GRANTOR.
SECTION 7. Recordation.
This Easement shall be recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada
County, Idaho.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Easement unto the ACHD forever.
GRANTOR covenants to ACHD that ACHD shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful
possession of the Servient Estate; and, GRANTOR warrants to ACHD that GRANTOR is
lawfully seized and possessed of the Servient Estate and has the right and authority to
grant this Easement to ACHD.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Easement to be
executed the day, month and year first set forth above.
GRANTOR
Robert E. Simison, Mayor
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk
Notary acknowledgment on following page
Permanent Easement - 3
(2/11/14)
Page 109
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF ADA )
This record was acknowledged before me on 1-25-2022 by
Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the city of Meridian, in their
capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires 3-28-2022
Residing in Meridian Idaho
Notary for Idaho
EXHIBIT LIST
Exhibit "A". Legal description of Servient Estate.
The Ada County Highway District(ACHD) is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and related regulations and directives. ACHD assures that no person shall on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, gender, disability or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any ACHD service, program or activity.
Permanent Easement - 4
(2/11/14)
rADA
DISCOVERY PARK SITE
COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT PERMANENT EASEMENT
LOCATED IN THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.2N., R.1E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
BASIS OF BEARING 32 33
31 32 N89'57'43"W 2663.79' 1�4 32 S89'56'49"E 2659.20' _
6 5 W.
LAKE HAZEL ROAD 5 5 4
o p
p o
0
L
orfI� w
F-- Vi
V) O
U
O
vi S89'58'22"E 42.008 22 W
5.00'
Ln 00 POINT OF BEGINNING
b 6,454 SF
N41'17'33"E 6.44'
Z 0.148 ACRES
N4'37'59"W 12.01' o
N22'13'28"W 8.64' ^
NO'01'18"E
175.04'
N66'54'10'E 13.95' o
C4 b
N54'17'41"W 16.77 `n
L" FUTURE 42' R.O.W.
o -��*o
N O+
N6'15'34"E Z+
44.89J3
0'
NACN 150' 300' 600'
cal
co
1
w
3
�N ��
Z I�N00
NO'01'18"E ��
98.7
125.53' '18"W
8.71'
N89-58'42"W--J
5.00'
PROPOSED R.O.W. ONP LLANO
`c q- S TF oG,PF
0
a 1 o
� 18�02
OF \pP���v
N W.
lutions
Lan
Land Surveying and Consulting
231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A
MERIDIAN,ID 83642
(208)288-2040 (208)288-2557fax
www.landsolutions.biz JOB
Page 111
Item#5.
Legal Description
Discovery Park Site
Ada County Highway District Permanent Easement
An easement being located in the E '/z of the NW'/4 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1
East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of the NW% (N
corner) of said Section 5, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of
said Section 5 bears N 89°57'43" W a distance of 2663.79 feet;
Thence S 0001'18" W along the east boundary of said NW % a distance of 500.00 feet to a
point;
Thence leaving said boundary N 89058'22" W a distance of 42.00 feet to POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence S 0'01'18" W a distance of 701.44 feet to a point on a curve;
Thence a distance of 45.22 feet along the arc of a 961.50 foot radius curve right, said curve
having a central angle of 2041'41" and a long chord bearing S 6015'34" W a distance of 45.22
feet to a point of reverse curvature;
Thence a distance of 135.80 feet along the arc of a 1038.50 foot radius curve left, said curve
having a central angle of 7029'32" and a long chord bearing S 3051'38" W a distance of 135.70
feet to a point;
Thence S 5°28'36" W a distance of 168.32 feet to a point;
Thence S 0°01'18" W a distance of 98.71 feet to a point;
Thence N 89058'42" W a distance of 5.00 feet to a point;
Thence N 0'01'18" E a distance of 125.53 feet to a point;
Thence N 6029'49" E a distance of 141.89 feet to a point on a curve;
Thence a distance of 136.16 feet along the arc of a 1043.50 foot radius non-tangent curve right,
said curve having a central angle of 7028'34" and a long chord bearing N 3051'55" E a distance
of 136.06 feet to a point of tangency;
Thence N 6015'34" E a distance of 44.89 feet to a point;
Thence N 0001'18" E a distance of 240.71 feet to a point;
Thence N 54017'41" W a distance of 16.77 feet to a point of curvature;
j..a1 j b'.LA jon Discovery Park
%-Land Surveying and Consulting ACHD Slope Easement
Job No. 19-1
Page 1 of Page 112
Item#5.
Thence a distance of 22.30 feet along the arc of an 11.27 foot radius curve right, said curve
having a central angle of 113026'12" and a long chord bearing N 2°25'25" E a distance of 18.84
feet to a point of tangency;
Thence N 66'54'10" E a distance of 13.95 feet to a point;
Thence N 0°01'18" E a distance of 175.04 feet to a point;
Thence N 22'13'28" W a distance of 8.64 feet to a point;
Thence N 4°37'59" W a distance of 12.01 feet to a point;
Thence N 41°17'33" E a distance of 6.44 feet to a point;
Thence N 0°01'18" E a distance of 226.55 feet to a point;
Thence S 89°58'22" E a distance of 5.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said easement contains 6,454 square feet (0.148 acres) more or less and is subject to any
other easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS
Land Solutions, PC
November 30, 2021
\oNPL LANDS
\S T E GpL
cof
, -
O <
1 118 X
kk�'SoI2t� _
1��9TF OF \ID
r0N W NP
Discovery Park
.Il.A'fId-S 01ub'o s ACHD Slope Easement
Land Surveying and Consulting
Job No. 19-1
Page 2 o Page 113
Discovery Park Phase 2/SUBP21-0152
Recreation Avenue
T 2N, R 1 E, Sec 05
TEMPORARY EASEMENT
THIS TEMPORARY EASEMENT (the "Easement"), is made and entered into this
25th day of January , 2022 , by and between City of Meridian, an Idaho
Municipal Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "GRANTOR," and ADA COUNTY
HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, hereinafter
referred to as "ACHD."
WITNESSETH:
FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, IT IS AGREED:
SECTION 1. Recitals.
1 .1 GRANTOR owns the real property located in Ada County, Idaho more
particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein (hereinafter "Servient Estate").
1 .2 ACHD has jurisdiction over the public highways, including sidewalks, and
public rights-of-way which adjoin and are adjacent to the Servient Estate (hereinafter
the "Dominant Estate").
1 .3 ACHD desires to obtain a temporary easement on, over and across the
Servient Estate for the purposes hereinafter described, and, for the consideration and
on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, GRANTOR is willing to grant such
temporary easement to ACHD.
SECTION 2. Grant of Temporary Easement and Authorized Uses.
GRANTOR hereby grants to ACHD a temporary exclusive easement over and
across the Servient Estate for use by the public, including motorists, pedestrians and
bicyclists, and the following uses and purposes:
(a) placement of a Public Rights-of-Way as (as defined in Idaho Code, section
40-117);
Temporary Easement - 1
(2/11/14)
Page 114
Item#5.
(b) construction, reconstruction, operation, maintenance and placement of a
Highway (as defined in Idaho Code, section 40-109) and any other facilities or
structures incidental to the preservation or improvement of the Highway;
(c) statutory rights of ACHD, utilities and irrigation districts to use the Highway
and/or Public Right-of-Way.
SECTION 3. Term.
This Easement shall be for a term commencing on the date of the GRANTOR's
execution of this Indenture and terminating on the relocation the Highway and any other
facilities or structures incidental to the preservation or improvement of the Highway from
the Servient Estate. On the expiration of the term of this Easement, the rights and
privileges granted to ACHD hereunder shall cease and terminate, and this Easement
shall be null and void and of no further force and effect, and ACHD shall execute and
record a Release of the Easement in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County,
Idaho.
SECTION 4. Covenants Run with the Land.
During the term, the covenants shall run with the land. The Easement and the
covenants and agreements made herein shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon, ACHD and GRANTOR, and Grantor's successors and assigns to the Servient
Estate.
SECTION 5. Appurtenant.
The Easement herein granted is appurtenant to the Dominant Estate and a
burden on the Servient Estate.
SECTION 6. Maintenance.
Upon acceptance of the Highway, ACHD shall maintain the physical integrity of
this Easement in good condition and repair and as required to satisfy all requirements of
applicable laws, the policies of ACHD and sound engineering practices. The repair and
maintenance of the physical integrity of the Easement shall be at the sole cost and
expense of ACHD; provided if the damage to the physical integrity of the Easement is
as a result of the activities of GRANTOR, GRANTOR'S guests, invitees, contractors or
agents, the repair shall be at the sole cost and expense of GRANTOR. This Section
shall not release GRANTOR'S obligation to provide routine maintenance required under
any applicable state or local law, ordinance or regulation as to the pedestrian facilities
that may be placed on the Servient Estate.
Temporary Easement - 2
(2/11/14)
Page 115
Item#5.
SECTION 7. Restoration on Expiration of Term.
On the expiration of the terms of this Easement, the Servient Estate may be
restored by GRANTOR at its sole cost and expense, to at least as good a condition as
existing on the date of this Indenture.
SECTION 8. Binding Effect.
This Easement, and the covenant and agreements herein contained, shall,
during the entire term hereof, be binding upon and inure to the benefit of (i) ACHD and
GRANTOR, respectively, and their successors and assigns, and their respective
interests in the Dominant and Servient Estates.
SECTION 9. Indemnification.
ACHD shall, subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth, indemnify, save
harmless and defend regardless of outcome GRANTOR from expenses of and against
suits, actions, claims or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs,
expenses and attorney fees caused by or arising out of any negligent acts by the ACHD
or the ACHD's officers, agents and employees while acting within the course and scope
of their employment, which arise from or which are in any way out of ACHD's
construction, use and maintenance on the Servient Estate. Any such indemnification
hereunder by the ACHD is subject to the limitations of the Idaho Tort Claims Act
(currently codified at chapter 9, title 6, Idaho Code). Such indemnification hereunder by
the ACHD shall in no event cause the liability of the ACHD for any such negligent act to
exceed the amount of loss, damages, or expenses of attorney fees attributable to such
negligent act, and shall not apply to loss, damages, expenses, or attorney fees
attributable to the negligence of GRANTOR.
SECTION 10. Recordation.
This Easement shall be recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada
County, Idaho.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD this Easement unto the ACHD until the expiration of
the term hereof.
GRANTOR covenants to ACHD that ACHD shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful
possession of the Servient Estate; and, GRANTOR warrants to ACHD that GRANTOR
is lawfully seized and possessed of the Servient Estate and has the right and authority
to grant this Easement to ACHD.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Easement to be
executed the day, month and year first set forth above.
Temporary Easement - 3
(2/11/14)
Page 116
GRANTOR
Robert E. Simison, Mayor
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 1-25-2022
[date]
by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the city of Meridian, in their
capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively.
_ Notary Public
My Commission Expires 3-28-2022
Residing in Meridian, Idaho
Notary for Idaho
The Ada County Highway District(ACHD) is committed to compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 and related regulations and directives. ACHD assures that no person shall on the grounds of
race, color, national origin, gender, disability or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any ACHD service, program or activity.
Temporary Easement - 4
(2/11/14)
Item#5.
DISCOVERY PARK SITE
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT TEMPORARY EASEMENT
LOCATED IN THE E 1/2 OF THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 5, T.2N., R.1E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
BASIS OF BEARING 32 33
31 32 N89'57'43"W 2663.79' 1/4 32 S89'56'49"E 2659.20' _
6 5 W. LAKE HAZEL ROAD 5 5 4
0
o �
w
O Q
� I w
c.�
to
N
U
O
J
vi
cq
Sri
cD
3
co
cn
0
FUTURE 42' R.O.W.
0' 150' 300' 600'
MEMO
PROPOSED R.O.W.
POINT OF BEGINNING 67.007.00 '42"W
' oNPL LA NO
2,167 SF SO'01'18"W S T G
0.050 ACRES "114 93.30,
cc 0
11118
n�/�T�F o F
ON W. NP
CURVE TABLE wa
CURVE # LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING CHORD Lan lutions
Land Surveying and Consulting
C1 120.25' 50.00' 137*26'12" NO'01'18"E 93.30' 231 E.5TH ST.,STE.A
MERIDIAN,ID 83642
(208)288-2040 (208)288-2557 fax
www.landsolutions.biz JOB -
Page 118
Item#5.
Legal Description
Discovery Park Site
Ada County Highway District Temporary Easement
An easement being located in the SE '/4 of the NW% of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1
East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap monument marking the northeast corner of the NW% (N '/4
corner) of said Section 5, from which a Brass Cap monument marking the northwest corner of
said Section 5 bears N 89°57'43" W a distance of 2663.79 feet;
Thence S 0'01'18" W along the east boundary of said NW% a distance of 1765.81 feet to a
point;
Thence leaving said boundary N 89°58'42" W a distance of 67.00 feet to POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence S 0'01'18" W a distance of 93.30 feet to a point on a curve;
Thence a distance of 120.25 feet along the arc of a 50.00 foot radius non-tangent curve right,
said curve having a central angle of 137047'59" and a long chord bearing N 0°01'18" E a
distance of 93.30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said easement contains 2,167 square feet (0.050 acres) more or less and is subject to any
other easements existing or in use.
Clinton W. Hansen, PLS
Land Solutions, PC
November 30, 2021
\O\ANL LA/vo
S T FR LPL
0
11118
`�2qT F 0
�OIV W Np
La.�ad5oh 1>oins Discovery Park
ACHD Turnaround Easement
Land Surveying and Consulting
Job No. 19-11
Page 1 of Page 119
DLA2021-0127
Discovery Park Phase 2 / SUBP21-0152
T 2N, R 1 E, Sec 05
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT
THIS INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is
made and entered into this 25th day of January 20 22 by and between City of
Meridian, a municipal corporation ("Licensee") and the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a
body politic and corporate of the state of Idaho, ("ACHD").
WITNESSETH :
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged by the parties:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.
1.1 City of Meridian ("Licensee") is a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Idaho.
1.2 ACHD owns and has exclusive jurisdiction over the public right-of-way located in
Ada County, Idaho, municipally described as S. Recreation Avenue, Meridian, more particularly
described and/or depicted on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Right-of-Way").
1.3 Idaho Code § 67-2332 expressly authorizes the Licensee and ACHD to enter into
agreements to perform any governmental service activity or undertaking that is authorized by
law and within the power, privilege or authority of said agencies.
1.3 Licensee desires a license to use the Right-of-Way for the limited purposes
hereinafter set forth, and, for the consideration and on the terms and conditions hereinafter set
forth, ACHD is willing to extend such license to Licensee.
SECTION 2. LICENSE; LICENSE NOT EXCLUSIVE.
2.1 On the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, ACHD hereby extends to
Licensee a license on, over, across and under the Right-of-Way for the following uses and
purposes ("Authorized Use") and no others:
Licensee is to construct, install and maintain features consisting of trees, grass,
perennials, and landscape irrigation system per Exhibit B and the ACHD approved civil
drawings located within ACHD right-of-way and easements along S. Recreation Avenue.
In general, coniferous trees are prohibited within the right-of-way. If allowed, the tree or
shrub must be less than X in height at maturity. Final grading of landscaped areas shall
slope away from right-of-way "hardscape" improvements including the edge of
pavement, curbing and sidewalks. In general, licensee to install landscaping and
TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 1
(3/29/06)
Item#5.
sprinklers in a manner to eliminate irrigation flows and/or ponding of irrigation water
within the ACHD Right of Way. Licensee shall observe the 40-foot sight triangle and will
not plant any shrubs or trees within the area or over any utility lines. All trees in the
public right-of-way shall be maintained by Licensee for clearance of 14 feet over all
roadways as measured at the gutter plate, and 8 feet over all sidewalks. Licensee to
contact Digline Inc., prior to start of construction. Licensee to contact Construction
Services at 387-6280 to verify if a construction permit is required.
2.2 This Agreement does not extend to Licensee the right to use the Right-of-Way to
the exclusion of ACHD for any use within its jurisdiction, authority and discretion or of others to
the extent authorized by law to use public right-of-way. If the Right-of-Way has been opened as
a public Highway (as used in the Agreement the term "Highway" is as defined in Idaho Code §
40-109(5)) Licensee's Authorized Use is subject to the rights of the public to use the Right-of-
Way for Highway purposes. Licensee's Authorized Use is also subject to the rights of holders of
easements of record or obvious on inspection of the Right-of-Way and statutory rights
of utilities to use the public right-of-way. This Agreement it is not intended to, and shall not,
preclude or impede the ability of ACHD to enter into other similar agreements in the future
allowing third parties to also use its public rights-of-way, or the ability of ACHD to redesign,
reconstruct, relocate, maintain and improve its public rights-of-way and Highways as authorized
by law and as it determines, in its sole discretion, is appropriate.
SECTION 3. CONSTRUCTION, OR INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. Any repairs or
maintenance, of the Licensee's improvements currently located in the Right-of-Way or the
installation or construction of improvements by Licensee in the Right-of-Way as permitted by the
Authorized Use, (the "Improvements"), shall be accomplished in accordance with designs, plans
and specifications approved in advance and in writing by ACHD as required to satisfy applicable
laws, its policies and good engineering practices. In approving such plans and specifications,
ACHD assumes no responsibility for any deficiencies or inadequacies in the design or
construction of the Improvements, and the responsibility therefor shall be and remain in
Licensee.
SECTION 4. WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL STATEMENT BY LICENSEE. Licensee
acknowledges and agrees that the license granted herein is temporary, and merely a permissive
use of the Right-of-Way pursuant to this Agreement. Licensee further acknowledges and agrees
that it specifically assumes the risk that the license pursuant to this Agreement may be
terminated before Licensee has realized the economic benefit of the cost of installing,
constructing, repairing, or maintaining the Improvements, and Licensee hereby waives and
estoppels itself from asserting any claim that the license is in any way irrevocable because
Licensee has expended funds on the Improvements and the Agreement has not been in effect
for a period sufficient for Licensee to realize the economic benefit from such expenditures.
SECTION 5. TERM.
5.1 The term of this Agreement will commence on the day of
20 , and will continue until terminated by either party, with or without cause, which
termination shall be effective following THIRTY (30) DAYS advance written notice of termination
given to the other party. Upon expiration of the THIRTY DAYS, ACHD shall record a Revocation
of License Agreement in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho.
5.2 If Licensee defaults in the performance of any obligations incumbent upon it to
perform hereunder ACHD may terminate this Agreement and the rights extended to Licensee
TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 2
(3/29/06)
Page 121
item#5. hereunder at any time, effective at the end of thirty (30) days following the date ACHD shall
provide written notice of termination to Licensee, which notice shall specify such default(s).
Licensee shall have such thirty (30) day period to correct and cure the specified defaults, and if
so corrected and cured, to the satisfaction of ACHD, this Agreement shall not be terminated but
shall continue in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. FEE. There is no annual fee for the Licensee's Authorized Use of the Right-of-
Way under this Agreement.
SECTION 7. MAINTENANCE: FAILURE TO MAINTAIN; RELOCATION OF UTILITIES.
7.1 At its sole cost and expense, Licensee shall maintain the Improvements in good
condition and repair and as required to satisfy applicable laws, the policies of ACHD and sound
engineering practices. Licensee shall have access over, across and under the Right-of-Way for
the purposes of accomplishing such repair and maintenance.
7.2 If the Highway on and/or adjacent to the Right-of-Way is damaged as a result of:
(i) the performance by Licensee of the maintenance required by section 7, or
the failure or neglect to perform such maintenance; and/or
(ii) Licensee's design, installation or use of the Improvements, regardless of
cause;
at its sole cost and expense Licensee shall forthwith correct such deficiency and restore the
Highway and the surface of the Right-of-Way to the same condition it was in prior thereto, and if
Licensee shall fail or neglect to commence such correction and restoration within twenty-four
(24) hours of notification thereof, ACHD may proceed to do so, in which event Licensee agrees
to reimburse ACHD for the costs and expenses thereof, including, without limitation, reasonable
compensation for the use of staff and equipment of ACHD.
7.3 Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7.2, should an emergency exist related
to the Licensee's use of this license which threatens the stability or function of the Highway on
or adjacent to the Right-of-Way or the safety of the public use thereof, ACHD shall have the
right to immediately perform, on behalf of, and at the cost of Licensee necessary emergency
repairs.
7.4 Licensee will be responsible for the relocation of any existing utilities located on
the Right-of-Way as may be required in connection with any construction or installation of
Improvements by Licensee in the Right-of-Way.
SECTION 8. RELOCATION OF IMPROVEMENTS. If during the term of this Agreement ACHD
requires, in its sole discretion, at any time, and from time to time, that the Highway on and/or
adjacent to the Right-of-Way be widened and/or realigned, redesigned, improved and/or
reconstructed, Licensee hereby accepts responsibility for all costs for relocating, modifying or
otherwise adapting the Improvements to such realignment and/or relocation and/or
reconstruction if required by ACHD, which shall be accomplished by Licensee according to
designs, plans and specifications approved in advance by ACHD in writing; provided ACHD
gives Licensee adequate written notice as necessary to allow Licensee to redesign, relocate,
modify or adapt the Improvements to the realignment and/or relocation and/or reconstruction of
the Highway and also licenses Licensee such additional area of its right-of-way, if any, as may
be necessary for the proper operation of the Improvements.
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 3
(3/29/06)
Page 122
Item#5.
SECTION 9. PERMIT. If the proposed construction and installation of the Improvements, or
any reconstruction, relocation or maintenance thereof requires Licensee to obtain a permit
under ACHD policies, Licensee shall first obtain such permit from ACHD (Construction Services
Division) before commencing such work, and pay the required fees and otherwise comply with
the conditions set forth therein.
SECTION 10. NO TITLE IN LICENSEE. Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall not create any type of property right, title or interest in
Licensee in or to the Right-of-Way other than the right to temporarily use the same pursuant to
the terms of this Agreement.
SECTION 11. NO COSTS TO ACHD. Any and all costs and expenses associated with
Licensee's Authorized Use of the Right-of-Way, or any construction or installation of
Improvements thereon, or the repair and maintenance thereof, or the relocation of
Improvements or utilities thereon, or the restoration thereof at the termination of this Agreement,
shall be at the sole cost and expense of Licensee.
SECTION 12. TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS. Licensee agrees to pay all special assessments
and personal property taxes that may be levied and assessed on the Improvements during the
term of this Agreement.
SECTION 13. RESTORATION ON TERMINATION. Upon termination of this Agreement,
Licensee will promptly remove all Improvements and restore the Right-of-Way to at least its
present condition, less ordinary wear and tear. Should Licensee fail or neglect to promptly
remove the Improvements and restore the Right-of-Way, ACHD may do so, and assess
Licensee for the costs thereof. Provided, ACHD and Licensee may agree in writing that some
or all of such Improvements are to remain on the Right-of-Way following termination, and by
entering into such an agreement Licensee thereby disclaims all right, title and interest in and to
the same, and hereby grants such Improvements to ACHD, at no cost. Further provided, if the
Authorized Use of the Right-of-Way under this Agreement is for landscaping in ACHD right-of-
way and the irrigation and maintenance thereof, and the general purpose government with
jurisdiction has adopted ordinances, rules and regulations governing the landscaping and
maintenance of such right-of-way by owners of the adjacent property, to the extent such owners
are obligated to maintain and irrigate the landscaping Licensee need not remove the same from
the Right-of-Way.
SECTION 14. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by law, Licensee covenants and
agrees to indemnify and hold ACHD harmless from and against any and all claims or actions for
loss, injury, death, damages, mechanics and other liens, arising out of the failure or neglect of
Licensee, Licensee's employees, contractors and agents, to properly and reasonably make
Authorized Use of the Right-of-Way or properly construct, install, plant, repair or maintain the
Improvements thereon, or that otherwise result from the use and occupation of the Right-of-Way
by Licensee, and including any attorney fees and costs that may be incurred by ACHD in
defense of such claims or actions indemnified against by Licensee hereunder. For claims or
actions arising out of failures or neglects occurring during the term of this Agreement Licensee's
obligations pursuant to this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 15. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW; WASTE AND NUISANCES PROHIBITED. In
connection with Licensee's use of the Right-of-Way, throughout the term of this Agreement
Licensee covenants and agrees to: (i) comply and observe in all respects any and all, federal,
state and local statutes, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations, including, without limitation,
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 4
(3/29/06)
Page 123
item#5. those relating to traffic and pedestrian safety, the Clean Water Act and/or to the presence, use,
generation, release, discharge, storage or disposal in, on or under the Right-of-way of any
Hazardous Materials (defined as any substance or material defined or designated as hazardous
or toxic waste, material or substance, or other similar term, by any federal, state or local
environmental statute, regulation or occurrence presently in effect or that may be promulgated
in the future); (ii) obtain any and all permits and approvals required by ACHD or any other unit of
government; and (iii) commit no waste or allow any nuisance on the Right-of-Way. To the
extent permitted by law, Licensee covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold ACHD harmless
from and against any and all claims, demands, damages, liens, liabilities and expenses
(including without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees), arising directly or indirectly from or in
any way connected with the breach of the foregoing covenant. These covenants shall survive
the termination of this Agreement.
SECTION 16. ASSIGNMENT. Licensee, upon the prior written consent of ACHD, may sell,
assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement. Upon execution of the Assignment, the assignee
assumes all obligations, warranties, covenants and agreements of Licensee herein contained.
SECTION 17. ATTORNEYS' FEES. In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to enforce or
interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs incurred
therein, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
SECTION 18. NOTICE. Any notice under this Agreement shall be in writing and be delivered in
person, or by United States Mails, postage prepaid, or by public or private 24-hour overnight
courier service (so long as such service provides written confirmation of delivery), or by
facsimile verified by electronic confirmation. All notices shall be addressed to the party at the
address set forth below or at such other addresses as the parties may from time to time direct in
writing by notice given the other. Any notice shall be deemed to have been given on (a) actual
delivery or refusal, (b) three (3) days following the day of deposit in the United States Mails, (c)
the day of delivery to the overnight courier, or (d) the day facsimile delivery is electronically
confirmed.
If to ACHD: Ada County Highway District
3775 E. Adams St.
Garden City, Idaho 83714
Attn: Right of Way Division
If to Licensee: City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave.,
Meridian, Idaho 83642
SECTION 19. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS. This Agreement, the license herein extended,
and the covenants and agreements herein contained shall inure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the parties hereto and their successors and, if consented to by ACHD under section 16,
Licensee's assigns.
SECTION 20. EXHIBITS. All exhibits attached hereto and the recitals contained herein are
incorporated herein as if set forth in full herein.
SECTION 21. RECORDATION. This Agreement shall be recorded by ACHD upon execution in
the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho.
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 5
(3/29/06)
Page 124
item#5. SECTION 22. Warranty of Authority to Execute.
22.1 The person executing this Agreement on behalf of ACHD represents and
warrants due authorization to do so on behalf of ACHD, and that upon execution of this
Agreement on behalf of ACHD, the same is binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of,
ACHD.
22.2 If Licensee is not a natural person, the person executing the Agreement on
behalf of Licensee represents and warrants due authorization to do so on behalf of Licensee,
and that upon execution of this Agreement on behalf of Licensee, the same is binding upon, and
shall inure to the benefit, of Licensee.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day, month and year first set forth above.
[Space left intentionally blank]
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 6
(3/29/06)
Page 125
LICENSEE: City of Meridian
Robert E. Simison, Mayor
Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 1-25-2022
[date]
by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the city of Meridian, in their
capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively.
Notary Public
My commission expires: 3-28-2022
Residing in Meridian, Idaho
Notary for Idaho
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT - Page 7
(3/29/06)
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
Kent Goldthorpe, President
Attest by Bruce S. Wong, Director
STATE OF IDAHO )
) ss.
County of Ada )
This record was acknowledged before me on 20 by Kent
Goldthorpe and Bruce S. Wong on behalf of the Ada County Highway District, in their
capacities as Commission President and Director, respectively.
Signature of notary public
Residing in:
My commission expires:
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A- Description of Licensee's property
Exhibit B- Depiction of ACHD Right-of-Way
Exhibit C-Authorized Use of Right-of-Way
INTERAGENCY TEMPORARY LICENSE AGREEMENT- Page 8
(3/29/06)
ADA COUNTY RECORDER J.DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT 8.00 2
Item#5. BOISE IDAHO 05115109 04:20 PM
EPUTY RECORDED Allen REQUEST OF
PioneerfifleCo , Pioneer 10905b418
6 0 1 N 6 6 £ Y0N0
8151 W.Rifleman Ave./Boise
Idaho 83704/(208)377-2700
303702
WARRANTY DEED
Gregory
For Value Received GB.Johnson and Heidi M.Johnson,Husband and Wife
hereinafter referred to as Grantor,does hereby grant,bargain,sell,warrant and convey unto
City of Meridian,an Idaho Municipal Corporation
hereinafter referred to as Grantee,whose current address is 33 E.Broadway Ave,Meridian,Id 83642
the following described premises,to-wit:
SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
Together with all appurtenant water rights;including surface water from New York Irrigation
District for irrigation of approximately 77 acres and a portion of water right 63-11703 consisting
of 0.78 cfs and 337.5 afa for irrigation of 75 acres
To HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises,with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee(s),and
Grantees(s)heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor(s)does(do)hereby covenant to and with the
said Grantee(s),the Grantor(s)is/are the owner(s)in fee simple of said premises;that said premises are free
from all encumbrances EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made,
suffered or done by the Grantee(s); and subject to U.S. Patent reservations, restrictions, dedications,
easements, rights of way and agreements, (if any) of record, and current years taxes, levies, and
assessments, includes irrigation and utility assessments,(if any)which are not yet due and payable,and that
Grantor(s)will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever.
Dated: May 11,2009
gory . ohnson Heidi M.Johnson /f
STATE OF Idaho, County of Ada,ss.
i
On this /3 day of May,in the year of 2009,before me the undersigned,notary public
personally appeared Gregory B.Johnson and Heidi M.Johnson known or identified to me to be the
person/persons whose name is/are subscribed to the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same.
°°9a®oeoeeue®essooa
°°°° � I•MF °°1°
m
°Zy0TA �+
°
omom o
° Susan J.Merrit
d, °°AUBLIG °®° m Notary Public of Idaho
Residing at Caldwell �y 5
Co osiw
nu°egBe1pje00 I i4','Qi';!i ZSION EXPIRES 05-05-2011
Page 128
Item#5. PARCEL 2410: EXHIBIT A
A portion of the East half of the Northwest quarter of Section 5, Township 2 North,Range 1 East,
Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the North quarter corner of said Section 5 from which the West 1/16 comer of said
Section 5 bears North 89058122"West,1331.92 feet;
Thence along the North-South centerline of said Section 5,South 00'01'18"West,500.00 feet to
the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said North-South centerline South 00°01'l8"West,2174.91 feet to the
Cl/4 corner of said Section 5;
Thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 5 North 89°52'48"West, 1329.59 feet to
the C-W 1/16 corner of said Section 5;
Thence along the West boundary line of the East half of the Northwest quarter of said Section 5
North 00*01'41"West,2672.76 feet to the West 1/16 comer of said Section 5;
Thence along the North boundary line of said Section 5 South 89°58'22"East,983.43 feet;
Thence leaving said North boundary line South 00*02'18"West,500.00 feet;
Thence South 89°58'22"East,348.63 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING.
i
i
I
Page 129
I
Item#5.
0 0
3 Y _
56.50'ROW w Z _
31.00'TBC TO TBC U - E
00 E=ys
ILL c -
2.00' 12.50' 18.50' 8.00, 10.00, 5.50' U _-6 V _ - U
��o s z
U ---'_ _d" '- o
2 1.00'LANDING > s 3 = _ _
H 8.00' 2.00' -0.25% @ 2.0/MAX.
+/ 0
2/ 1.5/ NOTES:
2.00 wd Z
2.00' 2.00' _
°
o o F 2
EXISTING 3;�M / //\ ° ° %/�%j%/\\%/\\%/\�%j\\%j O O O°O Fll///05�1//
\ \%/\%/\` 1. ALL ASPHALT PAVEMENTS AND BASE MATERIALS,AND SUB-GRADE Q � 9 o o c 9Uo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0\/ ° ° /\/` PREPARATIONS SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE w = ` ° 'N GRADE \\ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a" �l�`\\ \\ \ \\ o oO o0 0 0 �\ - a �00 00 00 000 oa o0 000 o �y � N� o0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° °° /\/\/\/\/\/\ \/ /\/\ \\�\/\ ` ISPWC AND THE ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS APPLICABLE - - T o
SUBGRADE a - o
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\ \ \ THERETO. SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR ADDITIONAL EARTHWORK o Z
\//\/\ /' \/\/\/�/�//� \ i3"THICKNESS OF PLANT NIiX PA`✓EMENT(112"SP-3 MIX DESIGN 64-28) /\/ //\/' 6"VERTICAL CURB PER ACHD REQUIREMENTS. ° o aL o= N
COMPACTED TO 95%OF MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY(HVEEM) CONCRETE SIDEWALK
SUBGRADE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD - � i
DRAWING SD-701 PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL 2. THE ASPHALT PAVEMENT MIX DESIGN SHALL BE A SUPERPAVE 1/2" MIX P° - Z
STANDARD DRAWING SD-709 w t
a.o"THICKNESS OF%"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE DESIGN(PG-64.28)AND MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SP-3 PER ISPWC = ° 2 ° = 3 w a
6"VERTICAL CURB PER N a o ¢ c.E o a
ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 GRANULAR STRUCTURAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL
STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 FILL AS REQUIRED BY FILL AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 810"PLANT MIX PAVEMENT". Z
20.0"THICKNESS OF 6"MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS
COMPACTED TO95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 3. AGGREGATE BASE MATERIALS(314"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE&6" U 2 o Z
SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR N o=2
STRIPPED,PREPARED NATIVE SUBGRADE OR GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE)MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH °
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 DIVISION 800 OF THE ISPWC. a ° n` ` 0
C EN �c O
4. ALL SUBGRADES,STRUCTURAL FILL MATERIALS AND PLACEMENTS c o o E 3
ROADWAY SECTION #1 S. RECREATION AVE. STA 6+44.92 TO 8+22.09 SHALL BE APPROVED BY ACHD PRIOR TO COVERING UP THE WORK OR a
PLACING SUBSEQUENT LIFTS.
a Z N
C.RD.O 5. ASPHALT PAVEMENT SHALL BE COMPACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH U E T
THE ISPWC AND THE ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS TO THE o a
ISPWC. DENSITY TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED RANDOMLY ACROSS - _ ` a
a� o
THE SITE AT A FREQUENCY TO BE DETERMINED BY THE OWNER'S N N o o o
°� 0 GEOTECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE. � Z
VARIES67.50'TO73.50'Row 6. THE ROADWAY SUBGRADE SHALL EXTEND 6-INCHES BEHIND THE BACK a m w a af o
VARIES 42.00'TBC TO TBC OF CURB.
2.00 18.00, 24.00' 1 8.00, 10.00, 5.50'
U TO
x 8.00'VARIES 1.000'LANDING '
F 1.50/o
2.00'� ° +l-0.25% 2.0%MAX.
0 8.00'TO 12.00' 2% 2% 2.00' 1.5%
MATCH
EXISTING �°
0.
GRADE //\\% P. ° °O o0 o O ° °O O O° O O O O O O O 0000 O O O O O O TYP. /\/\/\
° °° o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 °° o ° \ \/
\//\//\ \ \ \ \ \ \// / / / SUBGRADE CONTACT DKXJNE
\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \\/\/\/\\/ \ \/\/\/ /
/// \/.\ s' f�c�Ess`�FL��r f�nP `MfI � MrxlS�si�w ,\/\/\ r\ ,\\,\\r\\ \\ lcdL u�y
CONCRETE SIDEWALK p�CHOV�
\r\\\ COMPACTED TO 95°/OF MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY(HVEEM) SUBGRADE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL per y1MNG
/i/r• pM
6"VERTICAL CURB PER 4.0"THICKNESS of% DRAWING SD-701 STANDARD DRAWING SD-709"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE 1-800-942-=5
ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 GRANULAR STRUCTURAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL
STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 FILL AS REQUIRED BY FILL AS REQUIRED BY
20.0"THICKNESS OF 6"MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557
SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR
STRIPPED,PREPARED NATIVE SUBGRADE OR GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557
CV
ROADWAY SECTION #2 - S. RECREATION AVE. STA 9+47.21 TO 11+35.11 _ w
2 Q Q
C.RD.O 0 a 0
W QQ
LL
O w
VARIES 53.00 TO 56.50'ROW } ;
31.00'TBC TO TBC Q
v 18.50' RIES �2.00' 12.50' T �
= J
1.00'LANDING
H 8.00' 2.00 y - - 1.50%+l-0.25% @ 2.0%MAX. F
O 2% 2% 2.00' 1.5%MALu
TCH 2.00' 2.00' r
px � U
EXISTING GRADE 3.4� VA/ Oaf Z7 Ua A//A//A//A//A//A//A// 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0°0 0°0 0 w
�' oOoO OoO // // /
° ° ° ° \M \ \ \ \ o 00 00 00 \ `` > O
O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O
\\//\\//\\//\\ O0000000000 O o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
\\\\ \\�C\KNSS/(�F PL�TNT/I�I1X\��VhENT/(�13\ '3/M�X\/�\\/�\\//�\/\\\/ \//\\ \\ \S U B\GRADE /\/�\�/�\/////r///�///// //, SUBGRADE
/ /r \ i S - DESIGN64.28 /\/ /�/' �6 VERTICAL CURB PER ACHD CONCRETE SIDEWALK cC�OOAL F
COMPACTED TO 95%OF MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY(HVEEM) SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL <-<IS5 v�
DRAWING SD-701 STANDARD DRAWING SD-709 �`` t�G\STE F �F
6"VERTICAL CURB PER 4.0"THICKNESS OF%"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE
ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 GRANULAR STRUCTURAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL
STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 FILL AS REQUIRED BY FILL AS REQUIRED BY
20.0"THICKNESS OF 6"MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557
SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR
STRIPPED,PREPARED NATIVE SUBGRADE OR GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS S� 11-23-21
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 OF �pP
ASS /( ER���S�
ROADWAY SECTION #3 - S. RECREATION AVE. STA 12+64.64 TO 15+29.40 3 , O 't •
jD.l c c• c•
co 5
. o .
oo :o r_
• ■o ■o 00 0
. . . .
0 0 Q
o u
72.00'ROW co
47.00'TBC TO TBC
v 5.00' 18.00, 29.00' 8.00, 10.00, 2.00'
J
U 1.00'LANDING
8.00'TO 13.80'
� VARIES 2.00'
O I % 1.50%+/-0.25% @ 2.0%MAX. w N
2% 2.00' 1.5%
2.00' 2.00' g
2
MATCH �- N
o
Q
ao
EXISTING
GRADE
/\//\//TYP 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 o O n o0 00 00 oa o00o O O Oo0o0o 0 0 0 0 0 0 � ° � ° ° TYP. \ \ \ \\� \\ \/\\/\\ \/\\\\ o
°pO0O°°°O°°°O°°°O°°pOOO / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \ \j /�/\ \/�
\\�/ \ SUBGRADE o
� // // // // // // / / // // /i.//,,/i,.
3 IXID S�GN 64-28) /� /� /� /� / / /�//\/�\ \ \�\/ 6"VERTICAL CURB PER ACHD
z°
COMPACTED TO 95%OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY(HVEEM) SUBGRADE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD m/r. PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL
DRAWING SD-701
4.0"THICKNESS OF%"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE STANDARD DRAWING SD-709 o
6"VERTICAL CURB PER COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 o a
ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL
STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 20.0"THICKNESS OF 6"MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE FILL AS REQUIRED BY FILL AS REQUIRED BY o
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS a
Z
STRIPPED,PREPARED NATIVE SUBGRADE OR GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR O
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS Ln
w w�
�o
ROADWAY SECTION #4 - S. RECREATION AVE. STA 16+96.49 TO 17+96.49 =�
4 �Y
�U
W
Q 4
10
C.RD Z.O
U O
�
-N
J�
OW
Y
U tt
¢3
o
O
O 0
K
}Y
O o
67.00'ROW 3
V/ Z
42.00'TBC TO TBC Z
5.00' 18.00, 24.00' 8.00, 10.00, 2.00' C
U J
x 1.00'LANDING
1.50% 2.0%MAX. r
0 8.00' 2.00'� ° 1.5% +l-0.25% @ '+ U
2/0 2% /2.00' ~- V Z
MATCH 2.00' 2.00' X ~- Lu'w
EXISTING f \ // 1100
//\//\//\//\//\// O O O O O o O ° ° \/ v/ (D > � rn w
3• /\ ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° 0 00 00 00 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 Q � � � Y
GRADE \ 0.50'- a a a a a ° a a a l \0.50'\ \ \ \ \ \ v
°o ° J Q m z � CO
\ \ \ opOoOoo°Op0 O o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 00 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \�A\�A 0 w
/ /VA/AA/VA/VA/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 /A/\ \/A/A/\/A/A/A / / A/AA/AA/VA/VA/VA/VA/AA VA/A/ o coo }
�V \ \/\ \ ��V` �� VV1// V ��V1VV/1VV/ /V//V//V//V//V//V//V//V//V/ //\ V//V//V// /V//V//��V//�V///VVV///VVV///VV//VA .�/ SUBGRADE 0 � c1l m
\/\ /\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\/\\ \/\\/\\/\\/\\/\ \ \ '3�fHICKNEE 5OFFCRNT M (11Z"5P�3Mh�6 N6428�\//\//%\/%\//\\//�\///\/\\/�\//\\/�\/\\/\ r\\r\ r\ r\\r\\r\\ \\� V TICdL'C\UR6PER7�cHD\r\ CONCRETE SIDEWALK O w w a Q
COMPACTED TO 95%OF MAX THEORETICAL DENSITY(HVEEM) /\�\/ // / SUBGRADE SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD a 0-1
a
DRAWING SD-701 PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL
6"VERTICAL CURB PER
4.0"THICKNESS OF%"MINUS CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE STANDARD DRAWING SD-709
ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 GRANULAR STRUCTURAL GRANULAR STRUCTURAL JOB NUMBER:
STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 FILL AS REQUIRED BY FILL AS REQUIRED BY
20.0"THICKNESS OF 6"MINUS UNCRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE SITE CONDITIONS SITE CONDITIONS I D B 19075
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557
SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR SEE SHEET C.DT.2 FOR DATE: 09/29/21
STRIPPED,PREPARED NATIVE SUBGRADE OR GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FILL EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS Q
COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557
SHEET NUMBER:
ROADWAY SECTION #5 - S. RECREATION AVE. STA 18+88.49 TO 19+03.49 °a C.RD.O
5Lu
w p
jD.l
Page 130
Item#5.
-
00
LL Is
Z
LLI
` LL w�// Y
/ � 3 >. _ - - U
Ip�//
■ a Z N = _ -s
O ap �30
Keyed Notes 1 goo- 0 333g- Z
tiW
3 ■ - - a o v U
■ _ 5
■ 1. 6"VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER (TBC) PER ACHDo
_
v U
.■
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD DRAWING SD-701 _ 21
2. CATCH SLOPE LIMIT. LD
BRIGHTON DE ELOPMENT, INC. ■ 3. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD o o 0 ° o
■ DRAWING SD-709. Z
\\\ S1405120902 10+47.67,23.00'L 0 4. ASPHALT PAVEMENT(COLLECTOR ROADWAY) -SEE SHEET
\ �\ LIP:2747.83 ■ C.RD.O. o -
\2j¢g` FL:2745.80 10+35.64,23.00'L � ■ 3 s `
LIP:2747.88 ■ 5. NOT USED. a r s E
FL:2746.07 6 FL:2745.91 ■ 0 ,O o Y
0 o o . U yj
\\\ \\ C
\\ \ 6. CONSTRUCT DITCH -(SEE C.RD.0).
a .. ................ ............................................... .:g.. - y ` - W a
_ .. L E a3 n y.....55+4HKi::.... ................. .... ° .......... .. .. ' _
..................... ....................rp.B........................................... ........ _�................. -0.s� gag 7. 10 WIDE TYPE-II SIDEWALK TERMINUS BARRICADE PER ACHD +, W
-- -------- ----------------- ----- EDGE - - -
FL:2747.86 ----------- 6 ��----------------------------------FL:2746.66----- 6 ------------
- -- �.................,_-
SOB..-_... ._....._. ._ A 5% W - -
o._.o Tt IFC.�_0.4%............................. N C- ■ o STANDARDS BARRICADES SHALL HAVE THICKENED E Q
m
c
a Z
N
E._. dsSd
0
`rb� " o e ALUMINUM W/6"WIDE RETRO-REFLECTIVE RED/WHITE � U era ti ° }
_ W
•��8. .............. .................................. ......N.......................
c '...............2748...........................................................o ........... .................2748........ .... ,..................... c w
TpB................... 'TOB o T0� .............................................TOB.................................. ..... :•:: :......::�.............................
•••••••••••••• . - - � DIA NAL DE AL PAINTED I N ARE N TALL WED. � _ _
.. T.08....................... - -T Q. `.....:.- - _ _ - - - - KICK PLATE AT THE BOTTOM TO _ ` a
....»»....•..•..»»»».::•::•..,�-:::':.:•.:............x-......................... ........ o - y ................ .......................... :::A.5% d L
a
••••••••••"""""""""���� """' BARRICADE MUST HAVE A `�....... q =� � ° w
+ fioe.....� TaD................................... o ..roe'..............-0.�°�......\....... T0'9................................................... -0.� �8... _ _ �� - PROVIDE CANE DETECTION. z
6 44.92,10.50'L 0 _
.............. .....................
e o......................................................� �' 9+47.21,16.00'L
°'...... - o MZ l 1 +15.44,16.00'L.... •. 1 MZ l rn N ° e y o
LIP:2749.50 f N 6 2749--"""••••••••••••........................ f - - o - 8 3 8. CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL
-.._ ....�. ....-............ 1 LIP:2747.90 N Z
- - - - �- - - - 12w - - - -
T - - - - - .......
LIP 274817lc� - DRAWING SD 708
N = o�
RECREATION AVE. N:84973.0545�
• � •-"""•••••••••... 8+22.09 10.50'L� 12w I � � 10+00 0 �••••"""� � 9 TYPE-III SIDEWALK TERMINUS BARRICADE PER ACHD
N:85275.2227 Z l M l c%IMZ l MZ l 4 M �nz.l. MZ l LIP 748 79 9+00-------- E:462190.3787 SO 01'18.00"W
S. RECREATION AVE. COLLECTOR d� 9 dol o_o-___ SO 01'18.00"w-- �749 2 --- 51.91 - 125.461' �y V STANDARDS.
- ---
bom
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE 2749-----------2749------$ 00 � - 125.119 --
_dog dol E:462184.9929 1 7+00 � � � + -__--_ S2 2
--- o -- - ---- _ --
------------ __ 9+47.21 - ------ _- -- ---
ROADTERMINUSTOW. LAKEHAZEL �_ - -- --722.088'---- ----2749--------- 0 �`r Not
6+44.92 ---- o- ROADWAY CENTERLINE(CL) CL:2748.50 -----_�___ - ---- -' 0 ■ W
M Lo N:85098.0551 ---
.............................
9
RD.TO BE COMPLETED BY OTHERS CL:2749.71' s8 s8 ___erg--- e � s8 s8 s8 s8 s8 s8 s8 g -SS-2748---sg------N o 0o g- QUARTER SECTION LINE `g .�g" �� _ '
UNDER ACHD CDA 4 E:462184.9259 . ......................
co
�T44.92,16.50'R I 1 __-2149- coo 2149 8+22.09 �� 8+22.09,16.50'R 1 �/ / 9+47.21,22.00'R tO N 2148 ... 1 4 m ■ W
LIP:2749.38 CL:2749.00 LIP:2748.67 -/ LIP:2748.06 ■ W 1. CONTACT ACHD INSPECTION SERVICES AT 208.387.6284 A
.
--
-s MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS PRIOR TO REQUESTING INSPECTION.
------------
____
o // __ ___ `\-- ---_-_____2747 -- -_ ■ 2. ABANDONED BUILDINGS, TEST PITS, OR WATERWAYS LOCATED CONTACT DIGLINE
?�49•...._ �/ _ co___- \\--------------.2747__i WITHIN CURRENT OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE 48-HOURS
co
/ 7 - RE-EXCAVATED TO NATIVE SOIL AND BACKFILLED WITH BEFORE DIGGING
°
° a
v °
°n
°
°
STRUCTURAL FILL PER ISPWC SPECIFICATIONS. PROVIDE SOILS 1-800-842-IN5
"
3
?15Q DATA TO VERIFY NATIVE MATERIAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS
2747-�-
. ........................................... - __-- /
FOR ENGINEERED FILL PER ISPWC SPECIFICATIONS AND
- ..................................2748................................:::. �� o
PROVIDE A COPY OF THE COMPACTION TEST REPORTS.
o o o..................... o..�
l. ............................................................0 2749 1 tip............... ,�, 2748........................................................ r
EP EP ... ............................2749 - r -- ....... N --.----------2748. a._...... . N -_ - ..."? -
- ...:....1.. ............ ................................�!. ui
N
yya........ ..�...............�...... ..�.
_ . -_- _..-......- . . -- N 2747...............................:......_..:......_........_..:......... 3. PROVIDE TYPE-P SURFACE RESTORATION FOR UTILITY WORK
-___- d01 /...................' N........................:. ............�...... ..,....� ..
--______ -_-� 2747•••• - - - - - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' - - - - ' _ WITHIN ASPHALT PAVEMENT AREAS
III III I 2 <, 2 4
�'27�= ■ . PROVIDE ALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION DITCHES AND PIPES AS N
ACHD SLOPE EASEMENT _____ dp1 //// ��°6�/ �j� I ACHD SLOPE EASEMENT 2 ■ REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. ALL w
�< 2 dol ■ EXISTING DITCHES SHALL HAVE TEMPORARY REROUTING Q Q
III FIRE STATION II D PARI( ��/�- o� ����/ -- ------- ®- --------------®-------- -0 PROVISIONS SUCH THAT THE FLOW OF IRRIGATION WATER, AND 0 a p
y - / ® 0 ®® ■ DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER ACROSS THE SITE REMAIN
j4 Y -
■ UNINTERRUPTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF W Z
III III CONSTRUCTION. O_ 0
�� ■ O LU
O
U v
S. RECREATION AVE. (STA 6+44.92 TO 10+55) J
z 0
U
LU w
0 20 40 z 0
U
O
FEET d
�SS�ONAL ENG�
\STE
3
�
6+00 6+20 6+40 6+60 6+80 7+00 7+20 7+40 7+60 7+80 8+00 8+20 8+40 8+60 8+80 9+00 9+20 9+40 9+60 9+80 10+00 10+20 10+40 10+55 yT 11-23-21oP
2756 2756 'poss OF R\c�go�
• . .
°• °• •
°• . .
.. .1) 0 .
n o
as
v
c+o i • '
co u
c\I co
N N -
2752 en � 2752
FUTURE ROADWAY APPROXIMATE EXISTIHNG
CENTERLINE PROFILE LU `n
BY OTHERS BEGIN ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS GRADE AT ROADWAY C/L a 10
UU
K 0
FINISHED GRADE AT ROADWAY C/L <z
+ o
U
O O
F F
-0.40%
zw
o
2748 _ 2748
N og
�Z
Z w�
APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 27'LT -
> o�
LU w�
� w>
APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 42'RT + �z
�o
U'Y
�U
a 10
aLL
Ci O
U d
OW
2744 2744 ;
N
Y k
U¢
w3
a
c°3
z 3
o ro.
O
a
W
U
W wZ U)
2740 2740
a m Z Wof
o
H o�v00
LU N
V=
Z
d � 3:O w w U-
dd
JOB mo
NUMBER:
111311319075
DATE: 09/29/21
S. RECREATION AVE. (STA 6+44.9 TO 1 +55) 0 SHEET NUMBER:
w oc
J
2736 2736
C.RD.1
6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 10+55
Page 131
Item#5.
wZ
00
LL ���♦♦ Eog _ Is
_- a >
Z
LLI `' o
` w Y
O
■ N LL N t S-' _ _ Q �
Keyed Notes O a0L3 o� 3 z
■ oNW
-o as - �
aoa 5
1. 6"VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER(TBC) PER ACHD
■ SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD DRAWING SD-701. � W
-MA: oz
_ o=5�
■ FL:2745.53
■ 2. CATCH SLOPE LIMIT. r�s o a�_ o ti z
■ GRVL:2747.74 3. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD _ o
■ GRVL:2747.53 - E F
■ 11+09.69 23.00'L DRAWING SD-709. �V/ `° -
Z
■ 10 LIP:2747.59 BRIGH ON DEVELOPMENT, INC. 4. ASPHALT PAVEMENT (COLLECTOR ROADWAY) -SEE SHEET • °
C.RD.O. 2
yoga
10 ■ I I 12.63' FL-MA:2746.69 /
■ o \\ 6 FL:2745.17 = -
7 \ q FL:2745.80 / 5. SEE STORM DRAIN ON "SD" SHEETS. a �y=Q o z
■ I" _ 6. CONSTRUCT DITCH -(SEE SHEET C.RD.0). o o o
■ e 7
13 7 FL:2745.86 �/ L � E'" � N
o �� '•� -� •. '••••.., �`� 7. SEE GI SHEETS FOR GRAVITY IRRIGATION REQUIREMENTS. �
. :. :
I .s% clj)o o \ \ :. ........... ............................................. 8. SIDEWALK PER ACHD - - -
-......pB--..-..--- ---
CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WITH DETACHED SIDEWA � }' ' ��"� � W
�FL:2745.26 - - / SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD DRAWING SD-710C. E o ` ` o 0
6 o \d a - p .............. FL:2746.26�0 7--------------6 V �aN w
Tae.... _ .T.Q
...................................................
p / IRRIGATION BOX ACCESS -6"THICKNESS CONCRETE SIDEWALK �
0
12 15.53' one.............- --__- ■ Q 3
- - � �� - -
801
o - "�•••• - - - ---- FL:2746.82 SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD DRAWING SD 709 WITHIN■ PER ACHD SUPP
v, -__ ■ HATCHED AREAL Q o�a T Z �
---___ - o
80i _..._....::........ _
■ I I FL:2745.55 \ c - - """" - 6 10. RETAIN & PROTECT EXISTING DITCH. �H N = N
Z l 11+35.11,16.00'L w - w
r ■ I I - 10+72.67,16.00'L 11 � � M b � - ...... .......... -----_ - -
LIP:2747.67 I \ r LIP:2747.42 -MZ l MZ l -r_ _ _ - - - - -'. o
■ I I p ----- 11 Y GUTTER PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL - -
- ------- -------- mw o
11+29.67,16.00'L „:.,•., f3.................. - d o m
■ c=a o ��o
T.Q�............................................. _
�•••...; 11+00� LIP:2747.45 M�'i.. ._... - - - - - DRAWING SD-708.
■ CONCRETE VALLE ` y
SO 01 18.00 W SO 01'18.00 W 12+64.64,10.50 L - p - -
o -0 w.TOB ■ }�
12+00 g N MZl 4 MZI �
Co - - -
H 1 .. � 62.444' - -�-- -S2°2727'1� LIP:2748.05 _ - _ - - . ... .......... . 12.
10+72.67 o Z - -
�- _- -o-
Mz� Cog N """a �D""""2748 40;-■ TYPE-III ROADWAY TERMINUS BARRICADE PER ACHD
\ � --- - - ---- - - -----129.524'____-.._,� -�-- __ - --------13+00----- 1 - -----r�M��---- --- °� > ......■
W -- - -CL:2747.99 - ---2747 oc�o - N:84785.1495 =_- - - _ ____--_ 13+97.02,10.50'L --- - - - "2�48-•••••••• ••• 2749 �� STANDARDS. BARRICADE SHALL INCLUDE A SIGN THAT STATES '
W I in
■ 10+72.67,22.00'R E:462190.3076 - - _ 48 g STREET TO BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE
LIP:27 .5 e
_ -S8 ^ S -o-� '8 11+35.11 GB-LOW ROADWAY CENTERLINE(CL) S8 5 ..." ••.........E:462184.7587 S8 M S8��SB $. RECREATI VE --� _ 14+Q� 1 _
V) 8 LIP:2747.55 13. O a
' 3
_ ...
- N CL:2747.74
. 0 Ln5.
-_ r 2w�_,,, ■ �? TEMPORARY GRAVEL IRRIGATION ACCESS -6" THICKENSS F 3"
LLu ■ 8 7 1 11+35.11,22.00'R �/ QUARTER SECTION LINE 12+64.64•-••....?7� �� 1 SB \\ 4 CL:2748.80= w p AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED TO 95/° MAX DRY
00 _ 13+97.02 PVRC �.-'.w•••••••• 1 12W 12W-7 MINUS °----- o
.. ..............................................
■ CL:2748.27 __ S-P - N:84523.7501 -- \ 15+00 ■ DENSITY.
LIP:2747.30 \ E•462175 95881 C.�
\\ SS� 14. GRADE BREAK. C INE
�O
___ .- - � o ••"'" o � � � C 12+64.64 16.50'R- 47 - ---c- \\ \ 13+97.02,16.50'R � � � fig•' W
■ ■ 48-HOURS
14.00' o 47
---\ i---- o LIP: od c \ o ?74 ■
,..... //T _ p s................ BEFORE DIGGING
■ w
o
°
10+79.60,42.00'R \° " ?74g a.. .. ��' ° ` ° �� ° " 3 o c„ \ °° p d "� " ° " rn \ ■ 1-8�-342-1.�J
° a
CON:2748.21 / 5 2 ... 3 ° ° ° . •
°
.
° c °
`O O
'� pLu
Lu 1. CONTACT ACHD INSPECTION SERVICES AT 208.387.6284 A
v ° f...............................................................................................� v
..........
.. ....... ..
2748.................................. .._....... ....................................._ " ° " a
9 r {g..........................
... .................................. ... o_ i� �..�................................................................. ........,...a... . o ■ MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS PRIOR TO REQUESTING INSPECTION
- i a o.............
■ _.... b� 2747 �- - -,n - - -.................... - o - - - - - <o °" - " -co- - - - - -
........................
- _ r __________ ____ .�._�...,.,,,�.. ••.. ••.. .. .............,_._- _________. ____ _ - p a p 2. ABANDONED BUILDINGS, TEST PITS, OR WATERWAYS LOCATED
"
■
ss fi ------ - - 2746 -�s------- ----- -------------- --L ------ °�'--------- ,Z___ N •••••..........,...............� - - " p oa �� , p o WITHIN CURRENT OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE
r `z 10+93.60,42.00 R - - - - - ° ° " < 3 . ° ° p
tiLn
CON:2748.16 2 \\ JY� 2 \ d°r\ 14 \�� 14cm `� e - a ; RE-EXCAVATED TO NATIVE SOIL AND BACKFILLED WITH CN
_� •. �� - - ° o STRUCTURAL FILL PER ISPWCISPECIFICATIONS. PROVIDE SOILS Lu
/ o� 3°\ ACHD SLOPE EASEMENT �� w ......N p .................2749- - Z U)
■ � ,,s' 2j¢ \ \ a N_ \ ...- - - -■ DATA TO VERIFY NATIVE MATERIAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS Q
>-2747
■10+79.60,57.89'R -- �� -----------= - - ,.,::�------
.::
�. ■ FOR ENGINEERED FILL PER ISPWC SPECIFICATIONS AND 2
■ CON:2747.97 �v1...... ®® 10+93.60,57.89'R \�o\\\ ®® ®® DISCQVERY PARK \\ PROVIDE A COPY OF THE COMPACTION TEST REPORTS. a
■ CON:2747.92
14 2748y 3. PROVIDE TYPE SURFACE RESTORATION FOR UTILITY WORK W < Z
0 WITHIN ASPHALT PAVEMENT AREAS. 0
\ - - _ _ ■ 4. PROVIDE ALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION DITCHES AND PIPES AS LL
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. ALL 0 W W
■ k \ \\! \ �� EXISTING DITCHES SHALL HAVE TEMPORARY REROUTING >
■ k \�\ \ PROVISIONS SUCH THAT THE FLOW OF IRRIGATION WATER, AND O
■ \ / \��\ 2 °{ 2747 I ; DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER ACROSS THE SITE REMAIN U
■ I ■ UNINTERRUPTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF ui p k --------------------------------7---------------S CONSTRUCTION. F
\ 1
Lu
U
� �
S. RECREATION AVE. (STA 10+55 TO 15+20) °
Z SS�ONAL FiyG
0 20 40 �G\STE F�/"CO
FEET
3
11-23-21
10+55+60 10+80 11+00 11+20 11+40 11+60 11+80 12+00 12+20 12+40 12+60 12+80 13+00 13+20 13+40 13+60 13+80 14+00 14+20 14+40 14+60 14+80 15+00 15+20 doss ERc�go�
2756 2756
• . .
• . . . -
.• .-
CO CO .•
.• .• .• •
• • • •
••
04 c\l co
• •
O
ti
O�
2752 r o 2752
aco
L � �
M CO I- w m
APPROXIMATE EXISTIHNG c� `� a to
a GRADE AT ROADWAY CIL a v
H ti as
N z�
v FINISHED GRADE AT ROADWAY CIL o
z.ol
D.40%
♦ z
�m
0.40% z
2748 -0.40% _ 2748 0
og
W
Z
_ Ln O ��
w o�
♦ w w�
W>
.o
ACHD DI-1A APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 42'RT
to
U'Y
�U
ACHD DI-1 B a J W aLL
APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 27'LT l
jO
W Z�
U d
o
W Yk
U¢
2744 �_16"Gl 2744 w3
ao
c�3
Z oo O o3
0 Z
ACHD SG#1-
W
U
I♦ m
ACHD SEEPAGE#1 W J T °°
> cpcp � w
of
a m zcoo
2740 2740
2 o O��
//� ~ w Y N 0]
V/ U„j� Z
o W wdw q
d d o
JOB NUMBER:
ID619075
DATE: 09/29/21
S. RECRE TION AVE. (STA 10+5 TO 1 +20) J o SHEET NUMBER:
Lli
C.RD.2
2736 2736
10+55 11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00 15+00 15+20
Page 132
Item#5.
3...
w Z C=\�C U y y 9 Z
■ O 00 mv„yEo
■ 6 O W N
Keyed Notes 3 _ _
I O I-IL a N W o
1. 6"VERTICAL CURB AND GUTTER(TBC) PER ACHD V d
t
a0 o=�� o�-���3` z
0 0
■ Ao, SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARD DRAWING SD-701. _ o .
■ �\ j !� ��% o 2. CATCH SLOPE LIMIT. - _- Z
- ?o ff a s
■ I `9'hs 15 j \�� l III 3. CONCRETE SIDEWALK PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS
�� � = - -OZ
5
■ \\ I 9�� 3P A/�OFI/ y r /'/ \ Ill DRAWING SD-709. _ 's N Z
■ \ I tiF // , \2js7 .4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT (COLLECTOR ROADWAY) -(SEE SHEET
w / // \\ oc� _».w E�
---- i BRIGHTON DEVELOPMENT INP�� RIGHT OF WAY 1 sF�F ; I'I C.RD.0). `c. °N� o� E
N� 2 \� I/ - \ 5. TEMPORARY TURN AROUND ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION - ~� o N Z
/ Py I 1/ r - N=- �L
LL N S1405120902 ��� Py 33.00'FUTURE // N II I \ F� (SEE 3/C.DT.9).
FL:2747.37 // PUBLIC STREET \ N 11 \ \ -
FL;2749.13 y i I \ �6. ONSITE ASPHALT PAVEMENT SECTION -(SEE 3/C.DT.3). y Q o
15+29.40,10.50'L i I d P a
■ / QUARTER SECTION LINE I 18+15.96,23.00'L \ FL:2749.34 I I lII \ 7. SEE STORM DRAIN ON "SD" SHEETS. L - s E y == N
LIP:2749.12 17+95.99,16.00'L 9 18+69.01 23.00'L \ I 1 ` � E " Y
■ / I LIP:2753.75 ' FL-MA:2750.66 30 a a H a d a
LIP:2753.54 LIP:2753.26 \ FL:z7as.az- I I 3 L� -
■ FL:2748.38 I - IL 8. GRAVEL SHOULDER -6"THICKNESS OF4" MINUS CRUSHED v � � ; �= o
■ c / c I / ............... ......... ....T..8................_.................. .......... ..•• 0 9 /II \ o i 3 y y W
0 o I. ........................................ ..... l.............. C - - -
-- �- - .................. I o .T.QE.................................................. x \ AGGREGATE BASE COMPACTED TO 95/o MAX DRY DENSITY PER t;
r v _ v .. -0.a% cn a
................_.....:: :...... H• ...w •.:.:.................... �0.6%' �....... .................._.. ............................o:..... . ... ................2751........ ..... ....... ......:;..;; ..... TOE .. FL:z7so.sz SLOPE SHOULDER DOWNWARD AT 2%AWAY FROM a r d N
0 o -
ASTM D698
ono
.. P I E- dsS
•. i --••••••••••• � 20+08.49,16.00'L o TOB TOB .........................................T.fl.B..................... o ........................................._ ....-...... ........... .. ....................... .................................. .............. .•. •........... •TDB.� ..........................................................T.QB. TnB O
- d
_ ......... . e
t.............._............ _..........-........ - - p ,� �...... o....... _... - \ PAVEMENT. - W
.....,g714................................w.xa.......mx..:::::::so..«...............-.......-... M-
o M- ...... ........................2748.................. - - - - ... 2751 - - -
- g. - o w ::: o - - �o.... ....................................-............................ LIP:2750.66 c� U N
o......... ................. .. o �- rt o -.-�. ....
r - � .......... . .os^� 2749�............... . . -0.5%......TOF .....-0,6%........ ..... f� ..... ... o � ... �.. .......... .......... ..�....... . � :.. . ., o .. .....-,.,% .......................... ... . ................ , � o� Z �
.. .......e7 .... ^.: 'M
■........._�......../...............
------ ...... ---- - - - -
N .. ............ � .�--.-..,._,2752...... � ' � $ ... � ._ � _
T A ...... ..................... ................ %
_-- ---- __ 2751 ......^---- L._
- �-- ••• 0 3 2753 ••..;;v,��....• c _
e p/ �... I... 2752
N ..... .. -` OD
o ..............
C N � w Z
■ 2753_- Y TER PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL - -
.................. ........................ ..... � ......� I �•�••�. GUT R A
.. 10 CONCRETE VALLEY
N -
:...
�" 3 - -- '°' '°` '�- DRAWING SD-708 N N
_ 15+95.98,12.70'L v� 16+62.57 EVCS 0 L I ^- -- - ---- �3-- c=a o N E ^ a
N g 15+29.40 BVCS Mz l __ Mz l e Mz l w Mz 16+96.49,16.00'L Mz l Mz l o M 17+76.28 BVCS M r Mz l �. N LIP-HI PT:2753.70 Mz I ��- Z-- t_ Mz�'' z m �3 11. CONCRETE PEDESTRIAN RAMP PER ISPWC SD-712C AND ADA _ o
-__ LIP:2749.64 oc o . 15 i . -LIP:2752.84 - o o ?> a m 4 a o o m
CL:2749.33 CL:2750.75 N 10 18+60.22 EVCS..• o S
1 _ 1 LIP:2751.45 4 CL:2753.52 1 s� ?> 1 / o STANDARDS. THE LONGITUDINAL SLOPE OF THE PEDESTRIAN
4 -��----- `'-- a '� - - o .3 Py / o o co I _20+08.49
U 16+00 --> ------ -_ Nf .tip r ------- �' 18+22.18 CL:2753.68 V .. tV
N:84224.7654 - ? CL:2750.98 RAMP SHALL NOT BE GREATER THAN 12:1; THE CROSS SLOPE
S1°54'29.02"W E:462164.7654 17+00 ROADWAY CENTERLINE(CL) y 17+96.49 18+88.49 GB 4 E E.c. E.c.-
~ ■ - - - ;` 87 CL HIGH PT:2754.02 19+00 20+00'.. MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO TRAVEL SHALL NOT BE
W ■ 167.083' - I - - :' o� SO°01'18.00"W C 2754•►� ... ..... CL:2753.17 ----- _ ;'•SO°01'18.00"W
L:2753.
- - i GREATER THAN 2.0% - NO TOLERANCE IS ALLOWED ABOVE THE
LLl ■ o � 16+62.57 EVCS c o 146.000' Py CON:CON:2753.06 ��S 19+03.49 22.00'R 166.000' / 13 TYP.OF 4
_ �? 15+95.98,20.67'R 15+95.98 PVI 16+96.49 q o S. RECREATION AVE. 18+00 18+42.49 18+88.49,22.00'R >� MAX. SLOPES. PROVIDE TRUNCATED DOMES PER ISPWC SD-712. '
■ oo CL:2751.05 -cv-� °� CON:2752.81 LIP:2752.46 N:83912.7655,:
■ o 15+28.79,16.50'R LIP:2749.48 o CL:2749.89 •. CL:2751.78 ��� P _- 18+18.25 PVI CL:2753.92 LIP:2752.73 o 2 TRUNCATED DOMES SHALL BE TRAFFIC YELLOW.
0 1 N� W CCON:2753.33 O o E.4621 '
Lu ••.I. LIP:2749.00 ?j � 16+62.57,24.82'R ' > 4 ,�-� CL:2754.02 o 19+08.49,22.00'R
? y 15 vPy -_ > N:84078.7655 o C N:2753.38 Io N 61.4777 ° 12. 10'WIDE TYPE-II SIDEWALK TERMINUS BARRICADE PER ACHD
Lu - """•••........ 1 Q LIP:2750.55 "` c 17+96.49,27.00'R I -275p __ p ��; +� LIP:2752.36 0
16+96.42,27.00'RT 4 o o _E:462161.5405 LIP:2753.06 18 c
� � I �� ---�- �°•, a; ---�' iN CON:2753.58 I I � / '•.� 2 20+08.49,22.00'R STANDARDS. BARRICADES SHALL HAVE THICKENED EDGE
LIP:2751.26 N LIP:2753.33 LIP-HI PT:2753.51 �.5% 11 1 Q 19+12.49,22.00'R 10 4 co / LIP:2750.54
■ �, coN:z753sa /� 10 LIP:2752.29 14 ALUMINUM W/6"WIDE RETRO-REFLECTIVE RED/WHITE
- F LIP:z753.o9 + DIAGONAL DECALS PAINTED SIGNS ARE NOT ALLOWED. CONTACT DICaLINE
�' I � •''•�. 1 .2753. 4 P CON: / � ��
CON: °� ` BARRICADE MUST HAVE A KICK PLATEAT THE BOTTOM TO
■ o° •.• LIP:2753.51 oo,:a.:a o �"�OV�
°
::
!R ° 3 < ° cps " •••• 11 E- 1.5%u a _.w =�° p
■ � a :� ° / ./* o � ••�a � AC:2752.35 0 1
:• ••°�°�... .> PROVIDE CANE DETECTION
e.. 1.0% CON:2753.07 �- -800- 2-ir�5
� I eEr-ol� ac�IN�
CON:2753.69 t3%-•1.3%�r°. 1z.00' -.CON:2752.99 I' RIM:2750.74 13. TYPE-III ROADWAY TERMINUS BARRICADE PER ACHD
-a - O R
b �
o f q' Qa`, 8.�, CON:275357 �>ces,7% a °=1.z% -1.z% -1s% 'I 20+08 49,26 0 '
\ .. .�-_
� °
°° 5 ••' �� op � �N:2•.os �°�' a � I I � STANDARDS. BARRICADE SHALL INCLUDE A SIGN THAT STATES
■ o "'••••••• _ ° oo ° CON 2753 � LIP.2750.54° e �
d
ti a °P C9
............................................. - - -° ... ° �< a ° - a 15� ti� / a aa° .o°s. o o �� ° ° c� 1a I >s W ; ..THIS IS A DESIGNATED COLLECTOR ROADWAY. STREET WILL
2749................. ° RIM
a ................ v
- °
h a
e ti
°a .
° P �1 ,.• I I
o .T s;e:.z.° �� �
o a
• a ° „ �� �ioo� � � BE EXTENDED AND WIDENED IN THE FUTURE"
`N.F....... ....
4 z753 14� �� a CON: 3.81 -0.5%::o��•e-4.5%�o v 1 4 CON•2753.27 I I I?
:�_-... ..• •�°•••••• •......, ���° -0.7% r"• �-�I �ti� SHAPE VALLEY GUTTER SO THAT ALL FLOW WITHIN THE
°
:a
... ° 12
_ CON:2753.98 CON:2753.72 CON:2753.23
1
■ \ M o --- ,,,. I - - - - - T , 3 CON:16
2753.41 \ I I I '' VALLEY GUTTER ENTERS THE STORM DRAIN INLET. 04
\ o n -=�•.� , c -� 1 / CON:2753.91 d - _- 11 1 CON:2753.14 I / 2
■ --_ y� N
N oN:2753.a2; '06 � I I^ / � 8 � 15. RETAIN & PROTECT EXISTING GAS LINES -SEE NOTE 1 ON THIS W
---- ----- -- `� CON: 04 C I I ? / / Z Q
11 r CON:2753.18� �(Sp I >� SHEET. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH WILLIAMS
o / / CON:2753,88 16 18+60.49,52.00'R '?s I PIPELINE AND DETERMINE THE EXISTING HORIZONTAL AND 2
ACHD SLOPE EASEMENT , s I I 5��
■ \� I 16, ♦♦ 16 TBC:2753.85 I I / VERTICAL POSITION OF THE GAS LINES PRIOR TO START OF 0 W
\ \ 18+26.49,52.00'R / �° e�°
■ I CONSTRUCTION.
18+58.49,52.00'R o Z
/ c° G TEMPORARY PUBLIC
a �
■ \ \ � o � I / 5 ?� � LIP:2753.85 I ;` � W
I-'... �N O
LIP: \ Q Q
>oo, P5 ?, - _ _ •\`••• 8 I i � TURN-AROUND EASEMENT 16. GRADE BREAK. � � -
LOCATED AT EDGE OF PAVEMENT
■ \ \ o I s� + / 18+42.49,52.00'R I d .:' _� / 17. MATCH EXISTING DITCH. LL.
a �L 18 24.49 57.00'R f G -'" ACHD TO RELEASE TEMP.EASEMENT
♦ / / 15 / AC:2753.64 I I o G E
■ \ \ I �l h� 36.00' �, �� / ONCE IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED 18. CURB TERMINUS PER ACHD SUPPLEMENTAL STD. DWG SD-707. W W
TBC: co
18+26.49,57.00'R/ 9� `v / I I I `�` / -c•":.: :1�' -
_
Notes
LIP: I / I II �
F �P DISCOV Y PA K � � ........ �.:•: , cn
ui
SF 0
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE WILLIAMS
16 PIPELINE DEVELOPER'S HANDBOOK PRIOR TO BID. ALL WORK w w
SEE SHEET C.GD.7 2 WITHIN THE WILLIAMS PIPE LINE EASEMENT SHALL BE 0
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT WILLIAMS a_
DEVELOPER'S HANDBOOK - NO SEPARATE PAYMENT SHALL BE
S. RECREATION AVE. (STA 15+20 TO 20+08.49) MADE. SS�QNAL FNG,
2. CONTACT ACHD INSPECTION SERVICES AT 208.387.6284 A p��' �G\STE
2 MINIMUM OF 24 HOURS PRIOR TO REQUESTING INSPECTION. Q� F
0 20 40 3. ABANDONED BUILDINGS, TEST PITS, OR WATERWAYS LOCATED
FEET WITHIN CURRENT OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE 3
RE-EXCAVATED TO NATIVE SOIL AND BACKFILLED WITH cS'J 11-23-21
STRUCTURAL FILL PER ISPWC SPECIFICATIONS. PROVIDE SOILS 9TF OF �QP
DATA TO VERIFY NATIVE MATERIAL MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS ��ss ER\C�S�
FOR ENGINEERED FILL PER ISPWC SPECIFICATIONS AND
15+20 15+40 15+60 15+80 16+00 16+20 16+40 16+60 16+80 17+00 17+20 17+40 17+60 17+80 18+00 18+20 18+40 18+60 18+80 19+00 19+20 19+40 19+60 19+80 20+00 20+20 PROVIDE A COPY OF THE COMPACTION TEST REPORTS.
2760 2760 4. PROVIDE TYPE-P SURFACE RESTORATION FOR UTILITY WORK � •
WITHIN ASPHALT PAVEMENT AREAS. fr •
0 0 •
5. PROVIDE ALL TEMPORARY IRRIGATION DITCHES AND PIPES AS �� •. 0 (
REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE NEW IMPROVEMENTS. ALL CO CO �•
.. .. .. .
EXISTING DITCHES SHALL HAVE TEMPORARY REROUTING 0 - o o
PVI STA: 1 +18.25 PROVISIONS SUCH THAT THE FLOW OF IRRIGATION WATER, ANDiL
PVI ELE DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER ACROSS THE SITE REMAIN
K:21.06 UNINTERRUPTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF
LVC:83.94 CONSTRUCTION. •
rn
v
�, HIGH PT.ST : 18+22.18 N o co
to HIGH PT ELE : 2754.02 co � cc 1-
+ ti + ti
2756 W w �; 2756 w 2z
10
PVI ELEV: 2749.59 0 > > N o
�! m J /\ 0
K: 74.8 m 0° w "' 0 0 01 go
LVC: 133.17 <<
z
LL 0 0.
mt M O oz.
f
O� Of _.... C 00 O o 0
+ rZ N 3
_� N N
c + zG
N U U FINISHED GRADE AT ROADWAYC/L ----- - ------ --- -1'81� cn N N �_
___ __ o
> m w _� U z 0`
m 0 w 'LL
2 LIP OF GUTTER .1.82% z °
2752 APPROXIMATE EXISTIHNG 2752 C Ln
GRADE AT ROADWAY C/L + w w
z K Z
.0
I APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 27'LT a a _ v _ J \ Q v 10
J J J _
Q
0
0.40- oo Z
� � � � ACHD DI-2A ow
- APPROXIMATE EXISTING GRADE 42'RT ACHD DI-2B W
N
Y k
U¢
w3
0
a 0
c�3
2748 2748 Z Z N 00
0
RETAIN &PROTECT
EXISTING WILLIAMS PIPELINE
a
W
U
I♦ m
V `l
W w ���
CD
a m z 00
RETAIN&PROTECT y Lu N N m
2744 EXISTING WILLIAMS PIPELINE 2744 s o w W o-�
U U N .. Z
0- 0-
ACHD SEEPAGE BED#2 -
JOB NUMBER:
IDBI9075
DATE: 09/29/21
O SHEET NUMBER:
ui
J
S. RECREA10ION AVE. - STA 1 +20 100 20 08.49" W C.RD.3
2740 2740 Page 133
15+20 16+00 17+00 18+00 19+00 20+00 20+20
Item#5.
3 L - -
00 = = E� �Eo Z
LL P: 9 2 3 - °
Z
W � =d ' 0
` :.3/
/ Y
W/�/ ,,^^
V!
aZ w = = W
a0 ° 3o LL
Z
DRAIN ROCK SPECIFICATION V °
SEEPAGE BED NOTES: - - -
ooN
Hn
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IF GROUNDWATER IS
Void Volume of T pical Materials _- _ -
NL o= v
ENCOUNTERED AT AN ELEVATION HIGHER THAN THE BOTTOM ELEVATION OF THE Material Void Volume %
LINED SEEPAGE BED; OR,WITHIN 3-FEET OF THE BOTTOM ELEVATION OF AN UNLINED 2" Max Blasted Rock 30
� J_ � NO °
SEEPAGE BED. 1-'/2" to 2" Uniform Size Gravel 40 c.3' °
1 aoUN¢ � = N a
Keyed Notes O 114" Uniform Size Crushed Chips 40 z
2. ALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SEAMS SHALL OVERLAP 1-FOOT MINIMUM, UNLESS Crushed Glass 30
SEEPAGE BED WIDTH=SEE PLANS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE MANUFACTURER.
1. NON WOVEN FILTER FABRIC ON TOP, ENDS,AND ALL SIDES OF SEEPAGE BED. 3. THE FULL ROADWAY SECTION IS REQUIRED OVER THE SEEPAGE BED IN PAVED Crushed aggregates shall have a minimum 50% crushed or fractured face (at a r _ f Z0
18"DIAMETER DUAL WALL ADS-PERFORATED AREAS. least on one side and meet the following gradation: c .° o o E
1 o w
PIPE @ 0.0%(SEE PLAN FOR PIPE SIZE). PIPE w LL a N > w o
L E a 3 w N
SHALL BE PERFORATED AS SHOWN ON THE PIPE o 4. SEE STORM DRAIN PLANS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Crushed Aggregate ' y N o
PERFORATION SCHEDULE INCLUDED ON THIS 0 CL °
z STRUCTURAL FILL BETWEEN BOTTOM OF ROAD SECTION ° � Sieve Size Percent Passing a� E s o 0
DETAIL SHEET-CAP END. AND TOP OF DRAIN ROCK FOR BEDS WITHIN PAVED AREAS R5 4S° 5. THE BOTTOM ASTM C33 SAND ELEVATION IS THE MINIMUM EXCAVATION DEPTH. ° U o N w
Lq COMPACTED TO 95%MAX DRY DENSITY PER ASTM D1557 3 inch 100/o
FINISHED GRADE 6. SEE ACHD STORMWATER DESIGN GUIDELINES BMP#20"SEEPAGE BED"FOR 1 inch 25-60% �, - o
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS-"OPTIONAL CHAMBERS ARE NOT REQUIRED. 318 inch 0-4% a a T z
<n �318"DIA. fn - Z
PERFORATION No. 200 0-2% c a° d E a oU
7. GROUNDWATER WAS DETERMINED WITHIN THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT TO 9
TOP OF 18"PIPE PERF.EL BE GREATER THAN 20-FEET BELOW THE GROUND SURFACE. REFER TO a m w 6 a o m o
DRAIN ROCK SEE PLAN FOR PIPE SIZE _ GROUNDWATER RECOMMENDATION PREPARED BY STRATA DATED JULY 26TH,2017.
�"� //
PERFORATED PIPE IE TO 8. THE DESIGN VOLUME OF THE FACILITY DOES NOT INCLUDE VOIDS WITHIN THE ASTM
TOP OF DRAIN ROCK ///// C33 FILTER SAND LOCATED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FACILITY. 1
IMPERMEABLE SILTS AND CLAY
w /jo w/ ������ 18"ZPERFORATED PIPE IE.- // / 9. THE SEEPAGE BED WIDTH SHALL REMAIN CONSTANT ALONG THE LONGITUDINAL GEOTEXTILE SPECIFICATION
Y / O O 0 0 0 O O O O SEE PLAN FOR PIPE SIZE AND -�0 / / 18"DIA.DUAL
a Z ce 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / WALL ADS PIPE LENGTH OF THE SEEPAGE BED.
PLACEMENT IN BED INSTALL 6 OZISY NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (SEE PLAN FOR PIPE SIZE) Non-Woven Filter Fabric
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 10. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED, CONTRACTOR MUST HAVE A PERCOLATION TEST
As;z
AASHTO M288 CLASS 2 ON TOP 8�SIDES Property Test Method English
PERFORMED BY A SOILS ENGINEER AFTER SEEPAGE BED IS FULLY EXCAVATED CONTACT DMNE
� 0 oUvUvUvUvUvKo�o 0 0 0 / // %"DIA PERFORATION IN NOTE:AN ACHD INSPECTOR MUST BE PRESENT TO WITNESS THE TEST FOR IT TO BE Tensile Strength Grab ASTM D-4632 120 Ibs
BOTTOM OF o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / / VALLEYS OF CORRUGATED PIPE. ( Elongation ASTM D-4632 50% 48-HOURS
DRAIN ROCK BOTTOM OF DRAIN ROCK/ 5 EA. CONSIDERED VALID). IF THE PERCOLATION IS LESS THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY THE g BEFORE DIGgNC
TOP OF ASTM C33 SAND
o SOILS REPORT AND ENGINEER,CONTRACTOR MAY NEED TO BLAST OR BORE TO Puncture ASTM D-4833 65 Ibs
ASTM C33 FILTER SAND DO Trapezoidal Tear Strength ASTM D-4533 50 Ibs - - 2-
CREATE CONDUIT FOR DRAINAGE TO OCCUR, OR RE-DESIGN THE SYSTEM TO
o BOTTOM OF ASTM C33 SAND 18" PERF. PIPE ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED INFILTRATION. ACHD APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ANY UV Resistance ASTM D-4355 70%
M �o � o MODIFICATIONS TO THE STAMPED,APPROVED DESIGN PLANS. Apparent Opening Size
D 3 a DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE=1"PER HOUR Alo0 Aj PERFORATION f D� ASTM D-4751 70 US Std. Sieve(ALL SEEPAGE BEDS) �O DO D AOS 1 ( 1 r �I / � � � 11. FOR UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEMS INSTALL ELECTRONIC MARKERS ON
� U U EXISTING POORLY GRADED GRAVEL WITH SAND SCHEDULE � PermittivityASTM D-4491 1.50 sec-1
GROUND WATER EL=GREATER THAN 20.00 FEET BGS)Q Do Do 0o Do EACH CORNER OF THE FACILITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE Water Flow Rate ASTM D-4491 120 pmlft2 N
��o� ACHD INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FOR PLACEMENT OF THE MARKERS DURING
Do 00 0o Do 00 00 00 00 00 o CONSTRUCTION,AND PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. Woven Fabric Q Q
12. CONTRACTOR SHALL DIG A TEST PIT AT EACH SEEPAGE BED LOCATION AND Property Test Method English 0 a o
CONFIRM THE SOIL PERCOLATION RATE AT THE DESIGN SEEPAGE BED BOTTOM OF Tensile Strength (Grab) ASTM D-4632 Min 250 Ibs
PERCOLATION TEST REQUIRED AT EACH ACHD ASTM C33 FILTER SAND ELEVATION PRIOR TO EXCAVATION OF THE COMPLETE Puncture Strength or CBR ASTM D-4833 or Min 125 Ibs or Min 950 W Q Q
SEEPAGE BED. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY IN EVENT Puncture ASTM D-6241 Ibs 0- p
SEEPAGE BED LOCATION: THAT THE FIELD PERCOLATION RATE DOES NOT MEET OR EXCEED THE DESIGN UV Resistance ASTM D-4355 Min 80% LL EE
PERCOLATION RATE, OR IF BEDROCK IS ENCOUNTERED ABOVE THE DESIGN 0 w
Apparent Opening Size LU
SEEPAGE BED ELEVATION. UPON RECEIVING NOTICE FROM CONTRACTOR, (AOS) ASTM D-4751 70 US Std. Sieve >
1. THE DESIGN PERCOLATION RATE FOR THE SEEPAGE BED INFILTRATION FACILITIES IS �_ O
ENGINEER WILL RESIZE THE SEEPAGE BED TO ACCOMMODATE FIELD CONDITIONS- Water Flow Rate ASTM D-4491 Min 18 gpmlft U
1 INCHIHR. UNDER DIRECTION OF THE OWNER'S GEOTECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE, NO SEPARATE PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE TO CONTRACTOR FOR THE CHANGE AS C)
CONTRACTOR SHALL CONDUCT A PERCOLATION TEST TO BE WITNESSED BY THE Percent Open Area CW-02215 Min 4% C/)
LONG AS THE RESIZED SEEPAGE BED DRAIN ROCK VOLUME EQUALS THE RESIZED w 0
OWNER'S GEOTECHNICAL REPRESENTATIVE&ACHD. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE VOLUME. ~
ALL WATER,AND OTHER MATERIALS REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE TEST. THE
PERCOLATION TEST SHALL BE PERFORMED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AFTER THE w Uj
SEEPAGE BED IS EXCAVATED TO VERIFY THE DESIGN INFILTRATION RATE. (NOTE:AN � °
ACHD INSPECTOR MUST BE PRESENT TO WITNESS THE TEST FOR IT TO BE 10 1a
CONSIDERED VALID). IF THE PERCOLATION IS LESS THAN THAT SPECIFIED BY THE
SOILS REPORT AND ENGINEER,CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ENGINEER TO SS\0AL FNG
RE-DESIGN THE SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE THE REQUIRED INFILTRATION. ACHD O�� <cG\STE
APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE STAMPED,APPROVED
DESIGN PLANS.
3
11-23-21
s /( OF
ER
ACHD SEEPAGE BEDS WITHIN S. RECREATION AVE.
HALF ASTM C33 BOTTOM OF M • . . . •
LOWEST TANK RIM EL PERF PIPE TOP OF BOTTOM OF SEASONAL TOP OF DEPTH •• •.
SAND AND TANK LOWEST LOWEST FG TOP OF PERFORATED HALF BOTTOM OF DRAIN ROCK TOP OF FILTER EXISTING PERF PIPE LOWEST FG UPSTREAM m CC) . .
SEEPAGE UPSTREAM MINUS IE TO TOP ASTM C33 ASTM C33 HIGH PERF PIPE FROM COVER • z •
GREASE SIZE TANK RIM EL. OVER LOWER PIPE PERFORATED DRAIN ROCK THICKNESS DRAIN SAND GROUND TO BOTTOM TO TOP OF STRUCTURE , _ C• C• CO
BED # STRUCTURE LOWER OF DRAIN FILTER FILTER GROUND TO TOP OF ROCK TO CHECK . 00 00 co •
TRAP # (GAL) RIM EL. EL. BED. BAFFLE EL BAFFLE EL DIAMETER PIPE IE. EL. (FT) ROCK EL. ROCK (FT) THICKNESS SAND EL SAND EL EL WATER EL. ROCK {FT) OF ROCK GW ROCK SURCHARGE
(IN) (FT) (FT) Z 0
C\j co
SG ACHD-1 1 1000 2747.42 2747.90 2747.88 2742.64 5.26 18.00 2741.64 2733.40 12.00 2745.40 3.76 1 .50 2733.40 2731 .90 2747.00 2727.00 2.26 8.24 6.40 2.48 OK OK
SG ACHD-2 2 1000 2750.62 2750.66 2750.71 2745.77 4.89 18.00 2744.77 2736.16 12.00 2748.16 3.39 1 .50 2736.16 2734.66 2750.00 2730.00 1 .89 8.61 6.16 2.55 OK OK
W n
=0 a �o
OU
SEEPAGE BED CROSS SECTION - (TYPE 1 - ACHD) a
a
¢a
�_D .5 0.
U
00
g~
Z W
m
ZZ
O_
Z
U�
Oa
O J
d Z
Z W�
O
L0 OU
�Z
W >
Z U
10
OY
�U
K
Q 100
6 O
Z u)
J�
OW
Y k
U tt
�3
I�
0
x
Ir
c 3
}Y
O 10
Z
U
Z
W J 6)
(3 00 CO W
Z } Z W � W
Q O]
U K O o o co
W Q U vX Z
O W W a LL Q
a a o
JOB NUMBER:
LO IDBI9075
'w DATE: 09/29/21
V/
SHEET NUMBER:
ui
I- C.DT.5
W W
W �
Page 134
Item#5.
Issue
LEGEND Description Date
SYM COMMON/BOTANIC NAME SIZE CZC 6-23-21
BID SET 9-29-21
DECIDUOUS TREES ACHD COMMENTS 11-23-21
EAST LAKE HAZEL RD. '
+ I EXISTING TREE - RETAIN AND PROTECT
NGTAPART AREA A AR-EA--_-6.-_ I AREA C
I - -------------------------- - ------ � I - -- -ff -----------------------------_---_--_--_- --- I : : :� , + - G RE E N S P I RE L ITTLE LEAF LINDEN 2" CAL B&B
TILIA CORDATA'GREENSPIRE'
r
EXISTING PHASEI I �' EXISTING PHASE IEXISTING 11AS NO APART = �+
�- REDMOND LINDEN 2 CAL B&B �q
/ I / I
TILIA AMERICANA X EUCHLORA REDMOND -�
I I
I LA-222
� IT, I • SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST 2" CAL B&B
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS 'SKYCOLE' SUN.
~ = ______ -____ + CRIMSON SUNSET MAPLE 2" CAL B&B
ACER TRUNCATUM X ACER PLATANOIDES 'JFS-KW202'
\ '\ ~ - \�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - �- - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - .AL
\. \ -------------------- -
\. I
—�_ \\, I NOTAPRT MAGYAR GINKGO 2" CAL B&B ■■■■■r
`\ \ I I GINKGO BILOBA MAGYAR
\ = ---
v ,-\ EXISTING PHASE \ ® , '� , , ,\\+ +' 'f �•
EMERALD CITY TULIP TREE 2" CAL B&B
JENSENBELTS
� LIRODENDRON TULIPIFERA'JFS-OZ'
\ \• ,� , I I \\ Site Planning 5 S O C I AT E S
ZEXI1111G PHAGE I A I '-EXISTING PHASE, `•\• Landscape Architecture
Urban Design
I i 1 I �v. i
��` I _� �I �`v PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE 2" CAL B&B
v i ACER TRUNCATUM X PLATANOIDES 'WARRENRED'
AREA D AREA E
AREA F- � o Site Pla
nning
, EMERALD SUNSHINE ELM 2" CAL B&B Landscape Architecture
ULMUS PROPINQUA'JFS-BIEBERICH'
1509 S Tyrell Ln., Ste 130
\ \ \ii I \\ ❑ ❑ !� I i I Boise, Idaho 83706
\ WORPLESDON SWEETGUM 2" CAL B&B Ph. (208) 343-7175
+ e-mail jbo@jensenbelts.com
LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA'WORPLESON'
FOREST PANSY EASTERN REDBUD 2" CAL B&B
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -I� I- CERSIS CANADENSIS 'FOREST PANSY'
v�SQj
SWEET SATIVA CHESTNUT 2" CAL B&B
\� \\ IN
CASTANEA SATIVA
\ I J
I
/ I
i
I KENTUCKY COFFEETREE 2„ CAL B&B
\ r EXISTING PHASE,
CYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS
llllllll AREA G I AREA AREA 1, !
Z
SWAMP WHITE OAK 2" CAL B&B
'll-ll-ll-ll-ll I ` vv I i ! QUERCUS BICOLOR
."�v ; III--III—I1IIII--III-11 II II--III-11 II II--III-11 II II-III--1I I 111(���..✓✓"t II " •v; III-1 -1 -1 -1—
��•- ________________�_____�________ Uj
I
I I=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I •\
v III—III—III—III-III=1 I v, v I " �
l i11=III=III=III—III—III ''\, \•
III—III—I 11=1 11=1 11=1 I \ `\• '
II-III-III-III-III-III \ `\ ` \ I j' SOIXLAND POPLAR 2" CAL B&B
POPULUS DELTOIDES 'SIOUXLAND' W
_ _
� + v
BLOODGOOD SYCAMORE 2" CAL B&B
PLATANUS X ACERIFOILIA'BLOODGOOD' III LL
\`
ti v gy I ♦♦ ® ~�\\ `.\ I RED OAK 2" CAL B&B 0
v I ♦ 1..`
�, ♦ ®� QUERCUS RUBRA Z
IS/ < <
AREA J I AREA K AREA L~ \\`" EVERGREEN TREES U) 1 (D
co
00
-m - = VANDERWOLF PINE 7'-8' HT B&B i
ITfI �`• O PINUS FLEXILIS 'VANDERWOLF'S PYRAMID' O
A/////IIIII\v�\ w =
\\ ~`\ BLACK HILLS SPRUCE T-8' B&B L
\�.\ PICEA GLAUCA'DENSATA' Z > Q
Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ``�~`\. \ 0 z
8 SCOTCH PINE T-8' B&B
I I PINUS SYLVESTRIS
WQ
8 I + I Q
r w
SHRUBS/GRASSES/PERENNIALS W N CC_
5 ' SW
^V
L ` G v/
0 COREOPSIS 1 GAL
I I i COREOPSIS GRANDIFLORA
v I I I O KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASS 2 GAL
AREA M I AREA N I AREA O CALAMAGROSTIS X ACUTIFLORA'KARL FORESTER'
I C3 HIDCOTE BLUE LAVENDER 1 GAL Job Number 1999
I ! LAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA'HIDCOTE BLUE LAVENDER'
T.
HILLSIDE CREEPER SCOTCH PINE 1 GAL
I ! PINUS SYLVESTRIS 'HILLSIDE CREEPER'
GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC 1 GAL Drawn Checked
RHUS AROMATICA'GRO-LOW' JBA B WT
I i ! LAWN SEEDING Sccle AS SHOWN
-- " ------------------------ ---------------------- ---+-----------------------J
I ! Sheet Title
I I i WOOD MULCH
i
FUTURE PHASE OVERALL
!
PLANTING PLAN
CZC NOTES
1. NEW COLLECTOR ROAD STREET TREES:
1.1. 1275 L.F. OF FRONTAGE FROM NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO SOUTHERN STREET IMPROVEMENT AREA.
1.1.1. 36 TREES REQUIRED Sheet Number
1.1.2. 26 TREES PROVIDED AT 35' SPACING. TREES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN DRAINAGE FACILITIES AND
NORTH WILLIAMS PIPELINE EASEMENT. THESE 10 TREES ARE MITIGATED ELSEWHERE ON THE SITE.
0' 120' 240' 360' 1L2 . 0
SCALE 1" = 120' (@ 24"X36" Plotted Size) Of Sheets
Page 135
Item#5.
� MAT HLINE S E SHEET L1 .3
LEGEND Issue
Description Date
SYM DESCRIPTION
I CZC 6-23-21
DECIDUOUS TREES BID SET 9-29-21
N OTAP RT i/ + \I EXISTING TREE - RETAIN AND PROTECT
I
+ — GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN
011111111111411.
/ + REDMOND LINDEN {
II • SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST LA_222 Uti
I I �ff��f�Ir�SC���
�111i{11
+ CRIMSON SUNSET MAPLE
x I .AL .
• MAGYAR GINKGO ■■■ ■■I
d�
I I •• EMERALD CITY TULIP TREE
JENSENBELTS
ASSOCIATES
Site Planning
PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE Landscape Architecture
I + Urban Design
I I
In
CV EMERALD SUNSHINE ELM Site Planning
J
Landscape Architecture
W
I 1509 S Tyrell Ln., Ste 130
I + WORPLESDON SWEETGUM Boise, Idaho 83706
Ph. (208) 343-7175
W + e—mail jba@jensenbelts.com
W
W I EXISTING PHASE 1 I I FOREST PANSY EASTERN REDBUD
Z I
J
(� SWEET SATIVA CHESTNUT
Q I I I
� I I
KENTUCKY COFFEETREE
I + + + + + +
I I
r + + + + + + + /
\+ + + + + + + \ SWAMP WHITE OAK Z
+I'` + + + + + + I O
+ + + + + + + + + + +\ + w
+ '` + + + + + + + + + + SOIXLAND POPLAR Q
+ + + + +
W Q
+ + + + + + BLOODGOOD SYCAMORE U
W � 0
+ + + + + + + + +
RED OAK In � 0
+ + + + + + + + + + J
EVERGREEN TREES W N
N co
CO
+ + + + + + + + + I = = VANDERWOLF PINE i 00
� + I Q
+ + I BLACK HILLS SPRUCE W Q
I
w � 0
Z > < Q I
SCOTCH PINE Q O j Z
— a
+ � 0Wo
I SHRUBS/GRASSES/PERENNIALS (1) r W
W — Cq
Uj
COREOPSIS Q N
U KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASS
I I
I co � HIDCOTE BLUE LAVENDER
+ HILLSIDE CREEPER SCOTCH PINE Job Number 1999
GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC
I
I I Drawn Checked
LAWN SEEDING JBA BWT
Scale AS SHOWN
IWOOD MULCH Sheet Title
I + I I I
NOTE PLANTING PLAN
SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR FULL PLANT SCHEDULE AREA F
I I I
I I
o0
I I NORTH Sheet Number
I I +
I
0' 20' 40' 60' L2m6
SCALE I" = 20' (@ 24"x36" Plotted Size)
I Of Sheets
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.9
Page 136
Item#5.
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.6 ,
LEGEND
Issue
Description Date
� SYM DESCRIPTION
I + CZC 6-23-21
DECIDUOUS TREES BID SET 9-29-21
co
I / \
i + I EXISTING TREE - RETAIN AND PROTECT
� I + \ - GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN
I I `Nti111O1��,11►����
l
I z + REDMOND LINDEN
i
00
N
\
I I Q s I • SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST LA_222 Uti
III Ire. ti
+ U
w + CRIMSON SUNSET MAPLE
Ico
.AL .
O MAGYAR GINKGO
II � •• EMERALD CITY TULIP TREE JENSENBELTS
U I ASSOCIATES
W I Site Planning
PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE Landscape Architecture
J Urban Design
I
O
+ U I o EMERALD SUNSHINE ELM Site Planning
Landscape Architecture
Iw 1509 S Tyrell Ln., Ste 130
+ + I Z + WORPLESDON SWEETGUM Boise, Idaho 83706
I Ph. (208) 343-7175
e-mail jba@jensenbelts.com
FOREST PANSY EASTERN REDBUD
I
SWEET SATIVA CHESTNUT
co
+ + + + + EXISTING PHASE 1
KENTUCKY COFFEETREE
+ + + + + + + + -
+ + + + + + + + - I SWAMP WHITE OAK Z
I + + + + + + + + - I p
+ + + + + + + + + SOIXLAND POPLAR
00
N + + + + + + + + + + +
J / I�I + + + + + + + I I wW
LWU + + + + + + I BLOODGOOD SYCAMORE U
( + + + + + + / 0 0
+ L + + + + + / Q
WI + + + + +
W + I I O
U + + + + + + + + + + RED OAK Q
Wcr
z + + + + + + / + Z
2 + + + + + + + I < < j (V
() I I EVERGREEN TREES W
+ fi fi + + CO
+ +
+ + + + + + + + + + - + + + %\-
00
\ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +/� I `\�! VANDERWOLF PINE 0
+ + + \�� + + + + + + + + + + + + � + Q w =
+ 'e + + + + + + + + + + BLACK HILLS SPRUCE W
+ + + \\ + + + + + + + + + +
����' I z > ao
I + + + + + �, + + + + + + +
X SCOTCH PINE
+ +\P� + + + +\ + + + + + + + � I Q O Z
x + x + X + I SHRUBS/GRASSES/PERENNIALS r W, I cn
N 11..
COREOPSIS
N Cn
KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASS
HIDCOTE BLUE LAVENDER
� I �
I i i
HILLSIDE CREEPER SCOTCH PINE Job Number 1999
I GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC
c �
Drawn Checked
\� I LAWN SEEDING JBA BWT
Scale AS SHOWN
I
WOOD MULCH Sheet Title
NOTE PLANTING PLAN
c\ �\ SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR FULL PLANT SCHEDULE AREA
c c\ � •
c Sheet Number
\� \ c\ \�\ • — I
� c c � • � NORTH
0' 20' 40' 60'
- L2m9
�\ c c �� • I SCALE I" = 20' (@ 24"x36" Plotted Size) Of Sheets
\ MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.12
Page 137
Item#5.
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.9
` LEGEND
Issue
SYM DESCRIPTION Description Date
CZC 6-23-21
\� \c c \` • • + __ DECIDUOUS TREES BID SET 9-29-21
ACHD COMMENTS 11-23-21
�� c c\ �\ • • • L_J + I EXISTING TREE - RETAIN AND PROTECT
I \ \ I I I
c \ /
+ \� \c c `� • a' + — GREENSPIRE LITTLELEAF LINDEN
REDMOND LINDEN � 7{
`� \c c `� / o o • SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST i� LA 222
\ \
� � I t11111i{111t
CRIMSON SUNSET MAPLE
O C� + c
° I MAGYAR GINKGO ■■■ .■■I
c\ \ I J■■■■■t
` 7_ �
2W •• EMERALD CITY TULIP TREE� yT JENSENBELTS
` + ASSOCIATES
+� �� c �\ I Site Planning
PACIFIC SUNSET MAPLE Landscape Architecture
` c Urban Design
+ `9" \�� \ \� I ° EMERALD SUNSHINE ELM Site Planning
c \\ Landscape Architecture
\/ 1509 S Tyrell Ln., Ste 130
� + WORPLESDON SWEETGUM Boise, Idaho 83706
Ph. (208) 343-7175
e—mail jba@jensenbelts.com
� c �
CV FOREST PANSY EASTERN REDBUD
\ c
SWEET SATIVA CHESTNUT
�I
W
z ° `� SSG' \ + KENTUCKY COFFEETREE
J °
STREET LIGHT TYP \
° �G `� c SWAMP WHITE OAK7_3 Z
O
c
� SOIXLAND POPLAR
BLOODGOOD SYCAMORE U
' W 0
+ + O
RED OAK
\ c \ Z
aQ`Z ` � EVERGREEN TREES w v
� NO
c \ _ VANDERWOLF PINE i
/ CLEAR SITE
l
• + + TRIANGLE TYP \c c `�\\ Q
BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
W �e
oo OlS � o
\`
+ - I Z > a
I c c SCOTCH PINE < 0 Z
+ \ _
w Q
+ fl fl fl fl c c SHRUBS/GRASSES/PERENNIALS SHRUBS/GRASSES/PERENNIALS w
+ I N �
rw
COREOPSIS Q N
� c
c\ \
• ___ ` C� KARL FORESTER FEATHER REED GRASS
SHIDCOTE BLUE LAVENDER
w I I c\ \ HILLSIDE CREEPER SCOTCH PINE Job Number 1 999
1 _ c
I
+ 8W— 8W ` GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC
+ I\� Drawn Checked
\`
� LAWN SEEDING JBA BWT
o` Q Q o v a AS SHOWN
Scale
WOOD MULCH I � � Sheet Title
NOTE PLANTING PLAN
SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR FULL PLANT SCHEDULE AREA L
I \
•• I
I _I Sheet Number
NORTH
/ I I 0' 20' 40' 60' L2m12
1
/ SCALE 1" = 20' (@ 24"x36" Plotted Size)
� Of Sheets
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET L2.15 T
Page 138