The URL can be used to link to this page

2022-01-25 Work Session CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 4:30 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton (4:35 pm) Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 1. Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Work Session 2. Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting 3. Final Order for Shafer View Terrace Subdivision (FP-2021-0056) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd., Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel S1405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW ¼ of the NE ¼ of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. 5. Development Agreement (Settler's Square H-2021-0072) Between the City of Meridian and Brighton Ustick, LLC and Alturus Ustick, LLC, Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave. 6. City of Meridian Financial Report - December Fiscal Year 2022 ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 7. Community Development Department: Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of $501,559.00 to Accept the Fiscal Year 2022/Plan Year 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun 8. Community Development Department: Development Pipeline, Growth Projections, and Legal Guidance ADJOURNMENT 5:46 pm Meridian City Council Work Session January 25, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 4:31 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, Kurt Starman, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Crystal Campbell, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton (4:35 p.m.) _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: We will call this meeting to order. For the record it is January 25th, 2022, at 4:31 p.m. We will begin this afternoon's City Council work session with roll call attendance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item is adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item 1. Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Work Session 2. Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Page 6 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 2 of— 3. Final Order for Shafer View Terrace Subdivision (FP-2021-0056) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd., Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. 4. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex East Subdivision (H- 2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel S1405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. 5. Development Agreement (Settler's Square H-2021-0072) Between the City of Meridian and Brighton Ustick, LLC and Alturus Ustick, LLC, Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave. 6. City of Meridian Financial Report - December Fiscal Year 2022 Simison: First item up is the Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move to approve the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Bernt: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the Consent Agenda is agree to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: No items were moved from the Consent Agenda. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 7. Community Development Department: Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of$501,559.00 to Accept the Fiscal Year 2022/Plan Year 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award Simison: So, we will move on to Department/Commission Reports. The first item up is Item 7, a Community Development Department net zero budget amendment in the amount of 501,589 dollars regarding the CDBG grant. Crystal. Page 7 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 3-— Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is a net zero budget, as you had mentioned, to request spending authority for our CDBG grant. All of the projects were approved on our action plan, so it's really just to accept the funding and be able to spend it. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? If not, do I have a motion? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I move that we approve the net zero budget amendment in the amount of 501,559 dollars to accept the fiscal year 2022 Community Development Block Grant Award. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, absent; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries. The item is agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 8. Community Development Department: Development Pipeline, Growth Projections, and Legal Guidance Simison: Next item is from our Community Development Department regarding the development pipeline growth projections and legal guidance. Councilman Hoaglun, would you like to start with any comments or would you like to hear from staff first? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just -- I would like to make a few brief comments if I may. This is kicking off kind of a series of meetings that we will be holding regarding growth in our community and things related to school enrollment. What we are going to hear this afternoon is from Caleb Hood, who is going to kind of go over our growth in our community, what's in the development pipeline, those types of things that are -- that are coming from a city perspective and it's not to get into enrollment numbers and those types of things, but this is to give us background and information on what is going on in our community and kind of what's -- what we can look at down the road. Also Bill Nary and Kurt Starman for our Legal Department are going to give us some -- a tutorial, if you will, on annexations and moratoriums. What does that mean? What are the processes? We just have to -- we throw these terms out and we talk about them, but I don't think we sometimes fully understand the implications or limitations that they might have. So, it's Page 8 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 4 of— just to give us an understanding as we move forward and the next step will be the school district coming to talk about their matrix and how they are now calculating their enrollment numbers and whatnot. So, this is the first step. Then we will have that second step. And, ultimately, we would like to get together with the school administrators and school board down the road. It will be several months from now and have a discussion with them. So, this is just a continuation of our process of understanding what's going on in our community and how our partners are impacted in the education industry. But tonight is more about the facts and what we have here within our community from our city development process. So, with that, Mr. Mayor, good to hear from staff. Simison: Thank you, Councilman Hoaglun. So, with that I will turn this over to Mr. Hood. Hood: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council President. I appreciate those opening remarks. And there will be some implications into what I present and what you see this afternoon, but we are going to be pretty factual here and really focus in on what we have seen for applications and lots and sticking to the script here as far as it is on the -- the agenda for this workshop. I am going to take them in a little bit different order, starting with some of the -- the actuals and, then, getting into growth projections, pipeline stuff, but -- and, then, again, legal will talk at the end. So, I'm -- I'm going to share some historical data on dwelling units, lots, and residential entitlements in general. First of all, I had a lot of help. Bill Parsons, Miranda Carson, Brian McClure and Ryan in IT, in particular, over the last couple of weeks preparing for this. We had some holes in both accessing or mining the data in our database and what was put in the database originally. Sometimes people didn't put in the number of lots proposed with a plat, so we had a lot of cleaning up the database to kind of fix -- fix some holes. There may still be some out there, but I'm pretty confident what you see here is within tens of units, not within hundreds of units. So, the margin of error here -- and, again, props to those people for helping get -- get us to this point today. So, again, there is still some work to do, but the tables, graphs -- graphs and maps I'm going to show have come a long way just in the past couple weeks. I typically use notes, but I just made a note here for myself when I present, but I may largely read my notes to you today. There are details in here that I don't want to miss and so if I don't make eye contact I apologize. I'm not one for trying to just read from my script, but I do think I have some things that I definitely want to -- want to touch on. So, the first one you have probably already -- it's probably already caught your eye. Simison: Mr. Hood, just real quick. Just for the record Councilman Borton joined us at 4:35. So, the public knows he's in the room. Hood: And I'm glad he did as well. I'm glad that the whole Council is here, because this has been, as Council President pointed out, a -- somewhat of a topic of discussion. The modeling that's been talked about and the request for some of that I think plays into some of this presentation. So, I'm glad you all are here. So, the first tab is historical data. The numbers in this table are largely from Finance and what the city's growth committee uses. So, I want to point out just a couple of things in this table. Again, I think it's pretty self explanatory, but you can see the number of -- number of single family and multi-family households per year, add those together and it gives you the total number and what we Page 9 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 5—— have added in there is just a year over change. So, from '12 to '13, for example, we added 1,300 new dwelling units and so on and so forth. So, you can kind of see how many total dwelling units were added and where we stand today is right around 40,000 single family residential dwelling units. So, 48,000 in total when you add the multi-family in. I colored these -- or these are colored purple just because they are projections. These are the actual numbers from Finance that we recognize largely based on permit sales; right? So, you need a water meter type of thing and so each unit is accounted for that way. I will get into that a little bit -- a little bit more. But, again, these are city generated dwelling units largely from Finance. Some of the other information you show on here -- again, sort of a work in progress a little bit. Our data gets more and more reliable the closer to today you get. We spent some time backfilling in the last few years. Again, some more work to go on '18, '17, '16 to provide you a little bit more on how much we have approved and even you can see here -- pretty confident in these numbers, but, essentially, if you add the estimated to the known it gives you roughly 2,000 preliminary plotted units in 2019 and 1 ,700 for the past calendar year 2021 . 1 should say at anytime feel free to stop me, you know, if I'm going too fast or clarification or whatever on -- on -- on any of this. I will point out as we have the final plats, pretty confident in those numbers. We -- Miranda left estimated in here. But, really, there is no -- we think we have captured them all up here. So, pretty confident in these numbers. Again, just some things in here that maybe we don't have all of them. So, a little bit of a disclaimer on that one. And, then, building permits, so -- I mean that's the general cadence; right? Preliminary plat. Final plat. Building permit. Occupancy. So, kind of the last thing in there would be your unit counts. These are new units, then, for building permits issued per year for the last decade or so. So, I believe that was the request. Some of our data -- again, we will look at two or three year trends. We did go back a decade, though, for some of the historical numbers. I'm going to scroll down. I can scroll back up. This one I -- it doesn't really tell you much -- Simison: Mr. Hood? Hood: Yeah. Perreault: Can I ask a question on that chart? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Hood? Hood: Yes, Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. The preliminary plats approved, those -- those were -- the plats were approved and not yet final platted or are those preliminary plats that were approved, there were 3,000, and, then, 2,260 of those have been final platted. Hood: So, what this doesn't do -- Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, what this doesn't do is that math for you. So, there is not a running total and subtract that from this plat so Page 10 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 6 of— you know how many final plat lots are left. This is just the total citywide. So, in that year we have preliminary platted of this many, final platted of this many. Some of the ones we are final platting now may have been from 2017. So, if that makes sense. So, this is just the total number, not the running total, if that makes sense. And I will get -- I think a little bit more of what you are asking for in your question in one of the next slides. But, again, this is just total. So, there could be duplication. Could count a preliminary plat here and a final plat there or preliminary plat in '19 and a final plat in '21. Simison: Mr. Hood, one other question. Your building permits issued, unit counts versus the top one, total dwelling units by type, where the numbers don't align year over year -- Hood: Right. So, almost the same thing with that. So, the way I can explain that -- I'm not a hundred percent sure, but I asked Miranda the same question and Brian. There is a lag; right? So, you issue a building permit, but it doesn't actually get occupancy typically within the same calendar year. It's a six month or so construction time frame. So, you will have a lag. Typically, though, you pull a building permit you get occupancy, but it doesn't necessarily happen within the same calendar year. Simison: I assumed that was the case. I just want to make sure it's on the record when people look at the data. Hood: Yeah. Thank you for that clarification. And, then, again, just real quickly, this doesn't add a whole bunch of value, but I think it kind of goes with the same. Again, it all adds up in the end. Whatever your preliminary plat, you are probably going to final plat, you are probably going to have a building permit pulled for, but it doesn't all happen within the same year. So, you can have a whole bunch of preliminary plats in one year and hardly any final plats in the next year, a bunch of final plats and hardly any preliminary plats. So, this graph is just to kind of show that, that -- I don't want to say it's random, because you have to have preliminary -- you have to -- you have to have approval of preliminary plats before final plats to get to occupancy, but it does kind of ebb and flow with what we are highest in. Are we strong in final plats this season or are we stronger in building permits. So, really, there isn't a correlation when you are looking at it in the year of things. So, again, I'm not going to dwell there, but just -- they are not all trending at the same rate. But over time they will. Okay. So, the second tab then. So, that's kind of our baseline, if you will. This is -- this is where we are today, if you will, right, as far as residential dwelling units in Meridian. The next part of the request and what's on the agenda, then, if it will go there. If I can zoom out a little bit. Be a little small, but try to get all that on one -- on the screen. So, this is kind of the next phase. So, this is entitled lands. So, one of the issues we ran into when we got into this exercise of trying to show how many unbuilt units or lots are already approved, that was the fact that some projects are annexed or rezoned without that information. For example, Council from time to time annexes property with only a concept plan. That plan and the corresponding development agreement may or may -- may or more likely may not have any units associated. So, what we have done is assign the historic density that's been built to those properties by zoning designation. So, this tab shows what can generally be expected on top of existing dwelling units from the previous slide as entitled. So, to put that maybe a little more Page 11 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page , —— clearly, right, so R-15 -- you can come and get annexation for R-15, but if you don't have a concurrent CUP or plat, we don't know exactly how many dwelling units. But time has told us that R-15 on average we get 13.82 dwelling units per acre. So, what we have done is we have taken those -- that land area that we have in the city and as of this week we have 193 acres of R-15 zoned land that's undeveloped right just yet. So, we have assigned this 13.2 to 193 and that gives us -- it's rounded; right? But 2,700 new dwelling units. So, when you take those for all of our zoning districts and extrapolate that out, again, to all those that didn't have a plat or haven't platted -- or final platted yet, you could add another roughly 13,700 dwelling units to the total. So, that's -- if you will, that's what we have committed to, to just put it in layman's terms. These are -- these are more -- that we can -- give or take, we are on the hook for providing services to that many more dwelling units I guess that's kind of a simple way of stating that. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Quick question. Caleb, on the undeveloped acres, meaning there is not a preliminary plat, it's only concept? Hood: So, in this one it -- there could be a preliminary plat that hasn't developed yet. So, they haven't --just to make sure I got my notes right on that one. Borton: The reason to ask is is there -- is there any double counting? Hood: So -- no. That's what we are -- that's what we tried to avoid. To fill in the gaps from the previous slide that had preliminary/final plats, this doesn't double count those land areas. Simison: Council Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. Do we happen to know how many of those acres are the area in the south side of Meridian that was annexed for the intent of helping, you know, set our boundaries versus what have actually been requested by applicants outside of the city? Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, if you are okay if we put a pin in that for just a second. I wasn't prepared to go exactly there, but we have a cool tool that I'm going to show you at the end that maybe we can use that as a case study to see if we can find the answer to that. If you are okay pausing -- Perreault: Absolutely. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Page 12 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 8 of— Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you, Caleb. So, this is really helpful. I guess one thing I'm curious -- so this shows as kind of a snapshot in time, our -- like total pipeline of future development could take years -- could take ten years. Do we have any comparison point over time, even if it was like five years ago or something, what this total pipeline looked like for a way of knowing it's twice as much or it's the same -- or just kind of an historical context for it? Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I think we could do that, because we have this information that I have put back on the screen here. So, we could go see how many plats we had back there to see how many entitled land that we had before the dwelling units came on. I will just say -- again -- and I kind of glossed over it a little bit, but the year over change, right, I mean there is -- there is your trends. You can kind of look and see -- that doesn't -- that doesn't tell you your inventory, but it tells you your absorption. So, on, you know, two to three thousand kind of is what we have been averaging over the last handful of years. Obviously, that's up higher than it was in the five year bucket bid -- you know, before that. But, no, I don't -- we can look into that. I don't have an easy way today to find that, but we could look and say, okay, yeah, five years ago what -- what did your annexed yet undeveloped number look like? Strader: Yeah. Thank you. I was just curious if there is a big deviation from that, you know, quote, total pipeline of potential development compared to past years, but understand. Maybe that could be a future data point. Hood: Sorry. I will just also say we do -- Brian puts together the land use report annually and we can even look back on that report and say -- I think we have only been doing that maybe four years now. So, maybe it doesn't go quite back as far as you would like, but it does have some of these numbers. So, if you look at the historical land use report that we publish every year and get the oldest version we have, it will -- it will generally tell you some of that information, too. So, sorry to interrupt. Strader: Okay. No. Thank you. Oh, go ahead. Simison: I will just say that may actually be better, because the large annexation we did in the south with that holding pattern is going to put a line in the sand anyways for the usable years of historical data, because that would have been 6,500 R-4 -- I know it wasn't all R-4. But, for example, that would have been about the number that would have changed in the pipeline just by that addition. If 1 ,500 was the right number. Was that how many acres? Hood: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I don't remember now and that was 2016, 1 believe. So, if we fill in the 25th -- Simison: I think 2017 forward it would be apples -- you would be able to see that trend. Anything before that we would have to extrapolate out that probably -- that meaningful Page 13 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 9 of— data. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Caleb, is it possible to get an Excel copy of this data, if it's more updated than the opengov dashboard? I would just love to play around a little bit with some numbers I'm reading. Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, Members of the Council, so, again, you guys are ahead of me a step or two where we are -- we have some tools that we are going to share with you that I think can probably do a lot -- you know, you can have fun and you can play and you can zoom and crop and filter and sort and do all kinds stuff. So, I think -- let me show you some of the things and if it doesn't do what you want it to do, I think we will get you there. And I can definitely share that the Excel -- you know, these couple of sheets and we have some more, I'm not planning on going through them today, but have got some other spreadsheets and charts and tables that are associated, but just in the interest of time I think these are the most important ones that kind of get to the heart of the matter. But there is some more data behind that that I certainly can share, so -- okay. I just -- maybe a couple more notes on this one before I leave it. And, Councilman Borton, this may answer some of your question, too. I just wanted to note that if this Council wants to continue to attract this type of information long term, which it sounds like you do, you are interested in this, Planning will likely push and even require all proposed annexations or rezonings that don't include a plat or a detailed CUP for multi-family to propose a residential density that we could, then, put into a DA with a range or a cap or maybe some wiggle room of 20 percent up or down, but it helps us populate this going forward to say we are generally committing to this many number -- we realize sometimes you don't know exactly how many, but give us a range or a cap or something that we can kind of put a general number to and say, okay, well, let's allocate that much growth to that parcel. So, Bill and I talked about that today. I think we will take that to -- they will go through the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I think we are going to change our -- unless you guys are like, no, don't require the development community to do that. I think we are going to ask them to say you want this, you don't have a plan for it, give us -- what's your cap you are proposing on that residential density. We will evaluate that through the staff analysis process and, then, in a DA we will say you can build up to this or -- or whatever that process looks like. But I want to just get some head nods and it looks like generally everyone's okay with that. So, then, we can, again, really understand the impact of density long term. And, then, the unit count in this table is again -- and, then, I think I should just read my note before I take more questions, but the unit count in this table is annexed, but undeveloped as of January 1 st. What that means is any parcel within Meridian zoning that hasn't developed yet. So, the property is annexed and maybe platted even, but no structure has been granted occupancy yet. So, I think that that's a better answer than mine. So, it may have a building permit, but it hasn't been granted occupancy, so it doesn't show -- it's not double counted, because it's not a dwelling unit yet, it's still under construction. Doesn't have occupancy. Okay. I think everyone Page 14 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 10 of 26 understands that and -- and the C-G in particular. So, in C-G it's a mixed use zone and we can get multi-family and mixed use. That's the other thing just to call to your attention here. So, C-C and C-G allow multi-family developments with a conditional use permit, but they are largely nonresidential zones. That's where you get your commercial uses, your restaurants, all that good stuff. So, when you look at a citywide average it really brings your average down, because you only average about a dwelling unit in those areas, but the whole thing's zoned C-G, but 90 percent of it is commercial. So, that's one of the problems we had here. But we keep using the citywide average, because we don't have a better thing to do. That was just the methodology we kept. But just to call that out this maybe -- if you get again a wholly multi-family project in C-G you are probably in the 15 dwelling units per acre range typically. So, it may be a little low. So, just a caveat on that one in particular, C-G, 1.43 -- the residential portions -- residential land use portions of property zoned C-G we certainly get more than 1.43 dwelling units per acre. Okay. Let me go through my notes. Okay. So, we have looked at the historical dwelling units, entitled and imminent dwelling units, and the last factor, then, that I was going to cover are in process dwelling units or pending applications. So, this is largely Bill's side of the house and things that are -- that are in process coming -- staff's reviewing them, they haven't been acted on yet by you, but these are applications -- let me move my cursor. These are applications that we have accepted and began to process, but they haven't been through the hearing process just yet. So, you can -- you can potentially add these to the two tables we saw before, but these are pending review and approval. So, some or all of these may be approved, but some of them may not be, so -- so, just to do a little bit of that math. I didn't do this. But, again, we have, you know, roughly 45, 50 thousand plus the thirteen seven of entitled but not yet developed units. You could add all those up for -- to figure out, again, what we have on the books and what you can expect for the foreseeable future. Again, I will -- and Council Woman Strader I think alluded to this a little bit. We talked about it. You only absorb --we only absorb 2,500 to 3,000'ish dwelling units per year. So, we may have 13 or 14 thousand in the queue, but we can only go so fast and so historically we have only issued permits and occupied roughly 2,500 at least over the last five years. So, just keep that in mind. We won't absorb all 14,000 over the next year. Or at least I hope not. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Caleb, could you -- I apologize if I missed this. These are preliminary plats that are both being reviewed by planning staff or have all been approved by Council? Hood: These are only ones that have -- they haven't been to Council. So, they may be various -- they maybe have been to the Planning and Zoning Commission, but maybe not, maybe we just scheduled it for hearing and the hearing at P&Z is coming up or they have been through P&Z, but not to you. Maybe they are on your docket next week. But they haven't been approved yet. So, they are somewhere in that process of between application acceptance and scheduling for hearing and ordinance. They haven't been approved by you yet. The other note I will make on that is we have another handful, five Page 15 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 11 of 26 or six I think Bill told me earlier today, that have been submitted, but have not done a completeness review or we are waiting on some other things for them to be -- to get to that point where we say, okay, you are complete, we are going to schedule you for hearing now. So, we already have some that are even in the pre-pipeline, if you want to call it that, that are waiting and are really close, but we are still needing a couple of things from them to deem them complete, so we can begin this process. So, these numbers, again, tell that story, but there is even more coming than what's on this slide. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, Caleb, would it be fair to say, then, looking at this, that we have just under -- I guess you are totaling each column, so it's just under 2,000 additionally -- no. I guess it would be -- sorry. I'm just looking at this for like 1,200 units in southeast Meridian, then, specifically that are in this kind of pending bucket that we would expect to see in the next year come before us. Is that accurate? Hood: So, Mr. Mayor, I would say even within the next three or four months. Strader: Okay. Wow. Hood: Because typically it's about 45 days to get before the Planning and Zoning and, then, roughly another 30 days to get to you. So, this isn't even -- this isn't even a year's worth of -- now, again, things can get continued. You may not act on them. But, yeah, these ones -- again, if I had to ballpark it's probably closer to six months than a year. Maybe nine months, but -- yeah. So, not inaccurate, but within the year you will do more than what you see on here. Strader: Right. That makes sense with the 2,500 units a year, approximately, that are kind of coming through. Thank you. Hood: And so this is one of the tools that -- so, these are pending. So, again, that's what we have asked for. You could go to approved if you wanted to see that and you could see what those values look like in our demographic area. So, we broke the city up into eight demographic areas. So, again, this was some of the questions and some of the cool tools that you can play with if you would like and look at some of those and even, you know, Meridian west, look at the multi-family to single family ratio of approved single family and you could play by that -- by year -- you can sort it by year, by dwelling type, whatever, and it will give you the -- again, by demographic here and I have got another one that the dashboard -- called the dashboard that I will show next that you can even do some more. But even on this slide active would be no. So, this is something that's been approved. I think this is for '18, '19, '20 and '21, 1 believe. Do you remember, Bill, if this was -- no. Sorry. These are the pending ones. Sorry. So, these -- again, these are the same six months worth of things coming approved. So, this should have changed I guess a little bit; right? There you go. That looks better. Sorry. I saw the numbers down here. Page 16 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 12 of 26 So, you can -- you can change some of these and it will update the table with whatever you select. Okay. So, the last thing I wanted to show you is the next map. Before I jump to the map, the -- the dashboard itself, I wanted to just give you this -- this shows the demographic -- the demographic areas that Meridian is broken down into. We worked with COMPASS for -- it's probably been two or three years now on some of these boundaries. This, for the most part, matches our city limits really well. Before they were using like state highways, which made some sense from their perspective, but we worked with them on some of these borders. So, it really is northeast Meridian -- northeast Meridian and some of northwest Boise. So, I'm pretty proud of that, that our demographic areas actually match our future city limit boundaries pretty well. So, I'm going to show you that real quick and, then, I'm going to jump to the actual dashboard. Okay. On to the presentation -- all right. Sorry about that. Okay. So, what the -- the dashboard is -- has permit data from 2018 to yesterday. So, every night our database updates with information from Ada county and so this information is valid as of 12:30 a.m. or whenever it updates and it has -- right now I have got turned on all permits, so that includes, obviously, commercial and residential for, again, 2018, '19, '20, '21 and so far into '22. Not that far into '22. Simison: Mr. Hood, are these only building permits? Hood: So, these are -- yes. Building -- Simison: TI's. Commercial. Are they -- Hood: So, this includes residential-commercial. I will note that all permits does not include additions, remodels, TI's, et cetera. It only shows new residential and commercial permit activity. Simison: Thank you. Hood: And you can play with this, again, if you want to get into different -- and that's why the last one, the boundaries of those demographic areas are a little bit hard, because this map gets a little busy, but each ring represents --and the bigger the ring the more dwelling units -- represents a permit issued. So, you can -- again, you can sort it by year, you can sort by area, you can sort it by year and area. I will note just another quick note. If you select residential, if you look -- it looks a little odd right now and don't know -- let me make it bigger real quick. But if you just click on residential you will notice that all 7,800 permits we have done in '18, '19, '20, '21 are single family. Well, that's because multi-family is technically a commercial building permit. So, it doesn't show up here. So, if you are going here to look for a ratio of single family, multi-family, you won't get that here, because, again, technically for the building code multi-family is a commercial building permit. So, just wanted to call that to your attention real quick. So, again, there is a lot of stuff in here. You can see the -- the valuation of those permits. And, again, that's -- there is somewhat of an honor system; right? The valuation permit is whatever the puller of the permit says the structure is going to be worth. So, that's based on -- not the assessor's value, but just through our building permit process what each permit value is -- is tied to. So, there is a Page 17 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 13 of 26 lot here. I don't know what you want -- want to look at or any of it. This is a cool tool, but to orient you would probably take -- you know, there is -- there is a lot of layers that you can turn on, off, zoning and future land use and basically anything -- sewer sheds and all kinds of stuff we could put over the top of this. So, we have really got it paired back right now just for ease to look at demographic area. So, this is -- Council Woman Perreault, if we wanted to look at south Meridian a little bit more, quite frankly, that is split into two different demographic areas and I'm not an expert at this yet, so you would have to select both of them or look at one and, then, add it to the other to see how many of those acres -- we turn zoning on and they will come -- I think it should be pretty evident even when we look at it just like this, because the projects say like Apex, right, was done originally with that mass annexation, but it's come in since for some platting. So, some of those show permits that have been built. But you can tell where a lot of them haven't. I don't have the acreage, but we could get that I'm sure. So, again, that's probably not the best use of our time to go and figure out how many acres that were annexed in 2016 were there, but we could come up with that total of properties that were annexed with that south Meridian annexation that are -- have some level of entitlement and, Mayor, to your point here is one of those lands that we actually didn't give R-4 to, they got some R-15. 1 think this is the R-15 and this is the C-G. This may be R-8. So, there is -- most of it was R-4, but they negotiated some higher -- some higher zoning on that area. So, I know that didn't fully answer your question, but it is possible. I just didn't do that math before this meeting. So, I can circle back. But, again, this tool has a little bit better access to questions like that. So -- okay. Before I turn it over to Kurt, I think just -- for, again, some of that legal guidance as stated on the agenda. A couple of notes on entitlements. And I know most of you understand the discretion you have with the various application types, but I really do want to reinforce this a little bit related to the date -- the data in table two in particular. That once a property is annexed and zoned we have, essentially, committed to allowing development. So, at that stage you have a lot of discretion in whether to approve or deny, condition, or accept as is. Post-annexation, though, city code really controls a lot of that discrepancy and the discretion goes away. So, that said, you and the Planning and Zoning Commission, in the case of a conditional use permit, have quite a bit of discretion in that realm. There should be a nexus between any condition and the impact of a proposed project. But, essentially, the condition is included to mitigate the impact of approval. Moving further down the discretion spectrum on preliminary plats -- so the UDC Title 11 includes the standards for new plats and subdivisions. There are some elements that are gray, like the appropriateness of a proposed amenity perhaps, but most of how a plat is reviewed is black and white and code and you either meet the dimensional standards or you don't. So, again, once the project gets zoning and the plat conforms to dimensional and other standards, et cetera, very difficult to deny something like that. So, final plats even further down the spectrum, then, practically no discretion and I'm not in the building department, but, essentially, the same holds true there at the building permit stage. If the zoning and building codes are met we issue a permit. So, again, at the annexation and rezone stage the city is making a commitment to serve the property and allow it to develop. Just a -- more of an example on that, Public Works accounts for future dwellings and their ERUs and they take the capacity out very early in the process of what they have in capacity and modeling very early, because they need to account for that, because, again, it's assumed that it's going to go forward. So, with that Page 18 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 14 of 26 1 will turn it over to Kurt, unless there is any questions for me and, obviously, I will stick around, so he can do his thing, too. Simison: Yeah. Why don't you stay right here for a few minutes. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: A couple of questions unrelated to each other. The piece that -- that we are -- we discussed quite a bit in regard to school enrollment is not only the numbers, but how quickly they will -- you know, they will be occupied. Different from area to area, developer to developer, but at some point we do ask them for a phasing plan. What -- at what point in the process do we ask for that? And can that information be requested earlier, rather than even later, so that that can be kind of plugged into this --these spreadsheets as what we expect to see happen in the next three to four years? Hood: Good question, Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault. So, we ask for the phasing plan at the preliminary plat stage. So, we get a phasing plan. What the -- what that phasing plan doesn't do, though, is put a timeline to that. It just says I will do phase one, then phase two, then phase three, then phase four. They could do all four of those in one year. It just says I'm going to go one, two -- this -- from north to south or east to west or north, south, east, west, whatever. We haven't historically done that. And I guess I would -- obviously, you all can do whatever you want. I would caution you a little bit on tying them to a phasing plan too much, just for the burden that that puts on staff a little bit. So, just a little perspective there. I'm not saying what trumps what, but if you were to say you can do phase one in 2022 and phase two in 2024 and phase three in 2026 or whatever, that's on us, then, to track it. If someone tries to pull a building permit, if we are -- we are the backstop that enforces that and we just don't have the capacity to go and figure out and we got to hunt and peck and find and just -- let's talk through a little bit before we jump to something like that and hold a phasing plan to a -- you can do a plan a year for the next ten years. It's possible and if you want to do that we can go there, but I just -- again, let's think that through a little bit on how logistically that will work. Because, again, you get those at preliminary plats. We historically haven't tied that to you get one phase a year or you get 50 lots a year or whatever we -- we have. I can't think of a project we have ever done that for at the final plat stage. I would just say -- and this is my two cents. If you are that concerned about it I would rather deny the project, because you are committing to -- you are saying welcome to the City of Meridian, we would love to have you, but we are not, we are saying, well, we could kind of have you. Really you need to look at it and assume those are coming online. Again, that's what Public Works does. It -- 200 lots, they know they are not all flushing toilets tomorrow, but they got to remove that from their capacity numbers to know what's really -- for the next one how much they have left. You got to subtract that. So, sorry, I will stop. But you have the information, you can do with it what you want, and we can even highlight that more in a staff report. Here is the phasing plan, if that's really what you want to see. But, again, right now they are not tied to a year. Page 19 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 15 of 26 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that clarification. From what I have seen they -- the phasing plans are also intended for how they plan on building out and selling. So, perhaps I wasn't aware of that. I have not yet seen a development that has built multiple phases all at one time and sold them all at one time, but -- so, maybe that's my misunderstanding. Hood: And maybe just to clarify. So, a phasing plan is really just to record the plats. They could pull -- you know, they could record 200 lots and pull building permits where ever they want within the subdivision. So, the phasing is the phasing of the plat recordation. So, they are going to put the public infrastructure in for phase -- they could put all the streets and an open space and never pull a building permit if they wanted to and go record phase two. So, there is a little bit of a disconnect even with -- you don't have to have phase one built out as far as occupied, you can -- you could -- again in theory someone could record one final plat that has 300 lots in it. You just have to have all of the roads built and all of the amenities in before you can pull your first building permit. That's why you get phases. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, one more question. Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. I -- yes. That happened quite a bit, actually, in the mid 2000s, which caused a lot of sitting inventory when the market shifted. So, the -- the multi-family versus single family, sort of big picture ratios, you showed a slide here that looks like were about one-third, two-thirds on -- I didn't know what the criteria was that I had seen, but it -- does the Comprehensive Plan -- did we set like a desired ratio of multi-family versus single family and -- and has that conversation been had and is -- and if not, maybe it's not necessary, because maybe just the -- the zoning itself will limit how that plays out. But do we have some sort of idea of -- you know, if we were to get to a point that we thought multi-family was -- that we had too much multi-family in relationship to a single family or, you know, townhome or just keeping a balance? Hood: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, so, no, that is not addressed as a goal or a vision for the city in our Comprehensive Plan as far as the ratio of single family to multi- family. We do have policies in the Comprehensive Plan talking about -- we want to be a community that has a mix of different housing types, but that doesn't go to the point of 80/20 or whatever. No, there is no real talk about that. We do have some other policies in there that talk about, you know, the distribution, we don't want to put all of the multi- family right along your road necessarily. We want -- you know, it should be generally intermixed in different demographic areas. We have looked at it -- as staff we have looked at just, okay, what's --for a healthy community what do you get? What --what other cities -- what's -- what's a normal number of mix of -- and it really is all over the place. I mean you can -- you can see our ratio certainly has jumped way up. I mean look at today; right? Page 20 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 16 of 26 1 mean that -- that's a lot different than where we were ten years ago for sure. No doubt about it. I will -- I think this -- this may help a little bit. So, again, I don't have those numbers and I can't tell you the best practice in the planning profession is that 25 percent multi-family -- I'm not aware of any study that says in a community this is what your target should be for homeownership, rentals, multi-family, single family. Every community is a little bit different and I think, again, a mix and opportunities are what it's about, not a ratio. I'm going to show you just real quick, because I think this also helps, anyways, to your question. So, this is COMPASS. So, this will just show you in Ada -- Canyon county, then, that's at the top of my table. That ratio. So, if you look down here percent multi- family and manufactured. So, you can see other communities then. So, to your question at least in the valley where other cities and counties are at with their ratio. So, if you look at the percentage that year -- and, again, we can do some of the math and show some other tables, but it shows you generally what other cities in the area are doing as far as single family, multi-family, including multi-family manufactured; right? But -- yeah. So, we have some -- we have access to things like that. And we -- we track it, but we are -- certainly it's a shift and I'm glad you asked the question, because we have shifted and we have seen a lot of multi-family come in our inventory, but there still seems to be a market for it. I'm -- they are going to stop building it when people aren't renting anymore; right? I -- but I don't know what -- long term what -- is 35 percent too much? I don't know, so -- Simison: Caleb, one of the things that I think some of the Council was hoping that we would see is what's currently been -- has an active application in the pipeline. You know, Councilman Hoaglun has made the comment that whatever -- if we are going to make a policy decision about how we want to treat -- do we treat it from a certain day moving forward or not, any idea what the -- everything from annexations, you know, what -- what are the current applications that are out there? Is there a way to identify them? Hood: So, Mayor -- Simison: Maybe I don't -- and the type. Because I think the questions are should annexations be different than a rezone or a final plat or -- yeah. What's the best way to get a listing of all applications which are currently submitted, at least so Council can get an idea about the immediacy pipeline, because, you know, they made a decision to continue one application until, essentially, five months from their last hearing and I think the question is -- is that -- if that's the approach they want to take, I think it's important to figure out what is -- what's coming. Do we have 30 annexations coming for R-4 or multi- family in the next two months? Hood: So, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to put Bill on the spot here a little bit. So, the numbers that are on the screen now -- particularly up here are lots. That doesn't equate to applications. So, I know that doesn't -- and that's where I'm going to put him on the spot and see if he remembers how many applications that are in the pipeline this actually equates to. Plus the five or six that are -- Simison: Maybe a list of everything. Would it be possible just to get a list sent out to Council of the active applications which are scheduled -- you know, not -- not since it's Page 21 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 1 t of 26 been -- if there is no active application with a scheduled hearing. Anything with a scheduled hearing in front of -- that's planned for P&Z, moving through Council, at least get that list provided. Is that possible? Hood: Sure. I -- no, we have had that. We can certainly share that. I -- yeah. Simison: Let Council look at it for themselves. Hood: Sure. We can show -- Simison: List the names of the projects and if it's an annexation, if it's a -- whatever it is. Quite frankly, a lot of the description that's on the agenda is -- at least is a start. Hood: Yeah. Right. Yep. We have all that. So, we will just send you -- in fact, it's probably in one of these -- we will send it to you. We do have a -- one of our tabs that has a list of all, you know, file number, name, you know, so it's been paired way back, so we can send you that and just look at the ones that haven't yet been approved that are in process and get you that list. Sure. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun, was that what you were looking for from a -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, that's correct. Yes. So, Caleb, yeah, we can get together on that and get that sent out to Council or -- Hood: Sure. Hoaglun: Know how to use the tool appropriately. Thanks. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Caleb, on this chart that you have up, that's -- that's -- you had said that was the number of lots, but is that actual number of -- on the multi-family it's number of units; right? And the single family it's lots. Hood: Which would be the same thing for single family. But yes. Thank you for clarifying that, because sometimes we don't-- in fact, a lot of our multi-family projects don't plat and so you get zero lots with 64 units. Simison: Any additional questions or we will bring Kurt up. All right. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. This will be part two of your discussion tonight. I will segue a bit from what Caleb had presented. Again Kurt Starman with the city attorney's office. Mr. Nary and I are going to -- I liked Council President Hoaglun's description earlier. A little tutorial or maybe -- I guess I will call it a high level Page 22 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page —of 26 primer on two topics that I think sometimes get conflated and we will talk about -- first about moratoria and what that means and what the implications are and, then, also want to talk about annexations and particularly Category A annexations, because I think those topics sometimes get mixed together and so one of our goals for today is to kind of talk about both those things and separate those two topics for you. So, with regard to moratoria, state law does provide cities and counties the opportunity to implement a moratorium on new growth under certain circumstances and there are sort of two categories there that I will chat with you about today. So, one is under the header of an emergency moratorium and I will describe that more in a moment or two and, then, secondly, an interim moratorium and I will describe that for you as well. So, under that -- under that category of moratoria we have two flavors, if you will. With regard to the emergency moratorium, I think probably the one -- you know, the kind of the ways we can think about that -- I will just use a -- an example or two. But as its name implies, there is something compelling that or something that falls into an emergency category. So, as an example, if we had a sewer treatment plant that was failing and it could not accommodate additional growth or a water system that cannot accommodate additional growth, it may be that a city would want to implement an emergency moratorium in that circumstance to put a temporary cessation -- cessation on new development, new permits, and, then, allow the city or the county some time to correct that situation. I think importantly I think it's one of the areas where this -- this issue does get conflated as importantly with regard to moratoria of either variety, emergency or interim, the moratoria applies to development -- or permits, to be more precise, permits within the existing -- I will call it -- we are going to stick with cities today -- within the existing city limits. So, it's not -- it's not -- we are not talking about -- when we say -- we use the word moratorium we are not talking about development in the area of city impact or annexations, we are talking about putting a temporary pause on development within the city boundaries. So, with regard to the emergency moratorium, an example like the water or sewer example I gave you earlier, what the -- what state law requires is that the -- the legislative body, the City Council, make a finding that there is imminent peril -- I'm going to talk about that phrase or term in a moment. But imminent peril to the public health, safety, or welfare. In other words, our police powers, as a local government agency. And so that -- that phrase imminent peril think is important. It's important also on the imminent -- imminent -- excuse me -- the interim moratorium as well. But imminent peril -- we don't have an Idaho appellate decision that has defined that term, but we can sort of extrapolate from criminal law and just from other areas of law that -- I think it's likely a court would define that term of imminent peril to mean, you know, something that is certain and something that's going to be an immediate danger to -- you know, within our police powers, of public health, safety, or welfare. So, that's -- in my opinion that's a pretty high bar to say, you know, the -- for a legislative body to make a finding there is imminent peril and, therefore, we are going to put an emergency moratorium in place until we can address that issue. So, that's -- that's number one. I think it's probably fair to say -- Mr. Nary and I were having this discussion a couple of days ago that, really, if I look at -- kind of the balance there, really, the law provides a lot of protection for private property rights in that context is that there is a very high bar to put -- put a moratorium on new growth or new permits and there is all that to protect private property rights. Another way that state law protects private property rights in this context is that there is a very short time frame when such a Page 23 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 19 of 26 moratorium can be put in place. So, for an emergency moratorium you make that finding of imminent peril, which, again, is a high bar and, then, under state law that -- that moratorium cannot be in place for longer than 182 days or roughly six months. So, there is a timeline there and it cannot be extended beyond that six months, unless you want to move into that second category that I mentioned of the interim moratorium. I will describe that in a moment or two. I think an important concept I just wanted to put on the table and we are not -- you know, today we are talking very conceptual. I'm just talking about cities in general, not necessarily Meridian or, you know, any projects that you are considering, but I think in a -- in a broad context, just sort of in that context of a tutorial or a primmer, there is some risk to a city, in my opinion, that implements an emergency moratorium, because you have to make that finding, number one, imminent peril, which is, you know, again, a high bar and, then, to the extent, you know, a court later decides that that was not the case and that the moratorium was unlawful, it does potentially -- I'm not saying it's a certainty, but certainly if there is a potential to open up the door for a regulatory-- a temporary regulatory taking argument that a developer or a property owner was negatively impacted by that moratorium if it wasn't lawful, there is a possibility of a takings argument, which could result in liability to the jurisdiction that implemented such a moratorium. So, I just plant that seed again in a very general sense, not -- not with regard anything that's on our plate today. The second form or flavor of moratoria is the interim moratorium also codified in state law. Again, it applies to projects and permits within the city boundary. Does not apply to the area of impact. So, very similar in that regard and in a way there is even a -- another hurdle or another finding, I suppose, that is required above and beyond the emergency moratorium and that is that, number one, you still have to make -- the legislative body still needs to make a finding of imminent peril with respect to the public health, safety, or welfare and so there is a second criteria as well -- so, we need to find imminent peril and the city needs to make a finding that they -- that it's in the process of either adopting a Comprehensive Plan or an element of that plan or is amending the plan. So, it's sort of those two boxes that need to be checked for the interim moratorium, imminent peril and there is a -- you know, other -- a Comprehensive Plan is being adopted or being amended in some way, shape, or form. Again, some of the same risks that apply to the emergency moratorium would apply in this context as well. I mentioned with regard to the emergency moratorium there is a six month limit on that moratorium. Likewise, there is -- there is a limit as well on the interim moratorium. That's for one year. So, in theory you could go from an emergency moratorium into an interim moratorium or you could just start with the interim moratorium, but under that category of the interim moratorium it's a one -- up to a maximum of one year. It could be shorter, of course, but no longer than one year. And, again, some of those same risks I talked about earlier. So, those are two forms of moratoria that, you know, they are just, again, to sort of just have a high level discussion about what --what's available under Idaho law. So, I want to put a pin in that for a moment, put that to the side and talk now about annexations and particularly about category annexations, which -- Simison: Can we see if Council has any questions on the moratorium before we move off of this topic? Page 24 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 20 of 26 Starman: Of course. Simison: Just so we keep our -- Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Real quick question. So, would that mean that a city could -- assuming there is a policy decision to have a moratorium, that they could -- with either moratorium you couldn't use it to -- in an annexation application, but it would apply to, for example, the issuance of building permits that would follow from an annexation? Starman: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Borton, so I'm going to -- I'm going to return to the annexation comment in just a moment, but I think what the statute envisions is putting a hold on permits and building permits would be the prime example of what would be applicable. So, with an emergency moratorium or interim moratorium clearly that would apply to building permits that already are -- you know, to property within the city itself. The moratorium -- either form, emergency or interim, would not have a direct impact on annexations, because, really, what the moratorium says is within your city boundaries you can put a pause on permitting. It doesn't speak to annexations, but I will talk more about that in a moment. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Kurt, real quick. I appreciate your examples of rationale or basis jurisdictions could use. Could a jurisdiction use an imminent peril argument if the peril is being caused by a jurisdiction other than their own? For instance, the examples you referenced were water, wastewater, which as a city we have got a certain level of control of making sure that we are addressing that, but issues like schools and roads where we don't have direct control, can a city use the basis of traffic safety or the welfare of our students as a basis for -- for enacting a moratorium? Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Cavener. The case law I have looked at and examples I have looked at have all been sort of services or physical plants and things like that that are under the city's control or county's control. I haven't seen an example like that. I think in theory, you know, the law doesn't prohibit that, so in theory we could go there. I would say on -- on some of the examples you pose, like schools as an example, just to touch on that issue, I think the -- the more difficult part of that discussion is -- part one is those are things not within the city's control directly, number one, but perhaps even more importantly is I think it's very difficult to make a finding that an incremental increase in student enrollment would have imminent peril on -- on the community. That would be a very -- I think that would be a difficult finding to make. I'm not saying it's impossible. I would ask Mr. -- Mr. Nary if he has an opinion about the first Page 25 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 21 of 26 topic in terms of making the finding of imminent peril when the peril is being created by a different -- you know, an outside government entity as an example. I haven't seen any case law on that, but -- Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, I mean it's a great question and whether the -- and the answer is at least undefined in the state of Idaho and if you read the implications of the statute and the case law, it's always been within the control of the people imposing it. When it's outside of it, especially on the interim moratorium where the requirement is that your other finding is, what are you going to do about it? What plan are you going to change? What comp plan feature are you going to address and if there isn't one, then, you can't even make that finding. So, you know, again, how a court would review that I don't know. Again, there is no appellate cases in the state of Idaho, so it has never gotten above a district court level. So, I couldn't tell you that it's an absolute yes or no, but there is certainly a significant risk. I look at it -- and Kurt kind of stated it and we will get to this on the -- on the annexation side. I look at it as a meter on what is greater into the property owners control, which is where moratorium sort of land and where the property owner has a lot more rights that have attached to their property, what rights they have in developing their property, to the opposite end of that spectrum, which is annexation, where the city has a great deal more of interest and discretion on whether to annex property and add it into its city. So, somewhere in that spectrum are other types of applications. For example, a rezone application is appealable to the district court. And annexation -- annexation denial is not. So, that's why you have probably heard me say more than once, if you are going to deny a rezone, we need a reason and it can't just be I don't like it, it's got to meet your comp plan, it's got to meet your code, it's got -- it's got to have other reasons, because we have to be able to explain to a court what legal basis did we have and it's beyond just absolute discretion. So, it falls a little further up the meter than complete discretion that you may have in an annexation context. Starman: I will add -- you know, it's in the back of my mind I can't -- I couldn't tell you the case name right off the top of my head, but I -- in the back of my memory banks I do -- I think I recall a case that does -- that -- with floodplain type issues, that might come close to what you were talking about where -- you know, where the floodplain lies is not a function of what the city did or did not do necessarily, it's a function of Mother Nature and I think -- if I recall there was a scenario where concerns relative to floodplain issues was a reason for a moratorium. So, there may be -- that would be sort of kind of related to something beyond the city's control or something the city didn't create or didn't cause. Nary: Mr. Mayor, though, to add on top of that, in that scenario, more likely than not, you are going to have either an ability to make a finding that someone else has a plan in place that will take effect within that time period, or you are going to be amending your comp plan to take that out of a buildable area and so now you are, again, meeting that standard in the code of you are going to amend your comp plan, because the floodplain moved and we have expanded it and it is contracted in different parts of the city based on -- on various studies over the last ten, 15 years. So, there is the dovetail connection you can make that's connected to your comp plan. Page 26 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 22 of 26 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you. In line with that I'm still not completely connecting the dots on the interim moratorium, why it has to be within the time frame of adopting or amending the comprehensive plan. Help me connect the dots on why the moratorium must happen within that time frame. It -- to me the imminent peril and the comprehensive plan -- imminent peril could happen -- you know, the Comprehensive Plan in our city is reviewed every ten years. It could happen the year five. So, then, would you only been able to enact the emergency moratorium at that point or-- I'm not really connecting the dots there. Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault. So, I probably was not clear, so I apologize for that. So, there are two flavors of moratoria. With the emergency moratorium, the -- and this is really just a function that the legislature adopted when it adopted that -- these particular statutes. With regard to the emergency moratorium it speaks to the imminent -- you know, I think a legislative body needs to make a finding of imminent peril. That's a box that needs to be checked to satisfy state law. With regard to the interim -- interim moratorium, the legislature -- I couldn't tell you why they did this or for what purpose, but there is actually two things that need to be accomplished on the interim moratorium, which could be in place up to one year and what the law says is that you have to be in the process of adopting a comp plan or amending -- so, I will give you an example in a moment, but adopting or amending a comprehensive plan and you need to make a finding -- if you wanted the moratorium and you had to make a finding if imminent peril. So, with regard to -- I'm trying think of a good example. Let's take our sewer plant example from earlier. So, we have a sewer plant that is failing and not capable of taking on additional households in the near term. So, you know, we may -- the -- a city -- just generically a city could be doing two things simultaneously. It could say we are going to revisit our comp plan, maybe densities, for example, we can't accommodate higher densities, we need to revisit our comprehensive plan to reduce densities in the area that is going to be developed in the future and at the same time we are going to put a moratorium in place until we can accomplish that, amend our comp plan, and/or, you know, get the wastewater plant in a better position to accommodate new growth. I don't know if that's a good example or not. Simison: Thanks, Kurt. Starman: The second -- second topic that I will speak about -- and Mr. Nary already touched upon some of the key features here, but -- is annexation. So, again, I want to really draw that distinction. When we talk about moratoria we are talking about putting a pause on development within, you know, property that's already been annexed within the city boundaries and I want to compare and contrast that with annexations and particularly Category A annexations, which is what the City Council sees most frequently and as you know from your experience the Category A annexations -- typically they come -- the applicant, the property owner, is coming to the city with requests to annex and all the property owners are in agreement and they consent to the annexation. So, this -- the Page 27 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page—of 26 situation with this property is not in the city today, they want to be annexed to the city in order to develop the property, at perhaps higher densities and receive sewer, water, and other city services to accommodate that. So, cities -- what the courts have held and with --what Idaho law says and what courts have held --the Idaho Supreme Court in particular -- is that cities have a great deal of discretion to make a decision to decline annexations. So, a property owner comes to the city with a request and a legislative body, the city council, has a great deal of discretion to decline to annex that property and I will go even farther in the sense of what the court has -- has held is that under state law relative to annexations is that when the applicant -- applicant comes forward and requests annexation and the city council declines to annex that property, that decision is not even subject to judicial review. You can't -- the applicant -- the property owner couldn't even seek redress from the judicial system. What the --what state law says and how the Idaho court -- how the Idaho Supreme Court has interpreted that state law is that that's not even subject to judicial review. The city council's decision on that is final relative to the decision not to annex. So, that's a situation where the city has a great deal of discretion to say if there is a -- you know, for whatever reason, public policy reasons or infrastructure reasons, if a slip -- if a city wants to slow growth or limit growth for some period of time by not annexing more property, there is a lot of discretion in terms of how the city council can deal with annexation requests. I think also I mentioned in the case of moratoria, there is -- there is some risk to a city that puts a moratorium in place in terms of a temporary regulatory taking. That's -- that risk is far less in the case of annexation, because those are legislative decisions that are not subject to judicial review and so in terms of -- from a risk management perspective or liability perspective, much less risk to the city in making decisions like that versus in the context of moratoria. So, in summary, you know, I guess I will say -- and be happy to answer questions you have about annexations or what additional questions you might have about moratoria, but I think, you know, some of the key points -- I will just reiterate it in closing here is, with the moratorium that, you know, it's a high standard to be able to make a finding that -- that there is imminent peril to the public health, safety, and welfare -- is a point I like to stress. The other point is that moratoria applies to development or permits within the existing city. We are not talking about annexations or the area of city impact, just within the city itself, and that, you know, to the extent the city makes -- a city makes a decision to implement a moratorium and it's later reversed by a court, there is some potential for liability there due to a temporary regulatory taking. And, then, in closing, annexations, just to recap what I mentioned just a moment ago, is that that's an area where cities have a lot more flexibility and ability to determine how quick or even if the city wants to annex at all and, again, the risk there -- quite a bit less. So, with that I'm happy to stand for questions on either of those two topics and Mr. Nary and I would be happy to try to answer them. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thanks, Kurt. Is it -- I read you loud and clear. It sounds like even while we were kicking it around it didn't even apply, actually; right? So, moratoria for permits, things that are in the process, but annexations are different. Is there anything legally that Page 28 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page—of 26 prohibits us from dealing with annexations on a blanket basis or in a systematic way or are we legally required to deal with each annexation separately? Starman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Member Strader. The sound is not great here, so maybe let me recap the questions. I think I heard it and make sure I got it correct and the Mayor can correct me or Council Member Strader can do so. But I think the question was with regard to annexations -- I'm going to use my words here. But could -- can -- can a city simply say we are not doing any annexations as a blanket statement versus sort of on a -- sort of case-by-case basis? Is that the gist of the question? Simison: Or hold them and only do them once every three months or -- you know. Starman: Okay. So, I think what I have -- and I will give you a couple thoughts and invite Mr. Nary to -- to join me as well here. My thinking on that is that I think, first of all, I will start with what I said earlier, cities have quite a bit of flexibility relative to annexations, but I think, you know, we could run into other issues, constitutional issues or otherwise, if, you know, decisions are arbitrary or capricious. So, I would say it would be better to deal with annexations on a case-by-case basis and have your reasons for saying yea or nay, as opposed to a blanket policy. I'm not saying that isn't a possibility, but I think dealing with annexations on a case-by-case basis and having specific reasons to say yes or no puts a city in a stronger position, as opposed to a blanket policy that says we are not doing annexations and -- you know, with very high level reasoning and rationale for that. And, then, with respect to the idea of can -- can annexations be -- I will use the term sort of bundled or packaged and dealt with on a periodic basis -- every three months, for example, I think that would be fine. I think that's within the city's discretion to be able to, you know, process applications as it sees fit and if it's more -- if it's the City Council's pleasure to deal with those, you know, in increments or in, you know, every three months or six months, I think that would be okay. Mr. Nary, any additional thoughts? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I agree. I think the bundling certainly -- I don't see that as problematic, unless it's a staffing issue from the planning side. I wouldn't know. On the other one, you know, that -- as Kurt stated, I mean every application should stand and fall on its own merit and there is other factors that may have a greater impact that -- the fair housing is one of them. Again, there are some expectations that when you have a comp plan that you are going to abide by it to some degree, so taking a blanket statement makes it a little bit tougher to -- to deal with, but from a challenge standpoint, as Kurt stated, it's not subject to review. Your -- probably your bigger risk factor is the legislature of changing the statute. Now in the past they have only generally gotten into change the statute when they believe cities in general have overreached their authorities and gone beyond what the legislature felt was appropriate. So, in a case where you are sort of going differently than that, you know, that -- that may not catch their attention or raise their temperature level. So, those are probably the only cautions I would have is that the legislature certainly has a greater control over that issue than the courts do at the moment. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 29 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 25,2022 Page 25 of 26 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: One question, Kurt, on -- on the process. I know of a community in the area, smaller town that they have limited staff and the applications they process for development, whether they are annexations or just development for already zoned areas, they say it's -- it's going to take a length of time, we are only going to process them as -- as we can and there is -- there is no problem with saying, okay, there is a timing issue, there is a spacing issue, so if it's going to take nine months for that to come before council, it takes nine months. Are there any issues with -- with that as seeing as you need to speed your process up or hire more people to handle the influx? Starman: Mr. Mayor, Council President Hoaglun, I think like a lot of these types of topics I think that there are legitimate business reasons why a city, you know, because of staffing concerns or just the complexity of a project, that takes additional time. I think that -- that is fine. I will contrast that with if -- if we are -- if a city is sort of -- if it's a pretext to slow development is to say we are not going to get to it for nine months and so sad for you, I think there is -- there is a potential problem there. But if it's a legitimate issue of we have so many resources and we can only do what we can do within the period of time, I think that's certainly justifiable, as long as it's not a pretext for just simply, you know, slowing a process and maybe to the detriment of a property owner. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, I wanted to thank Council President and Bill Nary and -- and Kurt for bringing this forward. This is great information. I think that we have all been thinking about this for a long time and what that looks like and -- and so thanks for the clarity. I think that we needed this discussion this evening. So, thank you so much. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, not a question, but just to thank also Caleb, Bill and Bruce, Miranda, who is probably listening and whatnot, for your work on putting this information together to help give us that foundation and the basis and if there are -- you know, one, limited, we don't want to take up staff time, but if there is something let me know. If there is a number that you really need and we can -- we can see what we can do as staff to get that -- get that number among all the other things that they do, so -- but thank you, Kurt. Bill as well. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Oh. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Mr. Mayor, I don't--what I just wanted to say was thank you very much. I thought this was really good information and I would really appreciate receiving a copy of the spreadsheet at the appropriate time when it's ready. Thank you. Page 30 Meridian City Council Work Session January 25,2022 Page 26 of 26 Simison: Thank you. Then, with that, Council, do I have a motion to adjourn? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, 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 5:46 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 2-8-2022 ATTEST: DATE APPROVED CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 31 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Work Session Page 3 Meridian City Council Work Session Item#1. January 11, 2022 Page 18 of 18 going to be over capacity and -- and at what year are we going to be over capacity in a particular area. Carson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, they -- they do look at that information now. So, that is something that they will show you when they do the formula. That's something that's been looked at for years. It's been in their formula when they redraw boundaries. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I just think part of the challenge is like look at a development like Century Farm, maybe it was supposed to take a decade and, shoot, if it didn't happen in four years. That's why I think the historical delivery percentage is really important to -- to compare to the developer's phasing plans, because there seems to be an acceleration of a lot of the phasing plans and I just wanted to state, you know, my mindset. I believe that this is a worthwhile data exercise, because I believe for me as a leader that we should adjust our behavior in terms of our growth or at least consider different options that we would not have normally considered. If we are in a situation where we are unable to provide students with an adequate education in Meridian. That's just me, but I just wanted to state that above that I'm of that mindset as well. Simison: Council, any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Miranda. And we hope to have the district staff here at the end of the month is our goal, based upon the conversation they have with their leadership on the information they are providing, so with that we are at the end of our agenda. Do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we -- Simison: Adjourn. Bernt: -- adjourn the meeting. 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 5:16 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 2-1-2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: Page 21 CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the January 11, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Page 22 Meridian City Council Item#2. January 11,2022 Page ,,of,, Simison: It's on -- duly noted for Councilman Hoaglun to help lead that conversation forward. Cavener: Welcome aboard. Hoaglun: Yeah. And, Mr. Mayor, one of the things to respond to that quickly, is I do think we want to meet with the -- the schools to make sure we have an understanding of how they are doing what they say they are doing now when it comes to those types of things and begin that process and, then, I think, then, we can take -- start taking next steps based on that information we receive. Hopefully that it will allow us to determine what direction we move in. I don't know. It's kind of -- we are building the airplane a little bit as we are flying it, which is a little scary, but, you know, we will -- we will figure it out. Simison: With that do I have any other future meeting topics or a motion? Hoaglun: Move to 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 10:12 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 2-1-2022 ATTEST: DATE APPROVED CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 96 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Final Order for Shafer View Terrace Subdivision (FP-2021-0056) by Breckon Land Design, Located on the East Side of S. Meridian Rd., Midway Between E. Amity Rd. and E. Lake Hazel Rd. Page 97 Item#3. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL HEARING DATE: JANUARY 11,2022 ORDER APPROVAL DATE: JANUARY 25, 2022 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT ) CONSISTING OF 49 BUILDING ) CASE NO. FP-2021-0056 LOTS AND 10 COMMON LOTS ON ) 40.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE R-2 ) ORDER OF CONDITIONAL AND R-4 ZONING DISTRICTS FOR ) APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT SHAFER VIEW TERRACE. ) BY: BRECKON LAND DESIGN ) APPLICANT ) This matter coming before the City Council on January 11, 2022 for final plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-6B-3 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete by the Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat, the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of"PLAT SHOWING SHAFER VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN A PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1, SHAFER VIEW ESTATES SUBDIVISION, BOOK 84, PAGES 9403-9404, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, LYING WITHIN THE N '/2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SHAFER VIEW TERRACE FP-2021-0056 Page I of 3 Page 98 Item#3. SECTION 31, T.3N., R.IE., B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN—COUNTY OF ADA— STATE OF IDAHO 20 ," is conditionally approved subject to those conditions of Staff as set forth in the staff report to the Mayor and City Council from the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community Development Department dated January 11, 2022, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked"Exhibit A" and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Mary Wall, Breckon Land Design, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked "Exhibit B" and by this reference incorporated herein. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 2.1 The plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2.2 The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash surety has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SHAFER VIEW TERRACE FP-2021-0056 Page 2 of 3 Page 99 Item#3. issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian,pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty- eight(28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-52. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 25th day of January , 2022 By: Robert E. Simison 1-25-2022 Mayor, City of Meridian Attest: Chris Johnson 1-25-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon the Applicant,Planning and Development Services Divisions of the Community Development Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 1-25-2022 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SHAFER VIEW TERRACE FP-2021-0056 Page 3 of 3 Page 100 Item#3. EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT f D A H 0 HEARING 1/11/2022 Legend DATE: f I�P►ojectLacfli�an RUT R1 R1 0TO: Mayor&City Council � FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner R, R-4 208-884-5533 R-4 R-8 R-4 R1 SUBJECT: FP-2021-0056 T Shafer View Terrace R.8 R-4 LOCATION: South side of W. Overland Rd., 1/4 mile `8 east of S. Ten Mile Rd.,in the NW 1/4 of R-8 C- F R- S C. Section 23,T.3N., R.1W. R-4 R T -4 RUT R_4— RR R- R-4 ,RUT I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Final plat consisting of 49 building lots and 10 common lots on 40.45 acres of land in the R-2 and R- 4 zoning districts for Shafer View Terrace Subdivision. II. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Claire Smarda,Breckon Land Design—6661 N. Glenwood St., Garden City, ID 83714 B. Owner: Jim Chambers, Shafer View North,LLC—7150 W. Potomac Dr.,Boise, ID 83704 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. STAFF ANALYSIS Staff has reviewed the proposed final plat for substantial compliance with the preliminary plat and associated conditions of approval as required by UDC 11-6B-3C.2. There is the same number of buildable lots and common open space as shown on the approved preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed final plat is in substantial compliance with the approved preliminary plat as required. Note: The City Council approved a waiver to UDC 11-3A-6B to allow the McBirney Lateral to remain open and not be piped with H-2020-0117. Page 1 Page 101 IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the proposed final plat with the conditions of approval in Section V1 of this report. V. EXHIBITS A. Preliminary Plat(date: 5/17/202 1) PLAT LEGEND 130147ACTS =M=- TYRII 417 ROW ROAD 91-e-I M, 0 (D -�4 VICINIFY MAP TYPQAL W P.O.W.ROAD BECTON ------------------------------------------ 77-7 z DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION a- LUO < LU T M u zi 3: LU 661 X > cc 0 LU LL V, + W Page 2 Item#3. B. Final Plat(date: 10/25/2021) H_FER VIEIT TERRACE SUBDIVISION KEW L,�TA7L$5UOU'V1.P'Lw, NOTM .. _ AOA COUNTY,IDAHOO, HE-crrnrHurs iECT1ON 31, T3Y R.1E,8"0. SHALL LOMPLY WTRfrTHE APPLlCAGLE CITY OF MERIDIAN—COUNTY OF ADA—STATE OF IDAH❑ roN'Yr:x£rrn Annrrs-11 LtILIT AT THEI DUE OF THE RE-SUBClVfSiON. 20— �. MrHIMUM aDlrnwc s£raAcres sHa'r 6E!M ACADRCANCE WITH THE BOISE -3 LL LOT ERDfNACOM 3 ALL LOT LINES LYNfMOfv TC a or rpylC RfGHT-CF-WAf.uGV£A T£N ��0)FOOT WfDG R, LOT LO DRArNPUGE A.1 LOT JDL1'DES EALC !i(]ftiL lITY STrt•�T fiEREBY RESERVE ALLL PU TO a!INTEP _ 0R LOT TINES FO R ANR e PGRA. nl� rin EXCEPT SAS O'MERM SNOINv , I� Iti 00)FOOT WCE EASEMENT IS Ht�'=:. R AED ADJACENT TO ALL RG"R�C `.ri I"- N 1 E 0.3' FINES PF PifBLlE Af/D PRl AID-f VYAT£pDT1LfPESMHY - - � I F'(�ca"'sr Arvp 1RRrryiTiON. 5. .0EDrIDN Y E Ga,BEEN PRpwpEA FPL1M TkE BP'SE FN7�.l1FCT =e5w BLWRD OF E' , !N G•]MPLMNC£ IEE W CODE]DARE CODE 3}-3d0.5(1)( LCTS WrrfilN THE SUBDMSfNJ WELL BE q \i I ��S ENTIREO TO fRRIGATfON WATER RIGH/F. 4 I - mE M7uEOwuEF'S ASSLL'+Arrtw wi r h P£0f3LfEATED ASSERS'E �RC,.e THE ease PRwECECT eOAPa Of- 3 ,.,a.,�ereurRm e. THEkE L. r 8. DEVELOPMENT OF TN1$ CITY P L PRpp£R SHALL I fN DOMRLiAti Nk THE W OS At MT BC15F LNVN1fvC.a^�0 0M•..i3'18�1' 2DNlnG OHpfNANCE. 7. TNL DEVELOPMENT OF T0S - v'v RRpPE SHALL SE fN COMPLi GE r� W7h'T E BO15E DEVELOPMENT CODE 'j= lazocx s r�`" +l` hiQ'S7LYW .J OP A$$PECfFMALLY APPROVED HY L- � --J--- _ _-- .y�yk __-� Yio.5f' 3 T' c _LL __- -__-_- PCLs d DLCTS SHALL AACT BE PEOVCEn rN ' 3r"!•'N'M' - S2�Wlh1DIIT PRN1R APPRDYA!FRChf Tk H L'M A,)TNORIIY. ---- NSfmd&71' 4. !JD ACDTDLl4AL OQNE ALL D rEw - fD0.00' q} SUPPLIES SHALL 8E INSTALLED 2ErE.�A ,n THE WATER SYSTEM PPPwpy^O �5Y•Y9'/YW I R1/+/I Tf'YY SANITARY A REST.DUN RF�EaSE. rgl'�' �y 11 f�-'� REFER rp POU If—tt OV Trr: ON F][£REGARDING ADDITIONAL G � NI!'�YG'1y f 1. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS SL+AAV TO E516.f• THE CL'venAN15.C R'S)MA AND TOS ICTfONS(CC&R'S1 O PFIL MI TO THE DEVELOPME7 TO eE FILED I ANC RELY'S 1N THE A0.A COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE. d LEGEND REFERENCES rr2�xsYr _ 40.&LOOCK'}�LOT�1;2HLOC 2.LOTS R1= SHAFER trcE'rr ESTe TES SxIBA1N9CN, f7R 70' RECORD F P FA,r.55 5a03-H40f DESIGNATED}; 3.LOT a,810CR H AHL ----------x RT= RECORD OF SVR VEY nP. 55 fA HCP �3 - BOED .AS COMMINJ AND SHALL HE EOWN Ana SWA 1 9r CA HEMEGWNERS FOR AND CANN'JT 9£DEVELOPED Fp4 R£$IA£fJTWy RP0.E5. u�Wr 6A515 OF BEARING 0 A.w .Je`Yir ° r..r.NawrrArr neewuwOD-I E£TxF£ex—11_4 ANER cN, CWM@V TO SECTILYIS 3!&36 AID 1 -o£rE 7FfE sa.THW�sr CpquER c'�s£cmcw.T1. AfAPPING NOTES: • A4].5%'MlAV PW, ,Fr Lin£A- TABLE a5•M LINE TABLE o �r s/e•ure,rm w>H Area SURVEYOR'S NARRAPVE.' TD 15 TO SUBLV NDE THE x£vARCI-EL PLS IfC6I A5 SHONN PER 1OAN0 CODE r FW'NU AND HELi1 • HEW�AMEN TS PER Ri rO --- LVT=mfxo£vnoAw E-'+"Ol f2 THE ExTt;f::1✓ Nathan J. A=RA �w 6WNDAR r, Dang 13 �St TFs' TE J06 N0. CURVE TABLE c�3, 1 i i *� ' i11VEYINN 1 NAPPINN Ax zAr: vr..s rr.f;.1 -1� 1452 ME13.. k R Boise, nR Pf1L2 '°'°�WW Idaho 63702 - r2m A88 M7 `J'IEEE /F/fj66 w+wa aplurvryors.cam �v Page 3 Page 103 Item#3. SHAFER VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION MAPPING NOTEa Lam-..- i1�WA�TZ CREEK S L L --s��rn'.msea N 3ne�v>9 'mot uHc nxu cuHvt�neu sxEtr]�= l 2° r :�— r � rw �� r 2 eaw eu ma' vao� m I, ARKS Sr _ o 7 r---, e r FcxK s a -- r w--„`e Fso K 8- as•S ---�L—e— "0m�z•<x� ---A _ax sm m — °°— woo 1' �5°. � �°; - , �— —J L 3'c,KS ; iFG`uo Nathan AD g,'d<'rc=.,�1'� 1,pang BI IY EST IAB i BAP PIAB R ,m-am � +�I f 146 � wrxa ervryorsmm SHAFER VIElN TERRACE SUBDIVISION >�— 'c, a ------ -- — ---- ------ ----------- I s`� PRA VIBE IRIE' 'N B. SHAPAR VIBB'DR. !! __ ---------- Nathan 1, y LEGEND MaPPINrR�xo 9s: 's`+ ACCURATE BI IVETINB i YAPPIAB Bose,IEaM 83T03 R�aea au3 +(�Il4t mom'+ umpnmm Page 4 Page 104 Item#3. SHAFEli VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION J eme s e s .» a I r F—saw— I F—mPo-7 F—'"°°`7 F I F- F-- asI 0III "1 I E �e �I I � I �I alI ^I��. I � II r �I � I II III I ��L_-- --- --- --- �'��w';a •h � 3s �JL I I 1 13 Nathan]. Nang s r vaPPTNo Mores:art u Lrow .ACCURATE ---—� � ,� 811YltIYIi YIlPIYY QZZZZ7m 30ram:!' egRA"W �. � e SHAFER VIEW TERRACE SUBDIVISION �W �S Krr III LEGEND r7 MAPPING NOTES m `+ A=MTE - �/ InrtrlYY Y YIlPIYI Page 5 Page 105 SHAFER VIEW TERRACE STT13DIVISION r. L4 ---------- --- -------------------- rys HLCCK 5 LEGEND-- MAPFYNG NOTES Nathan J. Dang TF4 6 3 ACMRATE ]Wl- B11,iaareaTme Roll Page 6 Item#3. C. Landscape Plan(date: 9/14/2021) --- - ��a, - -- -- -- -- - -- -- -- -- - PROJECT INFORMATION01 J. CITY OF MERIDIAN !4 ` LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS —�M wa m E EK Co w� LU WN H in(L ww U J J EPE PLAN 'k LU LL cc z LU LANDSCAPE NOTES' y QJ O MAWW BERM ADJACENT TO MERIDIAN ROADyrc� L1.0O Page 7 Page 107 Item#3. T-.— o LU f uaua°nnme�udw�c. , I I e ;+ i ym WeL 4 I LLI a W g �LANDSCAPE -AREA ONE W Im w U�j m O LLIXfT LEGEND i �i _ �Q a LANDSCAPE LEGEND ® „„�„;.;„,a R ,� av ==a LL g sv'aa r emaru I—E �.N x.Me eaE °umr sae - - 4 am co /�� i ITIKFY MAP � IN I j �� -® r = _- •��__ 1, °��= "!M 12i:1 iK i I•• -- n o N cm Co W W ¢ F-o aL—u d 1 LANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA TWO ' ¢Q U s CALLOUT LEGEND 7ORF AAEA PREPARATION NOTES S 2 Q c f LANDSCAPE LEGEND O`.^."««.,. ^.^'..""' ,.'M....•A.. ¢ ZZaZ nw�.Q,e..,,e. ® I '' 1'F2�ilh. wMexr - _ �' LL�� . .... .,.� LLI 4 cn f� KEY MAP n L1.02 Page 8 Page 108 Item#3. 3 AMigIJNF6FEfrFE*LW o0 j , " I ZW W toaL¢ CO so W¢ — oa Ha W W a _ LANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA THREE r v w w U U ! ti�• ' �`. CALLOUf LEGEND r7 M am,IN LANDSCAPE LEGEND °.,�..«.�.,. KEY MAP _ W Zz w.n. �--- .��ro �� ro nmv.e—a .ICY BOIMIICIL NMIE v �NM.E A 11•1111RY ! _ Znn • .� TREE PROTECTION DETAIL �ro� ® "�"""`� ®� w�^"'""��" L1A3 LANDSCAPE LEGEND WL 4 3 e _ CALLOUT LEGEND O (fr•j• O a•v I ^,.mo w-.:.:` m..,.e^ j a LU¢ p r 14 --5 •t&�'S�'x•w.ww+xr �mwe NV;Q 49 dg �a Ww a� - W W UtA �r � --�"_ / � rceowLs ax+wFwars>:nmxw.ueNru� (=A LAN APE PLAN-AREA FOUR ✓ {��Iri ! PLANTER BED CUT EDGE .(�IWROUGHT IRON FENCE RraicuA,meEs Nmeru«s1 -szrrr L1.04 Page 9 Page 109 Item#3. LANNDEC�APE LEGEND • GALLOUT LEGEND 12 aa19 '' c\ �� /! '\ •G7 {.GC:x.:,rcw. ie.:.w.xe.. 01K�DW¢ c e •' .'. N._� 9 i'x.Li1":xw�mnwucn.«.xr:n.. W Q Cc OW W g 's LANDSCAPE PLAN-AREA FIVE �IIr��IE ` WEED ABATEMENT NOTES. TOPSOIL NOTES -- /� .-• �x.i01 xx LANDSCAPE LEGEND -.� Al.k. - x_� w I '� ��' CALL®LEGEND x •^��,� DW .Nit z ED wILr —__— ...�.:.:. :..... :.�..� F-fl Wa a 5Ka,IL,� U ----------------.�.. ..�--�.�..�_-�..�-----51—.. ®tifi.'is'�wd^., W LLlAREA SIX Er Z Z LO a� � �VINYL�FENCE PANEL �.M...w� gr L106 Page 10 Page 110 Item#3. STORMWATER POND REVEGETATION REQUIREMENTS CALLOUT LEGEND ® = - LANDSCAPE LEGEND ZO . ,...,......,.,..,- ram.. ��,..�.� .�...m CO.WS € f� � LL,oaa € =Z zo -5 TREE MRIGATION. AREA) a LAND PEP - R EVE L107 1 PARK AREA MONUMENT SIGN SECTION " I M ....-.,R V� W� .......,.... Z w "7 TLRRAC 0 g cc _ � /- 2 PARK AREA MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATION „a�4 DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING y W Ic ice¢ SWNa _ maw. . " m y g ! BOULDER INSTALLAT ��CONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING�� "�' PARK AREA ENGLARGEMENT IJIFfFFETATaIRC'WAC�crrc� LD ION Page 11 Page 111 Item#3. D. Emergency Access Approved by Fire Dept. I41 ii'r E3f' - - —1-7--T--7-- -1--�- �- I--r--I--I I . I Q 1 • I m m e e • • � • w I e ' • e , y 1' I e — O o 1woo,(Z i 1 • �� -` - '\ VOw \ _ —¢V W Q � 'ate '_-- ! - �- - �jW LL[�tl ZO ¢ w w �M r w S 1 EXHIBfT EX The emergency access shall require Knock-over bollards or a chain knox padlock and bollards approved by the fire department. Page 12 Page 112 Item#3. VI. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. Planning Division Site Specific Conditions: I. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this development [H-2020-0117,Development Agreement Inst. #2021-102396. 2. The applicant shall obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of City Council's approval of the preliminary plat(by June 15,2023) in accord with UDC I I- 6B-7 in order for the preliminary plat to remain valid; or, a time extension may be requested. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. The final plat shown in Section V.B prepared by Accurate Surveying&Mapping, stamped on 10/25/2021 by Nathan J. Dang, shall be revised as follows: a. Include a note prohibiting direct lot access via S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E.Quartz Creek St. b. Note#2: "Minimum building setbacks shall be in accordance with the Buse Meridian City Zoning Ordinance." c. Note#6:"The development of this property shall be in compliance with the Boise Meridian City Planning and Zoning ordinance." d. Delete note #7 (Note #6 is sufficient as there is no PUD for this development and no variances or exceptions were approved to the UDC). e. Note#8: "Lots shall not be reduced in size without prior approval from the health authority and the City of Meridian." £ Include the PLS's signature and date on each sheet. g. Include the year the plat will be recorded in the situate statement on Sheet 1. h. The ACHD storm drainage easement should not encroach onto building lots (i.e. Lots 33- 35,Block 1 and Lot 2,Block 4. An electronic copy of the revised plat shall be submitted prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 5. The landscape plan shown in Section V.C, dated 2/7/20, is approved as shown. 6. Prior to the issuance of any new building permit,the property shall be subdivided in accordance with the UDC. 7. All development shall comply with the dimensional standards for the R-2 and R-4 zoning districts listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-4 and 11-2A-5,respectively. 8. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the multi-use pathway along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 shall be submitted to the Planning Division in accord with the Park's Department requirements per the Pathways Master Plan for the portion of the pathway that is outside the public right-of-way.A copy of said easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City Engineer signature. 9. A final plat shall be recorded that includes Lot 1, Block 5 prior to any development occurring on the property as set forth in the Development Agreement. Page 13 Page 113 Item#3. 10. The developer shall construct a northbound right-turn lane on S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 onto E. Quartz Creek St. prior to issuance of the first building permit in this development in accord with ITD standards as set forth in the Development Agreement. 11. Noise abatement shall be provided along S. Meridian Rd./SH-69 in accord with Detail #1 "Berm Adjacent to Meridian Road"depicted on Sheet L1.00 of the landscape plan as set forth in the Development Agreement. 12. The rear and/or sides of structures on lots that abut S.Meridian Rd./SH-69 and E.Quartz Creek St. 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. 13. The pond shall have recirculated water and shall be maintained such that it doesn't become a mosquito breeding ground as set forth in UDC 11-3G-3B.6. 14. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Sue Prescott, at 887-1620 for more information. 15. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat and/or development agreement does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. B. Public Works Site Specific Conditions: 1. The angle at manhole SSMH#14 must be a minimum 90 degrees. Add additional manhole(s) as needed.An access pathway must be added between SSMH#11 and SSMH#14 per Meridian Standards. Sewer and Water in the common lot between SSMH#11 and SSMH#14 requires a 30' easement per General Condition #25 below. Ensure that no permanent structures (trees, bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.) are built within the utility easement. 2. Applicant shall be required to comply with the "to and through"policy of the city of Meridian. A 12-inch water main must be constructed from the existing blow off wes 12-inch water main located at Prevail Way to the eastern right-of way of SH-4-669 via a route through the Shafer View Terrace subdivision which is acceptable to the Meridian City En ing eering Department. Water line easements shall be provided to the City of Meridian as required. Provide a 20-foot wide water easement for future water connection from the west end of E Prairie View Drive west to the proposed water main. General Conditions: 3. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision;applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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. 4. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the Page 14 Page 114 Item#3. development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 5. 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. 6. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A. 7. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete fencing,landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat. 8. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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. 9. 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, and water infrastructure for a duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing 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. 10. hi the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 14. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 15. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B. 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. 17. The 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. 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 Page 15 Page 115 Item#3. 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. 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. 20. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting. 21. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. 22. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 23. 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. 24. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for abandonment procedures and inspections. 25. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1).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 development plan approval. 26. 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 16 Page 116 EXHIBIT B From: Mary Wall To: Sonya Allen;City Clerk Cc: Tyler Chambers;Jim Chambers;Claire Smarda; Kyle Radek Subject: RE:Shafer View Terrace FP-2021-0056 Staff Report for Jan. IIth Council Mtg Date: Tuesday,January 11,2022 11:29:12 AM Attachments: imaae006.ona External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. Sonya, We are in agreement with the "revised2" staff report. We will have someone from Breckon Land Design attend tonight's meeting virtually just in case any discussion is opened up on this final plat approval. Thanks for your help! Have a great day. Mary Wall, PE MAIN(208)376-5153 x104 CELL(406) 600-6218 BRECKONIanddesi n� com From: Sonya Allen <sallen@meridiancity.org> Sent:Tuesday,January 11, 2022 10:12 AM To: Mary Wall <mwall@breckonld.com>; City Clerk<CityClerk@meridiancity.org> Cc:Tyler Chambers <tchambers@breckonld.com>;Jim Chambers <jamesdchambers1952@yahoo.com>; Claire Smarda <csmarda@breckonld.com>; Kyle Radek <kradek@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Shafer View Terrace FP-2021-0056 Staff Report for Jan. 11th Council Mtg I made the requested change for the typo, thanks. From: Mary Wall <mwalIPbreckonld.com> Sent:Tuesday,January 11, 2022 10:01 AM To: Sonya Allen <sallen(@meridiancity.org>; City Clerk<CityClerk(@meridiancity.org> Cc:Tyler Chambers <tchambersPbreckonld.com>;Jim Chambers <iamesdchambers1952(@yahoo.com>; Claire Smarda <csmarda(@breckonld.com>; Kyle Radek <kradek(@meridiancity.org> Subject: RE: Shafer View Terrace FP-2021-0056 Staff Report for Jan. 11th Council Mtg External Sender-Please use caution with links or attachments. Sonya, I forgot to change the SH-16 to SH-69 (it was incorrect on the original report). If that change can be made then we are in agreement with the revised staff report. Page 117 7/tem 77 (:> E IDIAN*-----, AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Apex East Subdivision (H-2021-0086) by Brighton Development, Inc., Located on Parcel 51405120902, South of E. Lake Hazel Rd. Between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd., in a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the SW % of the NE % of Section 5, Township 2N, Range 1E. Page 118 Item#4. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI DIAN:-~' AND DECISION&ORDER In the Matter of the Request to Rezone 32.21 Acres of Land from R-4 to the R-8 Zoning District, and Development Agreement Modification to Create a New DA to Develop the Proposed Preliminary Plat Consisting of 97 Residential Building Lots and 14 Common Lots,by Brighton Development. Case No(s).H-2021-0086 For the City Council Hearing Date of: January 11,2022 (Findings on January 25, 2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11, 2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11,2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11, 2022, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(APEX EAST—FILE#H-2021-0086) - I - Page 119 Item#4. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for rezoning,preliminary plat and development agreement modification is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11,2022,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-6B-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(APEX EAST—FILE#H-2021-0086) -2- Page 120 Item#4. agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521,any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of January 11,2022 FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(APEX EAST—FILE#H-2021-0086) -3- Page 121 Item#4. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 25th day of Jasnuary 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 1-25-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 1-25-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 1-25-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(APEX EAST—FILE#H-2021-0086) -4- Page 122 item . EX H I BIT A STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O HEARING 1/11/2022 Legend DATE: TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach _ . 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: MDA, PP, RZ-H-2021-0086 /001 Apex East Subdivision / LOCATION: Parcel#51405120902, located on the south side of E. Lake Hazel Road ' between S. Locust Grove Road and S. el" Eagle Road � .e I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request to rezone 32.21 acres of land from R-4 to the R-8 zoning district,development agreement modification to create a new DA to develop the proposed preliminary plat consisting of 97 residential building lots and 14 common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 32.21 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 97 building lots, 11 common lots,3 common driveway lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 2 phases Number of Residential Units(type 97 of units) Density(gross&net) 3 du/ac gross, 5.1 du/ac net Open Space(acres,total 7.05 acres of qualified open space(21.89%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities Two one-acre parks,tot lot,picnic area,pathway along the southern property line. Physical Features(waterways, Farr Lateral parallels the east property line. hazards,flood plain,hillside) Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 1,2021,no attendees attendees: History(previous approvals) AZ H-2015-0019,DA Inst.2016-007075 Page 1 Page 123 Item#4. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access will occur from S. Recreation Ave(a new Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) collector)via E.Lake Hazel Rd. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Two stubs—one to the south and one to the east(both Access connect to presently undeveloped properties). Existing Road Network E.Lake Hazel Rd Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None along the subject property.25 ft.wide buffer is Buffers required along E.Lake Hazel Rd.,20 ft.wide buffer required along S.Recreation Ave. 10 ft.pathways will be constructed along E.Lake Hazel Rd. and both sides of S. Recreation Ave. Proposed Road Improvements The applicant will be constructing S.Recreation Ave. from E.Lake Hazel Rd.to a cul-de-sac at the south property line. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 3.1 miles to Fire Station 4.Will be adjacent to Fire Station 7 when it is constructed. • Fire Response Time Presently>5 minutes,will change when Fire Station 7 is completed. • Resource Reliability >78% • Risk Identification 2,resources are not adequate • Accessibility Yes • Special/resource needs Aerial device will be required • Water Supply 1,000 gpm required • Other Resources None Police Service • No comments Wastewater • Flow is committed • Applicant must ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. Water • Distance to Water Services 0 • Pressure Zone 5 • Water Quality No concerns • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Comments • Eliminate the water main in E Wickham St. and install it in the common driveway at the northwest corner into S Recreation Ave. • Coordinate with the CDA project to stub water main from S Recreation Ave.to the common drive. Page 2 Page 124 1 1 1 NII Nll - IYIIIII� � ; ..�. .i F1 IIIIII 11�_ IIIIII �` ■.I ,�G.III ■Irr�_a�`W Nt ILII �- IIIII 111111� _ !ItJ d J "� ` 1 I I� ilq 111! 1111;m Inlu �u` �IIIIII v - In _IIII . ' :-• W IIIII -- � IIIII -_ 111 -- 111 NII Nil IIII IYuw � IYuw�_ - IIIIII 11 C I IIIII IIIIII 1 �=1_ Illli III1111� I�1IIIII 1111111=NIIY_ �_II II ■■ - 1 �IIIII ■■ � IIIIII IIIII = s IIIII ■■ 11 +1� I I ■■ 11 -71pi111!uI�I�IN AJLI 1' 11�11 � IIIII IIIIII:JI. ,�I ' I' 1�11 1� IIIII 111111� ,II 'lll�! 1_IR M_= I I° -��iil I uu uuuuuu �_� -ilil �= �-IIIIII �' II I .�� uuu - E - 1111 II II IIIII ` - IIIII IIfOY Yml - � � I =uu =IIII 2-111 _ IIIIIIII IIIIIUIII = II Item#4. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Representative: Josh Beach,Brighton Development Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Wy,Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Brighton Development—2929 W.Navigator Wy,Boise,ID 83713 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 11/30/2021 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 11/12/2021 Nextdoor posting 11/28/2021 Sign Posting 12/02/2021 V. STAFF ANALYSIS The property was annexed and zoned R-4 as part of the South Meridian Annexation(H-2015-0019). This annexation consisted of 1322.14 acres of land.There were numerous development agreements associated with this annexation; each development agreement was specific to the property being annexed. The subject property is governed by the Murgoitio Development Agreement(Inst.#2016-007075). This DA allows County operations to continue until the property is developed.At the time the property was annexed,the City anticipated the rezone and platting of the subject property. Prior to any development,the DA requires a development plan be approved and anew DA created at no cost to the applicant. A. Development Agreement Modification Section 4.2 of the development agreement states"no change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this agreement." Section 20.1 of the DA states "no condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re- zoning of the subject property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment." Section 5.1.2 of the development agreement states `future development of the property shall comply with all bulk, use and development standards of the R-4 zoning district." The purpose of this DA Modification is to include the proposed preliminary plat,landscape plan and proposed elevations as the approved development plans for the property. If the property were rezoned to R-8 to allow the development as proposed,the new DA should require compliance with the preliminary plat,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations in the Exhibit section below. Page 4 Page 126 Item#4. B. Zoning: This application proposes to rezone from R-4 to R-8. The property to the west(Discovery Park)is zoned R-4. To the east of the property is land still within Unincorporated Ada County. To the north of the property(across E. Lake Hazel Rd.)is R-40 and R-15 zoning. The R-8 Zoning District requires a minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. and minimum street frontage of 40 ft. The Preliminary Plat Data Table for this proposal indicates a minimum lot size of 6,967 sq. ft. and an average lot size of 8,485 sq. ft. These are lot sizes which are smaller than the Keep subdivision to the east,but larger lot sizes than the Impressive East Ridge and Lavender Heights Subdivisions across E. Lake Hazel Rd. to the north. The lot sizes are well within the FLUM designation of MDR,which allows densities of between 3-8 dwelling units per acre. The minimum 40 ft. street frontage is exceeded on all lots. C. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) This property is designated Medium Density Residential on the City's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. As mentioned in the zoning section above,the gross density is 3 du/acre and the net density is 5.1 du/acre. This is well within and on the low end of the designated density for the site. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed preliminary plat and requested R-8 zoning district to be generally consistent with the Future Land Use Map designation of Medium Density Residential. D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan): • Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. (2.01.02D) The building elevations show a single-family attached product proposed for this development. Single-family attached housing tends to result in a more affordable product, which is a more attainable product for first time home buyers and/or younger families. This contributes to the variety of housing types that meets the needs,preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents. 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) The proposed plat depicts 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision, with 8 ft.parkways. There are also 10 ft. wide pathways on E. Lake Hazel Rd., along both sides of S. Recreation Ave., and running along the south property line to the Farr Lateral east of the site. The pathways provide a necessary link to the greater pathway system and provide pedestrian access to Discovery Park across the street although staff believes a segment of the southernmost pathway needs a slight realignment as described in the pathways section below. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) As mentioned above, 5 ft. wide detached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways, and there are 10 ft. wide pathways along both sides of S. Recreation Ave., E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the south perimeter of the property to the Farr Lateral. The sidewalks stub to the east and south, and Page 5 Page 127 Item#4. the pathways provide connectivity to Discovery Park on the opposite side of S. Recreation Ave. and future development to the south. "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) The development can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services. Water and sewer will be extended from S. Recreation Ave. at the west. • Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross- access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and collector street connectivity. (6.01.02B) This development does not take access from E.Lake Hazel Rd. (an arterial road). Two points of access are proposed from S. Recreation Ave., a new collector that will be constructed by the applicant and will also provide access to Discovery Park and the South Meridian Fire Station No 7 and Police substation. Two internal stubs to the south and east are being provided. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: The property is presently vacant. F. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. Per UDC 11-513-8, design review is required for all new attached residential structures of more than one unit. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and future development is required to comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 district.All proposed lots and public streets appear to meet UDC dimensional standards per the submitted preliminary plat. This includes minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft., and required street frontages of at least 40 ft. Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3. UDC 11-6C-3-regulates block lengths for residential subdivisions. Staff has reviewed the submitted plat for conformance with these regulations. The intent of this section of code is to ensure block lengths do not exceed 750 ft,although there is the allowance of an increase in block length to 1,000 feet if a pedestrian connection is provided.No block length exceeds 750 ft. Three common driveways are proposed with this subdivision. The applicant has provided common drive exhibits which demonstrate no more than 3 units are served whereas a maximum of 4 units are allowed. The common driveways meet the minimum width of 20' and does not exceed the maximum length of 150'. The common driveways show landscaping of at least five feet wide along one side of each common driveway. The elevations that were submitted suggest single family attached, although the plat as submitted does not reflect an even number of lots and does not indicate which lots would contain the attached product. Prior to Council,the applicant should revise the plat to depict the single family attached lots(zero setback side lot lines). Page 6 Page 128 Item#4. H. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): The property abuts E. Lake Hazel Rd.to the north, although it will not take access from this road. Lake Hazel Road is improved with 2-travel lanes and there is no curb, gutter or sidewalk abutting the site. There is 50-feet of right-of-way for Lake Hazel Road. Lake Hazel Road is planned to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road to Eagle Road between 2036 and 2040. The plat proposes two access points from a new collector road(S. Recreation Ave.)which parallels the west property line. Primary access will occur at approximately the middle of the subject property's western property line(shown as E. Wickham Street).There will be a second southern access which will align with a drive aisle into Discovery Park(shown on the plat as E. Ambition Dr). S.Recreation Ave. will also provide primary access to Discovery Park as well as the South Meridian Fire Station No 7 and Police Substation.Two stub streets are proposed at the southeast portion of the property; one stubbing to the south and one stubbing to the east. Per an Interagency Cooperative Development Agreement(Instr. 2016-007073), Brighton Development is required to construct S. Recreation Ave. (the new north/south collector)from a cul-de-sac at the south property line to Lake Hazel Road. They will also be required to install 10 ft. wide pathways on both sides of this collector. ACHD has responded a traffic impact study is not required and has not submitted additional comments as of time of this staff report. I. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 1I- 3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The Meridian Pathways Master Plan shows a 10 ft.wide multiuse pathway running along the site's northern property line and turning north(crossing E. Lake Hazel Rd.)at the site's eastern property line. The Pathways Plan also shows a 10 ft. wide multiuse pathway along the western side of S. Recreation Ave. The Plan shows another 10 ft. wide pathway connecting from S. Recreation Ave to the Farr Lateral along the southern property line. The landscape plan indicates 10' ft. wide pathways along all these alignments. In addition,although not shown on the pathway plan nor required by ACHD,the development also proposes a 10 ft. wide pathway on the east side of S. Recreation Ave. as well. Staff does think the southern pathway(connecting to the Farr Lateral) should align with the eastern entrance into Discovery Park on the opposite side of S. Recreation Ave. (see the color landscape plan in Section VII). Staff has concerns the westernmost segment of the pathway will encourage people to cross S. Recreation Ave. out of a designated crosswalk or"cut across"the open space in the vicinity of the Williams Pipeline Easement. Staff recommends the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide a more direct and aligned connection between the southernmost pathway and the entrance into Discovery Park. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot detached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. All detached sidewalks include parkways which are meet the minimum 8 ft. with and are landscaped as required per I I-3A-17. Page 7 Page 129 Item#4. K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): Parkways are provided between the detached sidewalks and road on both sides of all local roads. As mentioned above, all parkways meet the requirements of 11-3A-17 and 11-3B-7 including at least 8 ft. in width and landscaped with at least 1 tree per 35 feet. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 requires 25 ft. wide buffers along arterial roads(E. Lake Hazel Rd.) and 20 ft. wide buffers required along collector roads (S. Recreation Ave). The landscape plan reflects a buffer of more than 75 ft. along E. Lake Hazel Rd., and a buffer of at least 50 ft. in width along S. Recreation Ave. The detached pathways are in these buffers,there are parkways of at least 8 ft. in width,and the landscape buffers meet the minimum planting requirements of 1 tree per 35 linear feet. Internal sidewalks also contain parkways of at least 8 feet in width. As described below, there are three parks provided with this subdivision that meet the density requirements of 1 tree per 8,000 sq. ft. The landscape plan indicates there are no healthy existing trees meeting the preservation requirements on the property. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): 11-3G-3 has recently been revised to require 15%of qualified open space for properties within the R-8 zoning district. The applicant has submitted an open space exhibit which reflects 21.8% (7.05 acres)of qualified open space. This includes two one-acre parks at the south perimeter of the property, a'/z-acre park toward the center of the development, 100%of the collector buffers, '/2 of the arterial buffer, and several trail corridors meeting the minimum requirements of 20 ft. in width, 50 ft. long and with an access at each end. The open space exhibit includes the 55 ft. wide Farr Lateral easement along the eastern property line.UDC 11-3G-3B states protective buffers a minimum of ten feet(10')in width dedicated for active access along laterals or ditches may count toward meeting the open space minimum requirements. However, as presently shown, staff is unsure this area provides the"active access" required to be counted as qualified open space.Because this lateral is behind existing homes, staff also has concerns regarding visibility and whether this area would comply with Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design(OPTED) standards. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that prior to Planning Commission,the plat and landscape plan be revised to provide access to some or all of the open area shown along the Farr Lateral. Only areas accessible and useable to the residents as open space should be included on the open space exhibit. Also, if this area is to be credited as qualified open space, it should be landscaped as required by UDC 11- 3B unless otherwise prohibited by the irrigation district. N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(32.1 acres), 6 amenity points are required. This application proposes two open space parks larger than one-acre (6 points),a'/2 acre parcel at the center,a picnic area(2 points), a tot lot(1 point),and more than'/z mile of multi-modal pathway (4)points. This application exceeds the minimum requirements. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Farr Lateral runs along the eastern property line. The applicant has requested a waiver from UDC 11-3A-6 which requires piping the lateral with the explanation that piping the lateral would be cost-prohibitive. The landscape plan reflects turf sod in this area. Coordination will be ongoing with the irrigation district managing the waterways to meet their requirements. Page 8 Page 130 Item#4. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The landscape plan includes a fencing plan. 6 ft.high wooden fencing is provided along the S. Recreation Ave. landscape buffer, and along the side of interior trail connections adjacent to residential lots (leaving them visible from the roads). Open style metal fencing is provided along the portions of the open spaces visible from the internal roads, and along the portions of the Farr Lateral that are not visible from E. Lake Hazel Rd. The fencing appears to meet the requirements of 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. Q. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): Public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. Water and sewer will be extended from S. Recreation Ave to the east. A 75 ft. wide Williams Pipeline Easement is indicated at the southwest corner of the property. The plat contains this easement within common lots. The landscape plan shows these common lots landscaped with sod. There are no trees shown within this easement. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted building elevations of the single-family attached homes for this project(see Section VI.F below). The single-family attached homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs, covered porches,dormers,and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes but do not include elevations of the sides or rears of structures. A large number of the houses will be very visible from E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S.Recreation Ave. Therefore, staff recommends a condition that the rear and/or sides of 2-story structures that face E. Lake Hazel Rd. and S. Recreation Ave. incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays, banding,porches,balconies,material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. Single-family attached structures require administrative design review approval prior to applying for a building permit. VI. DECISION A. Staff: 1. Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning, development agreement modification and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section VIII.per the Findings in Section IX. Page 9 Page 131 Item#4. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on December 16.2021.At the public hearing.the Commission moved to deny the subject rezoning,preliminary=nlat and development agreement modification request. 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Josh Beach and Mike Wardle b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Josh Beach and Mike Wardle.Josh Beach noted the elevations that were submitted were the wrong elevations and the development would be entirely single family detached. d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Wendy representing the Southern Rim Coalition commented that people are very disappointed with the"steps ups"that were occurring. She mentioned citizens were not aware of the development agreement that anticipated future rezonings. She mentioned too much R-4 property was being rezoned to R-8, and allowing this rezoning would set a precedent for additional requests for R-8 zoning. b. Several other citizens testified in opposition with concerns beingdensity,ensi , and precedent that would be set by continuing to rezone from R-4 to R-8. 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Commissioners expressed concerns with lots in the vicinity of the common drive at the northwest portion of the property and there could be future issues with parkin trash services. They also commented it appeared too many lots were"squeezed in there."They suggested eliminating the common drive and creating more"pie shaped" lots in this area and/or putting—a"knuckle"in there. b. Commissioners suggested the applicant make additional adjustments in the circle surrounding Lot 1,Block 6 to create more useable open space. c. Commissioners commented that they would prefer the common drives to be eliminated. d. Commissioners suggested puttingapathway adjacent to the Farr Lateral Easement, directiv behind all the houses to the east. e. Commissioners did not support the precedent of continuing to rezone R-4 property to R- 8. f. Commissioners noted most of this alreadv met R-4 standards, so they would prefer it just be reconfigured to meet R-4. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Commissioners recommended denial. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on January 11,2022. At the public hearing the Council moved to approve the subject rezoning,preliminary plat and development agreement modification requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jon Wardle Mike Wardle b. In opposition: Wyn yn Webb with Southern Rim Coalition,Mary Affleck L . C. Commenting: Jon Wardle and Mike Wardle d. Written testimony: Melissa Phillips.Julie Edwards,Julie Lance e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach Page 10 Page 132 Item#4. f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. Precedent from allowing"step ups in density" b. Maintaining more R-4 properties c. Lack of transparency from R-4 holding zones that are assumed to go to R-8. C. Traffic and increased lighting d. Loss of privacy 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Whether additional R-4 properties should be rezoned. b. Whether the development could be reconfigured to meet R-4 standards c. Whether it would be better to have more lots under R-4,or more open space if R-8 was allowed with the development as shown. d. There was significant discussion regarding school overcrowding and public improvements Brighton had constructed. e. Because the property was already entitled and annexed.the Council expressed concerns regarding whether it was better for it to remain R-4 or let it be up-zoned to R-8 with the development as shown. f. What factors Southern Rim Coalition used to support or oppose a development. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation. a. Council did not require a connection or open space within the Farr Lateral. VII. EXHIBITS A. Rezoning Exhibit(date: 10/11/2021) Page 11 Page 133 Item#4. Exhibit A Legal Description for Rezone to R8 A parcel of Jand being a part ion of Government Lot 2 and a part ion of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 5,Township 2 North,kange 1 East,B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described a5 follows: Beginning at a bass eap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 5,which bears N89°56'45"W a distance of 2,659.015 feet from an aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 5,thence Wowing the northerly line of said Government Lot 2, S89'55'45"E a distance of 287.51 feet to a 5/8- inch rebar; Thence leaving Said northerly line,500'00'42"IN a distance of 104.38 feet to a paint on the centerline of the Farr Lateral, said point being witnessed by a 5/8-inch rebar which Bears N00"00'42"E a distance of 40.75 feet from said paint; Thence following said centerline the following five(5)courses-. 1. 569"11'54"E a distance of 194.76 Feet; 2. 153,61 feet along the arc of a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet,a delta angle of 44"00'19",a chard bearing of 547'11'44"E and a chord distance of 149.86 feet; 3. 525°11'35"E a distance of 135.17 feet; 4. 522°29'45"E a distance of 1,518.71 feet; 5. 549"59'18"E a distance of 27.38 feet; Thence fearing said centerline,500"59'12''E a c'!=nce of 31.97 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N65°00'09"W a distance of 6 4.5 3 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N46°01'4VW a distance of 379.52 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence S68"36'58"W a distance of 694.76 feet to a 5/9-inch rebar; Thence S42"57'43"W a distance of 108.59 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar; Thence N78°31'12"W a distance of 191.55 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the westerly line of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 5,- Thence following said westerly line, N00'OVIC"E a distance of 1,954.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains a total of 32,21 acres, more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of record or implied. Attached hereto is Exhibit 3 and by this reference is made a part hereof. ,, 2459 2 �4%4o Page 12 Page 134 Item#4. RE CORNER SECTION 5 E. Lake Hazel Rd. rOUND ALUMIN4CAPWIS of BEARINr.NB9'56'45"W 2659,06' POINT OF BEGINNING 287.51' �0,78' WG2371.55'— N 1/4 CORNEA? SECTION 5 L PL5 4998 FOUND BRASS CAR 25' PRESCMIRTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY i Unplatted Rezone Area: 32.21± i�aa}� RanchAC Subdivision 5CS Investments LLC S1405120902 (Portion) Current Zoning: R4 CL FARR LATERAL Proposed Zoning: R8 l I LINE TAB LE 0. LINE REARING (DISTANCE °q Ll WD0'42"VI 104..�8 �s! T 55911 54"E 194.76 w � L3 S2 11'35-E 135.17 ` 1 CP o L4 549'59'18"Z 27.38 0 L5 $0'58'12"E 31.97 L6 N65'00'09"W 54.53 L7 S42'57'43'W 1 a8.58 Un latted L8 N7631'!VW w,tf � L4 Unplatte La ti N 0 300 Sao 900 Plan Scale: 1" -300' Page 13 Page 135 Item#4. B. Preliminary Plat(date: '0�21 1/11/2022) RTHWT 114 VF SECTION SI TQWM$ 1F 2 NUPTH,RARQE 1 EW,BOI5E MERIMN,APA COUPM,MAW I I I I K 7} ------------- _J Ikkr.MV-U44L 114 I - . \ •TIL i 1 _ x IL I x I nt�kr - 4 3 I I � � � y;x4 II keo s�xlwx ua 1 0 -a X}' ,C� t5 �IK�M1iT• o�•rn Kyle I '+ rn+a roowr sl�Id]�h10 IT � �Y4 I � r� � I •moelrr+a ` � ' ra (D O xti Fnrx- y (3 I (D ;` J 4 ! 0 s x I 54 I Page 14 Page 136 Item#4. C. Phasing Plan(Date: October 2021) 11r I-A LfAJI JVLJVIV IJIV I9 r"LLI IV I I Win I rLmI A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT Z AND A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST 114 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4OFSECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,8O15E MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO. I I Cl ulkl�u I IWP!SNVF'AFi xuv6F m�i�lxi w. uuliRwN UAN RaC — rikfIX o�n,Ecr.uwacrvn L fvarrErwa 8[witiv)•Fls teyml `5 Phase 1 39 Count • Phase 2 58 Count _ 1 1 I , � ' I h 1 {1, C Rai �� ■ - 4 RFlve�wnrrr Mx ri 1 LkIllO�IMlA. 1 — �+,•arriPaxn 1 � N SIM11N10 (y 15 ..«.w.n. ❑ "IRS I .. n'*, ,L _ .�Rsunc f *� I � r � • , I S 6NM P.I�.bNlbrL liilwib � E�iµf n,N+[d, � 1 R] I ® i r ,e ' r 5 L iR 1 � I w}ui{WFLI�P(R[O�[� _ SU.151313Y _- I Page 15 Page 137 Item#4. Color Landscape Plan(date: 1""�21 1/11/2022) r CQNCEPrUAL,$UBJECTTOCHANGE E IIEiICYETJIYI Y 1 ,ry Rt I �r I � S r 'S 4 D. Page 16 Page 138 Item#4. Fence Exhibit(date: 1"n"rvrzi9021 1/11/2022) SYMBOLS DESCRIPTION 6' HEIGHT STAINED CEDAR. SEE PPL4.0-6. " -' �h k 5' HEIGHT OPEN VISION METAL FENCE. SEE PPL4.0-5. i a I_ I f,• 5 S i ]] 5 c xy I .! a t} I ;s'r + *l I y ah � � I � 4 .� }5 I » 5 = I A45 I I �r _ 4I xL I 4' + X 4}5 ILF •3 + t ELM i aT V 5It I n * } I 1 s 5 V %t 40 i4 E. Page 17 Page 139 Item#4. F. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 1""�21 ]/11/2022) FF z Frr6— " LEGEND PARKWAY (QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE) ler I ` Lf COMMON LOT (QUAUFlED OPEN SPACE:) Ja. r hq �. 4 1— COMMON LOT (NOT OUALIFlEO OPEN SPACE) 44r ; Yii�d y 3 + 19 tit 5 — 4 eW pL]i T]M hM5 _ I As I ' LI ti55 y' 3$. I T.W �r. . _� 4 4}5 I f vnLr 4. CJP U 5 }y IM = a y I m is `! � Hare ti 5ti JJ I Iti 5 � '�I ys ti I SY. s I c � I + � 5 I (� llE Ti'.r} iiiG6L3�36i — L F L 1 f F G. NARY Pa AT OPFN WACF FXHIPIT Page 18 Page 140 Item#4. H. Common Driveway Exhibits (date: 10/11/20 z 1/11/2022) - ' w` • i � "w N w n - � ��- . I w 49 � y y w5. / / THE DEVELOPER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR AWNG LANDSCAPING RRIOATION AND THE r w R VIRACE o 5 RESPONSIBLE FOR ANING LANDSCAPING 1 IRRIGATION IMF ' w r yy aA FRONT J LFNpN= `Qryp I� Ian 5 S'�/ I I LOT -DDT LIABLE C°M MON w LOT IAA r LET12 I / LOT WRH R BVNES$ LCT T y t o ry ' INGRESS/EC OF \/1T\2'I,'} :EMENr IN FAvak OF ��•--R-COMMON DRIVE 12 AND 13.BLOCK 1 1 -� ' 1; I BUILDING EWELEr'E ' DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 14 RL'.I• TO DE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSTE SIDE OF THE TY U ET o. I � W - -� �D4MDN DRIVE RRDPERtt NE w'r LOT 13 OWNER IS RII—O IP LE APORRE I EAST O G AND Ll11NTlHNIMC � �:` �� '_•'...',.'.` LeNUSCAPIN�:AND IRRICA7IUN IN AREA EAST OF 1EENEAl10N LINE 1 I L 51 DT1 J ' l W DELINEATION LINE If{y LOT 12 4NYNEA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING AND I Y3 WEST AOF DE NEA 0 ENE LANU*;CAPINQ IRRIGATION IN THE AREA THE➢EYELOPER IS RESPUNSIKE FCR INSTALLING BUILDING ENVE-OPE. LANDSCAPING AMD IRRIOATIGN AND THE HOA IS TYPIGL. -RESF"N518LE FOR SVINTAININC LANDSCAPING AND DRIVEWAY FOR LOT 10 ELODK 1 TO RRGAiI➢N N THIS AREA BE LINE LOCATED THE OPPOST 51tlE M' OF THE 51-I COMMON DRIVE I f1TG 1!1 I RT f1f V 1 PROPERTYLINE a f � ° a ➢ ' } A i i a i } -N PI ry al al a N .I a al N AI al al al i al nl a al q REAR r REAR r REM F� AEAq REAR REAR I yl I �I I mI �I I �I I of BLOCK 1 I II II II II I I I �` I I sl I 11-5 II I I T IN-5 f 5 a�s I� Im C) 7 S 6107 ----�— \/� COMMON:. m to - LFkD NTED. 1 DRIVE ' P ..g '' 10 COMMON _ s.i f EmE N 26 DRNE ,a0 AOl1NTNN TOP - 6L E1 } % �` pI"W s vERiEx WnY IEWAY FOR LOT 27 t7 1° r 5 ' -� LA EWAY FOR Crc 1 TO BE L9CATE0' ,lp 21 1y �— \ / LOT as THE OPPDSDE SIDE / RE 1 TO N I�q RE L9CATEU THE SHARE°COMMON .: qN THE E PROPERTY UNE 1 y' ` I OF THEE Z5 IS R �1L1_ SIpE1 J - 11 16' 1 5VE�THE IM9NK WITH A 1 i 39 LOT 42 OWNER IS COMMON NKST y 2D .y RESPONSIBLE FOR ERNE RESS/EGRESS _ I INSTALUNG AND PROPERTY EiAEM IN Fawn + il'_ _ MMNTAINING LINE LOTS Z0 AND 25, rL DRNE1111 FOR LDT 7T BLOCK L TO l- VJ1U.-NG AND BE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE BIELOPE, - m IRRIGATION IN ENVELOPE OF THEEH[N�QLINE GAMMON DRIVE 1W100.L 2 THESE ANEA5 PktlRER LOT 24 01VNER I5 TY LINE - 51DEJ _- -'.. N RESPONSIBLE FOR p '{ HSTA AND - 0 JNFA'NING LANO NUSCAPINO 'D IRRICA71QN IN THESE z *L AREAS LOT eq 15 ANON-BUILDABLE DRIEy MR LOT 59 BEOGK+ GOMMGN LOT WITH A BIANKEf INCRESS/MR65 EASEMENT IN FAVOR TO BE L001.ON THE OPPOSTE LOTS 23-27 AND 39-43 BLOCK 1 OF LOTS 91 AND 42.BLOCK I SIDE OF THE SLIMEDUNE COMMON TIDE TE =30'WHEN PRINTED AT 1I"— � 1� Page 19 Page 141 00 � ■H. ■a.11! �-- G.1[ is y a t_ x �I z 0i no 41 I Apex East Residential-Conventional 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 Citv of Meridian,the Property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall,at minimum incorporate the following provisions: a. Future development of the Property shall comply with the ordinances in the Meridian City Code in effect at the time of development. Future development of this site shall comply with the preliminary plat, phasing plan,landscape plan and conceptual building elevations for the single-family_ arf^�dwellings included in Section VII. and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of 2-stony structures that face E.Lake Hazel Rd. or S. Recreation Ave 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. Sin l�ry structures are exempt from this requirement. Si-n le f•. mil ,attaehe str-ietu.-esr-eguire. c. Required street frontage improvements along E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the construction of S. Recreation Way including pathways, and landscape buffers shall be constructed with the first phase of construction. 2. The Preliminary Plat included in Section VI. dated 10/11/21,is approved with the following revisions: a,h.e plat should indicate�`r'rl'ri`�h l will single s ll eontainn family .ttaeed T� i-irsiiTc-inn b. Add notes which indicate Lots 3 and 50 Block 1,Lots 10 & 11 Block 4,Lot 1 Block 6. are common lots which will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. c. All utility easements reflected on the utility plan shall be included on the plat. .f PFio,.to !"'.,mmission the Wat and landsea tan shall be revisedto or-ov4de neeess- to-Afffl"r e. Prior to Commi-mmiqu Wat and landscape plan shall be reiviosed ta provide a Mor- flirccc and aliened cv ircccroir between rcire soucirarrraoacnucirwav and the circrccnee- into Dig 3. The Landscape Plan included in Section VI.dated 10/11/21,is approved with revisions c. d. and a as listed in Condition No. 2 above, and the following additions. Page 21 Page 143 Item#4. a. If the Farr Lateral Easement is to be credited as qualified open space,it should be landscaped as required per UDC 11-3B,or as allowed by the irrigation district. b. Prior to the Commission should provide details of the picnic area,tot lot,and other qualified amenities. 4. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway alone S. Recreation Ave..E. Lake Hazel Rd. and the southern property line to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. 5. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of 11-3A-3 with regard to access to streets. 6. The development shall comply with standards and installation for landscaping as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5 and maintenance thereof as set forth in UDC 11-313-13. 7. Pathway and adjoining fg encings and landscaping shall be constructed consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7A7 11-3A-8 and 11-313-12C. 8. The applicant shall construct all proposed fencing and/or any fencing required by the UDC, consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6B. as applicable. 9. The development shall comply with all subdivision design and improvement standards as set forth in UDC 11-6C-3. including but not limited to driveways, easements,blocks. street buffers,and mailbox placement. 10. Off-street parkin is to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 11. All common driveways shall meet the requirements of 11-6C-2-D including a perpetual ingress/egress easement being filed with the Ada County Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. 12. Development within the Williams Pipeline easement shall comply with the Williams Developers' Handbook. 13. All ditches shall comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6 unless waived by City Council, 14. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to obtain City Engineer's signature on a final plat in accord with UDC 11-6B-7. 15. The Applicant shall comply with all conditions of ACHD. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate with the CDA project to sub a water main from South Recreation Avenue to the common drive at the northwest corner of this subdivision which is currently designated as Block 1,Lot 11. 2. Eliminate the water main in East Wickham Street. 3. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. Page 22 Page 144 Item#4. General Conditions of Approval 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. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process usingthe he City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed. signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. 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. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains,exclusive of natural waterways.intersecting crossing or laving 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. ation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment. Page 23 Page 145 Item#4. 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. 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. 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 mayTost as performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B. 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. 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. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corns of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 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. 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. 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 im ag tion 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 protect. 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 r�olect• 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.orpublic works.as x?id=272. 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 Page 24 Page 146 Item#4. 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. 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. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243086&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC Lty D. ACHD https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243094&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv E. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244628&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244307&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY hgps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=244320&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty Page 25 Page 147 Item#4. IX. FINDINGS A. REZONE (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Council finds rezoning of the subject site with an R-8 zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FL UM designation for this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts that more diverse housing opportunities will be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Council considered oral or written testimony that was provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city This property is already within the City. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-611-6) In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15- 2005) 1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008) Council finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the comprehensive plan. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. Page 26 Page 148 Item#4. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Council finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's CIP. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Council finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8- 30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005) The Farr Lateral parallels the eastern property line, but are not natural features.According to the landscape plan, there are no healthy trees onsite meeting the requirements for preservation. Page 27 Page 149 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Development Agreement (Settler's Square H-2021-0072) Between the City of Meridian and Brighton Ustick, LLC and Alturus Ustick, LLC, Located on the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Venable Ave. Page 150 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-008733 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=23 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 01/26/2022 10:14 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Brighton Ustick,LLC,Owner/Developer 3. Alturus Ustick,LLC,Owner/Developer TFUS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(this Agreement),is made and entered into this 25th day of January -,1 20 22,by and between City of Meridian,a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called CITY whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and Brighton Ustick,LLC, whose address is 2929 W.Navigator Drive,Suite 400,Meridian, ID 83 642 and Alturus Ustick,LLC,whose address is 5 00 E.Shore Drive,#120,Eagle,Idaho 83 616 hereinafter called OVINER/DEVELOPER. i. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS,Owners are the sole owners,in law and/or equity,of certain tract of land in the County of Ada,State of Idaho,described in Exhibit"A",which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the Property;and 1.2 WHEREAS,Idaho Code § 67-651 IA provides that cities may,by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of zoning that the Owner and/or Developer make a written commitmetc a e use or development of the subject Property;and 1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Section 11-5B-3 ofthe Unified Development Code( UDC"),which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of land;and 1.4 WHEREAS,Owner/Developer has submitted an application for a modification of an existing Development Agreement (Instrument # 2016-097989) for the purpose of incorporating a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses on the property as shown in Exhibit "A7' under the Unified Development Code, which generally describes how the Property will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.5 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer made representations at the public hearings before Planning and Zoning Commission and the Meridian City Council,as to how the Property will be developed and what improvements will be made;and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERs SQuARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 1 OF 8 Item#5. 1.6 WHEREAS,the record of the proceedings for requested rezoning held before Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council,includes responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction,and includes further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, on the 21t" day of December, 2021, the Meridian City Council approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order ("Findings"), which have been incorporated into this Agreement and attached as Exhibit"D'; and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Owner/Developer to enter into a Development Agreement before the City Council takes final action on final plat;and 1.9 WHEREAS,Owner/Developer deem it to be in its best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and request; and 1.10 WHEREAS,The Property contained in Exhibit"A"shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement(Inst.#2016-097989)or any prior development agreement and shall be bound only by the terms contained in this Agreement. 1.11 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement,herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on December 19,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179, and the UDC, Title 11. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein,the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words,terms,and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for,unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a party to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 2 OF 8 Page 152 Item#5. Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian,Idaho 83642. 3.2 OMWER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Brighton Ustick,LLC,whose address is 2929 W. Navigator Drive, Suite 400, Meridian, ID 83642 and Alturus Ustick,LLC,whose address is 500 E. Shore Drive,#120,Eagle,ID 83616 hereinafter called OWNER/DEVELOPER, the party that owns and is developing said Property and.shall include any subsequent owner(s) and/or developer(s)of the Property. 3.3 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain parcel(s)of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as in Exhibit"A"describing a parcel to bound by this Development Agreement and attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the UDC. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owners/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Future development of the subject site shall be substantially consistent with the conceptual development plan, conceptual rendering, conceptual elevations, and provisions contained herein. b. Direct lot access to W. Ustick Road is prohibited, as shown on the submitted conceptual development plans. c. A cross-access easement shall be granted to the property abutting the southwest property boundary(Parcel#SO436346613).A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the western commercial pad site OR when parcel SO436346613 develops, whichever occurs first. d. An additional north-south pedestrian connection to the proposed east-west drive aisle shall be added in the west half of the residential site with the future conditional use permit application for added pedestrian connectivity. e. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual;future commercial structures shall incorporate similar architectural themes and elements as the residential portion of the project for consistency. f. A conditional use permit is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning and DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLER$SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 3 OF 8 Page 153 Item#5. Zoning Commission for the proposed multi-family development in the C-C zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2.The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 Multi-Family Development. g. A maximum of 57 multi-family units and a minimum of two commercial buildings shall be constructed on the subject site per the submitted concept plans. h. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative Design Review applications shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to submittal of any building permit application(s). i. The Applicant shall be allowed to obtain no more than two(2)buildings permits for the commercial portion of the site prior to any subdivision of the property. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within six (6) months after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void, 7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: 7.1 Acts of Default. In the event Owner/Developer, or Owner's/Developer's heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the Property or any other person acquiring an interest in the Property,fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the Property, this Agreement may be terminated by the City upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 7.2 Notice and Cure Period.In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty(30)days from receipt of written notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure the default,which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within one hundred eighty (180) days; provided,however,that in the case of any such default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty(180) day period,then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after notice from City as described in Section 7.2, City shall,upon satisfaction of the notice and hearing procedures set forth in Idaho Code section 67-651IA,have the right,but not a duty, to de-annex all or a portion of the Property, reverse the zoning designations described herein, and terminate City services to the de-annexed Property,including water service and/or sewer service.Further,City shall have the right to file an action at law or in equity to enforce the provisions of this Agreement.Because the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein are unique to the Property and integral to City's decision to annex and/or re-zone the Property, City and Owner/Developer stipulate that specific performance is an appropriate, but not exclusive, remedy in the event of default. Owner/Developer reserves all rights to contest whether a default has occurred. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 4 OF 8 Page 154 Item#5. 7.4 Choice of Law and Venue.This Agreement and the rights of the parties hereto shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho, including all matters of construction, validity, performance, and enforcement. Any action brought by any party hereto shall be brought within Ada County,Idaho. 7.5 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include,without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 7.6 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default by Owner/Developer of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions. 8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall,immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or policy,notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits,and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer,prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re-zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby,the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 10. ZONING: City shall,following recordation of the duly approved Agreement,enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 11. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds,irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under the UDC, to insure the installation of required improvements, which the Owner/Developer agree to provide, if required by the City. 12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed,completed,and accepted by the City,or sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph 11 above. 13. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owners and/or Developer agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 5 OF 8 Page 155 Item#5. 14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: with copy to: City Clerk City Attorney City of Meridian City of Meridian 33 E.Broadway Ave. 33 E.Broadway Avenue Meridian,Idaho 83642 Meridian,Idaho 83642 OWNER/DEVELOPER: OWNER/DEVELOPER: Brighton Ustick,LLC Alturus Ustick,LLC 2929 W.Navigator Drive, Suite 400 500 E. Shore Drive,#120 Meridian,ID 83642 Eagle,ID 83616 14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled,in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default,termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term,condition and provision hereof,and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the Owner/Developer, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof,except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees,upon written request of Owner/Developer,to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Owner/Developer have fully performed their obligations under this Agreement. 18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction,such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 6 OF 8 Page 156 Item#5. 19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided,each party shall act reasonably in giving any consent,approval,or flaking any other action under this Agreement. 20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any third party (including a governmental entity or official) challenging the validity of any provision in this Agreement,the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or proceeding. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements,condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Owner/Developer and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided,no subsequent alteration,amendment,change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re-zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. [end of text; acknowledgements, signatures and Exhibits A and B follow] ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. OWNERS/DEVELOPER: OWNER/DEVELOPER: Brighton Ustick,LLC,an Idaho Alturus Ustick,LLC,an Idaho Limited Liability Company Limited Liability Company By: ZvIo 'r L, �h y 't i f f l /U AV146 ci— By: Travis Ba y,Manager CITY OF MERIDIAN ATTEST: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 7 OF 8 Page 157 Item#5. By: Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada ) On this�day of AM ,20V-,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared L.• I It pS T known or identified to me to be the KAA er— of Brighton Ustick,LLC.and the person who signed above and acknowledged to me that he executed the same n behalf of said limited liability company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seat the day and year in this certificate first above written. AMANDA Mt;MIRY COMMISSION#29628 N t ry Public for,/O NOTARY PUBLIC Re iding at:_ STATE OF IDAHO My Commission Expires:�J"1 2.3 4 W COMMISSION EXPIRES NA/1��331 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss: County of Ada On this(D day of� A ' ,204' before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared known or identified to me to be the ft&AQ, Gt/ of Alturus Ustick,LLC,and the person who st tned above and acknowledged to me that he executed the samV on behalf of said limited liability company. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ,'01119118#00 , Notary Public for 0 �yOTA.y►`' Residing at: fd4 04A D My Commission Expires: _f,Z Ot ge- STATE OF IDAHO ) �A0'•1 �zzq .....�OP.�'�. ss �1� �4F �unsr��•� County of Ada ) On this 25th day of January 20 22,before me, a Notary Public,personally appeared Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson,known or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City,and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: Meridian, Idaho Commission expires: 3-28-2022 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SETTLERS SQUARE(H-2021-0072) PAGE 8 OF 8 Page 158 ttem#5. EXHIBIT A D. Legal Description for Property Subject to Development Agreement Legal Description: Parcel L The South 660 feet of the East one-half of the East one-half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho. Except the East 29 feet. Further Except: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence,along the South section line of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East2662,19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter corner of said Section 36;thence,leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East 25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence, leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East 639.49 feet to a point;thence,leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88°50'42"West 84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West 639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88'44'00"East 96.71 feet to the Read Point of Beginning. Further Excepting: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Parcel II: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence along the South section fine of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East,2662.19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter comer of said Section 36;thence leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East,25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East,639.49 feet to a point;thence leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88"50'42"West,84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West,639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88°44'00"East,96.71 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Except: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Page 9 Page 159 ►tem#5. EXHIBIT B CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAWC f[E bN,-AND DECISION& ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst.#2016- 097989)for the purpose of replacing the previous agreement with a new one to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses.,by Brighton Development,Inc. Case No(s).H-2021-0072 For the City Council Hearing Date of: December 7,2021 (Findings on December 21,2021) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7,2021, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2021, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2021, incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Settlers Square MDA—FILE#H-2021-0072) - I - Page 160 Item#5. 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2021, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted,it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Development Agreement Modification is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7,2021, attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-613-713). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 11- 6B-7C). Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Settlers Square MDA—FILE#H-2021-0072) -2- Page 161 Item#5. determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11(UDC 11-513-617). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian. When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52,Title 67,Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of December 7, 2021. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Settlers Square MDA—FILE#H-2021-0072) -3- Page 162 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of December 2021. COUNCIL PRESIDENT TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert Simison 12-21-2021 Attest: Chris Johnson 12-21-2021 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 12-21-2021 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Settlers Square MDA—FILE#H-2021-0072) -4- item#e. EXHIBIT A E COMMUNITY N --- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 1��O�T 12/7/2021 Legend DATE: ® (� LaTO: Mayor&City Council Project Location J LI FROAM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner - ` TRIIT R_g_ 208-884-5533 RUT = R-15 SUBJECT: H-2021-0072 R - C-N L-Q R1 C-C RUT R_UT Settlers Square MDA RUTS E R1 �u TN-R LOCATION: The site is located on the northwest - RUT R R 15 corner of W. Ustick Road and N. R-8 Venable Avenue, adjacent to the mid- 7TL- _RUT RUT _ 81111111111111 - L - mile mark between Linder Road and Meridian Road, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 �'�rR-4f of Section 36,Township 4N.,Range 1 W. R_8 -,� RUT M TamCSii f L-©I a'7"!titi m— :01 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2016-097989) for the purpose of replacing the previous agreement with a new one to incorporate a new concept plan consisting of commercial and residential uses. NOTE: The Applicant has submitted revised concept plans and narrative leading to Staff changing its recommendation for denial to approval based on the changes to the proposed concept plan.Analysis has been updated in a strike-through and underline format below. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Joshua Beach,Brighton Development,Inc.—2929 W.Navigator Drive, Suite 400,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner: Brighton Development, Inc.— 11650 S. State Street,Draper, UT 84020 C. Representative: Same as Applicant III. STAFF ANALYSIS The existing Development Agreement (DA) for the subject property requires the entire site to be developed with commercial and office uses and incorporates two private roads through the development; one north-south road and one east-west. In 2016, Council approved a DA Modification for this site to change the internal roads from public roads to private streets. There are existing DA Page 1 Page 164 item#5. EXHIBIT A provisions regarding the desired placement of buildings along Ustick and the desired integration of pedestrian facilities throughout the site for safe pedestrian circulation that Staff finds imperative to keep within the DA to assist in compliance with mixed-use policies and the desired site design. The Applicant proposes to replace the existing DA with a new one for the purpose of incorporating a new conceptual development plan. A multi-family development is proposed to develop on the north half of the site consisting of approximately 60 apartment units,according to the submitted concept plan. Per the submitted plan and conceptual elevations,the apartment units are proposed as townhome style units in the form of two-story 3-plexes and 4-plexes with eaeh most units having a front-loaded garage and parking pad;the revised concept plan shows the central units as alley-loaded with some of the units now fronting on the east-west street between the proposed residential area and the commercial area shown to remain. In addition, the stibmitted eaneeptidal development plan depiets the east west st shown on the existing concept plan as remaining but appears to be a publie road this east west road connects to Venable on the east boundary as the .oint for-the site and also provides future In addition,this east-west street is also shown as remaining from the conceptual plan in the existing DA but is now shown as a drive aisle instead of a public street. Staff supports this change to o the plan because it offers the Applicant the opportunity to provide bulb-outs for dedicated on-street parking and street trees to provide an urban canopy as proposed on the revised concept plan. The revised concept plan also shows additional pedestrian facilities within the residential portion of the site, detached sidewalks along the east-west drive aisle, and a shared plaza. The additional pedestrian facilities and the overall revisions to the site plan add more pedestrian connectivity between the proposed commercial and residential uses and offers safer circulation for pedestrians movingthroughout hroughout the site. Staff can better support the revised concept plan with the revisions shown. Furthermore, Inaddition, the public street stubbed to the north property boundary is shown as terminating within the site as part of the multi-family drive aisles instead of continuing through the site and connecting to Ustick Road. w-hi.h eeneems Staff (f,fthe analysis is below"` Therefore, no connection to Ustick is proposed either via public street or commercial drive aisle with the new conceptual development plan. FuAhefmer-e, a In addition, this Applicant has agreed to provide cross- access to the remainingcounty oun zoned parcel at the very southwest corner property boundary of this site for future pedestrian and vehicular connectivity.This connection to Ustick would align with an existing access on the south side of Ustick and provide both projects an access point to Ustick—Staff finds it important to have this cross-access connection because of the opportunity to provide easier access to the future commercial uses on this subject site and help disperse traffic from both projects onto Ustick by having a second connection to Ustick beyond that of only Venable. As noted above, Staff can better support this revised concept plan and has proposed recommended DA provisions in line with the revised concept plan and need for cross-access to the west. A rezone application has not been submitted so the proposed multi-family use in the existing C-C zoning district will require conditional use permit (CUP) approval. Staff would analyze specific development criteria and specific use standards at the time of the CUP submittal. Off-street parking would be required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for multi-family developments. Qualified open space would also be required, per the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3- 27C. Compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments is required and would be reviewed with the CUP application. Adjustments may be necessary to the concept plan to comply with these standards and any ACHD required revisions. The subject site is part of a Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)future land use area—this designation calls for a mix of residential and commercial land uses that are thoughtfully integrated. One of the reasons the Applicant has stated for requesting this DA Modification is the subject site has sat vacant in its current configuration and entitlements for over a decade. The Applicant's revised narrative sheds Page 2 Page 165 ►tem#e. EXHIBIT A additional light on the history of this parcel, the intention of the future land use designation, and the Applicant's justification to modify the concept plan to include multi-family residential and reduce the commercial area at this mid-mile location.Within this MU-C area,detached single-family,apartments, office/retail,and Civic uses are existing and planned(future land use designations are not parcel specific so an area of the baseball fields in Settlers Park are within this MU-C area). There is existing multi- family directly south of the subject site on the south side of Ustick; additional multi-family is approved at the southeast corner of the Venable and Ustick intersection. Directly to the east is a relatively small office park with five(5)buildings and is the only commercial component in this MU-C area. Because of the multi-family development on the south side of Ustick,this may be the only area that could develop with neighborhood serving commercial uses. During the review of the Summertown project (SEC of Venable and Ustick), staff did forego recommending a commercial component as part of that project because this property was already zoned for commercial and Staff was in favor of preserving this property for future commercial uses. AAhough the pFoposed development would be a new type of Fesidential in this area (townhomee style instead of tFaditional gar-den style walk Up apftFtments), the submitted eoneept plan laelis many of the design eoneepts shown and outlined in the comprehensive plan for mixed use areas. 1H geReFal,the ffftffFe eommereial area is being redueed while increasing the Fesidential area and its impaet in this area of the City with little to no neighbOFhOod s i — eFeial uses. . Mdnkmum, the following mixed use poheies are not met with the proposed plan whereas the existing one does eomplyt With the Applicant's revised narrative and concept plans, Staff finds the following mixed-use policies are better satisfied with the subject project and surrounding area: • 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. SMff does notfind the pWosed eoneept plan meets this pohey-as pf • Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of 5%of the development area are required. Outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count towards this requirement.Based on the submimed eoneeptplan, $hem am not enough details to sho;v eomphanee i4M this plan. The pmposed muki family residential awa affear-s to be isolated and no shaped awas am shmm, as noted in this poliey. • All mixed use projects should be accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood access. Although the pmposed eoneepsplan does not require arterial shwtsfor neighbor-hoo development to get to the eommereial jvhieh eouk4foree them to wilke Venablefor ease of safto, Page 3 Page 166 item#e. EXHIBIT A • A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential development alone. As n ted of eaeh mixed use projeet is intended t provide at least three types of land tfses-. However-, with the ex4sting and approved development in this AlU G orea-, a vast majority of the area jvffl be medium and high density residential whieh is not a desired outeome. Sfafffmd-s mdtfeing the last Pentaining area of undeveloped eontinereial area to ineorporate more residen dal is in diree Over-all> Staff is eoneeMed the pFoposed plan is more Fesidentially foeused, with the commercial aFea,and does not comply with the mixed use policies in the comprehensive plan.FOF the reasons and concerns noted,Staff is not supportive of the proposed DA modification. and has r-eeommended denial of theFequest. Overall, with the Applicant's revised concept plan, color rendering, and additional context provided within the revised narrative, Staff finds the project now complies with a majority of the mixed-use policies,provides new housing types within this area for residents of different income levels and housing preferences,and provides adequate cross-access between parcels to relieve the stress on the arterial street system. IV. DECISION A. Staff: Staff r-eeommends denial of the modification to the DA as proposed by the Applioant and finds the �ept plan and DA provisions afe better- suited to addfess developmepA of the subte-C4 pr-epei4y. Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA pursuant to the recommended provisions in Section VI of this report. B. The Meridian City Council heard these items on December 7, 2021. At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Development Agreement Modification request. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearinc: a. In favor: Jon Wardle.Applicant. b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Jon Wardle. d. Written testimony: One piece—discussing parcel not part of project: general objection to apartments in this area of the City. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Reduction of commercial area for the purpose of multi-family residential in the context of this site as well as the overall MU-C designation this site is a part o£ b. History of MU-C area and its intended purpose at this location; C. How Staff analyzed the project in terms of the Comprehensive Plan and its proposed use of multi-family with some commercial along Ustick: d. Viability of commercial after inclusion of St. Luke's clinic: e. Future connectivity between uses and parcels on the property. 4. City Council change(s)to Staff recommendation: Page 4 Page 167 item#e. EXHIBIT A a. Addition of one new DA provision consistent with Applicant's request to be allowed up to two(2)building permits prior to any property subdivision. V. EXHIBITS A. Approved Conceptual Development Plans(dated: October 2016) �N' flP Wry `. •y—. I Ali qI �Rt iX5io4 f y 'Its � f v I i '.?A.'eWi IR;. I yy� tl � Pa�.Wfli aVYeN.L l +i7 ir{e. .Js Page 5 Page 168 item#s. EXHIBIT A B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan(dated:November 2021) ��ga N Ivaannvnx svanrvrsrox i �raD�Da I I • I I ou�ww k ��,�N II II�, I CEDAR SPRrlYCS I�,w s 9UHI1(fCS10N ND.3 I ______ I aulpu� I 19Ntaxo a ,uiarr o l a rtt� l f I � I a I � I+4 994 ACIR 5 11 RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY CPDCX i4 9PRINC5 0 i svamvrsmx sasr �.4 I �S.QQDR➢Rx ��VBDIVf5f0N Nt1 8 B I Sli,n I I z � c c r f L1f( 77.940 SF vu,nx��KKriv.°in`G u— f1.7S9 ACRES COMMERCIAL — — — � 8L➢CX 25 Cx➢AR SPRINGS :> SU➢DfVd5f0N NQ.D UNPLAPTNn _ I I I I I I •r -- ------------- W USTICK RD Page 6 Page 169 item#e. EXHIBIT A C. Conceptual Development Wan Rendering and Elevations (dated: 9/20,12021November 2021) SETTLERS PARK T Cz R Ai G E PIT A2 , TOWN HOMES a( I� A3 �II�I MERIDIAN,IDAHO 57SINGLE FAMILY UNITS .... 10 20 a�0 (2)STORY A6 y ¢ C ¢Bf -STORY I I 62 I D7 I I I B3 � O _ __ __ _______ II I I I i I I i w I I I 12)STORY p f (2)STORY LL SUILDINGTYP'A' i 2fi D ❑ n B BUILDINGS f24 UNITS GAZEBO Ag COMMUNITY B4 135 Bg CENTER A5 I I I I I (2)STORY _______ li J j3)STORY I I I PLAZA J (3)STORY p ____ (2)STORY i W BUILDINGWP'B' I- I 5 BUILDINGS)24 UNITS I � . i � � j2)STORY i (2)STORY I o a i BUILDING TYP'C' I FUTURE COMMERCIAL I 2 BUILDINGS UNITS I � I � 12)STORY -- I I �' (21 STORY I� jZ)STORY L.._.._..-..�--_..—..�.._.._.._.._..._.._.._..._.._..�..—..�.._.._.._.._.._..--.—.._.._.._.._.._.-_.._.._.._.._.._..�� BUILDING TYP'D� 1 BUILDING 13 UNITS W. USTICK RD. Page 7 Page 170 ttem#s. EXHIBIT A September 20, 2021 Page 3 EXHIBIT A Conceptual Architectural Elevations wook 00 ®LSE 4 5 ; .,,y� ' .'S`F ...Z'~ '��I JL 1 i �[• ��Atj I�� '.,�.. ��,:.. Page 8 Page 171 ttem#s. EXHIBIT A D. Legal Description for Property Subject to Development Agreement Legal Description: Parcel L The South 660 feet of the East one-half of the East one-half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West, Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho. Except the East 29 feet. Further Except: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence,along the South section line of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East2662,19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter corner of said Section 36;thence,leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East 25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence, leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East 639.49 feet to a point;thence,leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88°50'42"West 84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West 639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88'44'00"East 96.71 feet to the Read Point of Beginning. Further Excepting: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Parcel II: A parcel of land located in the East half of the East half of the Southwest quarter of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particularly described as follows: Beginning at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of Section 36,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian;thence along the South section fine of said Section 36,also being the center line of Ustick Road South 88°44'00"East,2662.19 feet to an iron pin marking the South quarter comer of said Section 36;thence leaving said South section line,and along the North-South center quarter section line of said Section 36 North 0°26'40"East,25.00 feet to a point on the North right-of-way line of said Ustick Road,also being the Real Point of Beginning;thence leaving said North right-of-way line,and continuing along said North-South center quarter section line North 0°26'40"East,639.49 feet to a point;thence leaving said North-South center quarter section line North 88"50'42"West,84.71 feet to an iron pin;thence South 1°31'09"West,639.26 feet to an iron pin on the said North right-of-way line;thence along said North right-of-way line South 88°44'00"East,96.71 feet to the Real Point of Beginning. Except: A parcel of land disclosed in Warranty Deed to Ada County Highway District recorded April 9,2010 as Instrument No.110032208,records of Ada County,Idaho. Page 9 Page 172 ttem#5. EXHIBIT A VI. PLANING DIVISION COMMENTS A. Development Agreement Provisions 1. Development of the subject property shall no longer be subject to the terms of the existing Development Agreement(H-2016-0074,Inst. #2016-097989). 2. Future development of the subject site shall be substantially consistent with the conceptual development plan, conceptual rendering conceptual elevations, and provisions contained herein. 3. Direct lot access to W.Ustick Road is prohibited, as shown on the submitted conceptual development plans. 4. A cross-access easement shall be granted to the property abutting the southwest property boundary(Parcel# SO436346613). A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the western commercial pad site OR when parcel SO436346613 develops,whichever occurs first. 5. An additional north-south pedestrian connection to the proposed east-west drive aisle shall be added in the west half of the residential site with the future conditional use permit application for added pedestrian connectivity. 6. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual; future commercial structures shall incorporate similar architectural themes and elements as the residential portion of the project for consistency. 7. A conditional use permit is required to be submitted and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission for the proposed multi-family development in the C-C zoning district as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-2. The proposed use is subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27 Multi-Family Development. 8. A maximum of 57 multi-family units and a minimum of two commercial buildings shall be constructed on the subject site per the submitted concept plans. 9. A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and administrative Design Review applications shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to submittal of any building permit application(s). 10. The Applicant shall be allowed to obtain no more than two (2)buildings permits for the commercial portion of the site prior to any subdivision of the property. Page 10 Page 173 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: City of Meridian Financial Report - December Fiscal Year 2022 Page 174 Item#(i. CITY of MERIDIAN FINANCE REPORT December 2021 - FY22 Report PAGE # Investment Graphs 2 Fund Balance 3 rII � � � rr IT lTIE. ,� � �sll ® _ � _ __ ® __ _ FF � .11 _- - -- - iun_u_n_..... - �nTnTniuin�-g nnnm Page 175 F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2022\FY22-3 Dec Council Report 1 of 3 Item#6. FINANCE REPORT C%�E ITAN:-- December 2021 - FY22 AHO 1 City of Meridian Investment Portfolio CITY OF MERIDIAN INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO YIELD BY INVESTMENTTYPE I DAHO STATE POOL 0A2% IDAHO BOND FUND 1.38% CASH 0.00% F I B 0.15% ■FIB MoneyMarket$1,648,374 ■Cash $11,022,098 MONEYMARKET ■Idaho Bond Fund$71,629,236 ■Idaho State Pool$111,767,914 — City of Meridian Interest/Investment Income City of Meridian Cash/I nvestments Balance by Major Fund by Major Fund $900,000 $800,000 $120,000,000 $700,000 $100,000,000 $600,000 $500,000 $80,000,000 $400,000 $60,000,000 $300,000 $200,000 $40,000,000 — $20,000,000 $0 In General Enterprise General Fund Enterprise Fund ■TotalBudget ■Actual YiD 0FY22 0FY21 Page 176 F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2022\FY22-3 Dec Council Report 2 of 3 is Item#6. Ci�E IDI� IAN--- FINANCE REPORT t oa H o December 2021-FY22 J GENERAL FUND BALANCE ALLOCATIONS M0,000,000 $100,000,000 $80,000,000 360,000,000 $M,000,000 $20.000.000 $ 9/30/2015 9/30/2016 9/30/2017 9/30/2013 9f39/2019 9130f2020 9/30/2021 Nonspendable ■Rastlicted ■Committed ■Assigned ■Assigned Reserves ■Unassigned ENTERPRISE FUND BALANCE ALLOCATIONS $90A0%000 $W.00a000 $70,000,000 $60,000,000 $50,000,000 $-00,00aoo0 $30,00a000 $an,aoa000 $10,00a000 ... ............ $ 9/30/2015 9/30f2016 9f30f2017 9/30/2018 9f30f2019 9f30f21)24 9/30/2021 ■Assigned ■Unassigned ■Assinged Reserves Page 177 rP F:\Monthly Reports\Finance Reports\FY2022\FY22-3 Dec Council Report 3 of 3 7/tem 77 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Community Development Department: Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of$501,559.00 to Accept the Fiscal Year 2022/Plan Year 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Award Page 178 Item#7. 1:02 PM City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form Personnel Costs Full Time Equivalent(FTE): Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total C> w I IAN*-- 20 1840/1930 41200 6003 Wages I D A H O 20 1840/1930 41206 6003 PT/Seasonal Wages 20 1840/1930 41210 6003 Overtime please only complete the fields highlighted 20 1840/1930 41304 6003 Uniform Allowance in Orange. 20 1840/1930 42021 6003 FICA $ Amendment Details 20 1 1840/1930 42022 6003 1PERSI $ - Title: CDBG Grant Funding FY22 20 1 1840/1930 1 42023 1 6003 Worker's Comp $ Department Name: Econ Dev 20 1 1840/1930 1 42025 1 6003 JEmployee Insurance $ Presenting Department Name: Econ Dev Total Personnel Costs $ Department#: 1840/1930 Operating Expenditures Primary Funding Source: 20 Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description One-Time On-Going Total CIP#: n/a 20 1930 85000 6003 Admin $ 42,000 $ 42,000 Project#: 6003 20 1930 85000 6003.131 Fair Housing $ 3,000 $ 3,000 20 1840 85000 6003.126 Boys&Girls Club Scholarships $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Is this for an Emergency? ❑ Yes 0 No 20 1840 85000 6003.127 Jesse Tree-Emergency rent assist $ 25,000 $ 25,000 New Level of Service? ❑ Yes 0 No 20 1840 85000 6003.128 NeighborWorks-Homeowner Repair Ad $ 171,000 $ 171,000 20 5290 85000 6003.129 Chateau Playground $ 240,559 $ 240,559 Clerks Office Stamp 20 1840/1930 6003 $ - 20 1840/1930 6003 $ 20 1840/1930 6003 $ 20 1840/1930 6003 $ 20 1840/1930 6003 $ 20 1840/1930 6003 $ 20 1840/1930 6003 $ Date of Council Approval 1-25-2022 Total Operating Expenditures $ 501,559 $ $ 501,559 Capital Outlay Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total Ackn Ige t Date 20 1840/1930 6003 20 1840/1930 6003 Jan. 10, 2022 20 1840/1930 6003 D el/rector REVIEWED 20 1840/1930 6003 20 1840/1930 6003 By Todd Lavoie at 8:29 am,Jan 11,122 bp 01/10/22 20 1840/1930 6003 Chief Financial Officer Total Capital Outlay $ - Revenue/Donations Approved Brad Hoaglun 1.52 p.m. 1/11/2022 Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total Coun L� n 20 1930 33100 6003 Admin $ 42,000 1-12-22 20 1930 33100 6003.131 Fair Housing $ 3,000 /_V�w �+ 20 1840 33100 6003.126 Boys&Girls Club Scholarships $ 20,000 Mayor 20 1840 33100 6003.127 Jesse Tree-Emergency rent assist $ 25,000 20 1840 33100 6003.128 NeighborWorks-Homeowner Repair $ 171,000 20 1 5290 33100 6003.129 IChateau Playground $ 240,559 Total Revenue/Donations $ 501,559 Total Amendment Request $ - Page 179 City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form FAGrants\6003 CDBG Grant\CDBG PY2020-FY2022\FY2022 Budget Amendment Form-CDBG Item#7. 1:02 PM City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form Total Amendment Cost-Lifetime Prior Year(s) Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Department Name: Econ Dev Funding 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 Title: CDBG Grant Funding FY22 Personnel $ - $ $ $ $ Ion.�r o for-su6riall Budget anrr±.rd—.U: Operating $ 501,559 $ $ $ $ ➢ Department will send Amendment with Directors signature to Finance(Budget Analyst)for review Capital $ - ➢ Finance will send Amendment to Council Liaison for signature Total $ - $ 501,559 $ $ $ $ ➢Council Liaison will send signed Amendment to Mayor Total Estimated Project Cost: $ 501,559 ➢ Mayorwill send signed Amendment to Finance(Budget Analyst) Evaluation Questions ➢ Finance(Budget Analyst)will send app—d copy of Amendment to Department Please answer all Evaluation Questions using the financial data referenced above. ➢ Departmerrt will add copy ofAmendmentto Council Agenda using Non-Agenda Manager 1. Describe what is being requested? Spend Authority of the awarded HUD/CDBG grant funds in the amount of$501,559 for FY22(Program Year 21). The individual projects have been approved by Coundil during the PY21 Action Plan Submittal to HUD. 2. Why was this budget request not submitted during the current fiscal year budget cycle? Grants are usually awarded at the start of each fiscal year for the current fiscal year,which is after the current fiscal year budget has been approved. The grant award amount is unknown during the budget cycle. 3. What is the explanation for not submitting this budget request during the next fiscal year budget cycle? The grant award is for FY22 and not a carryforward item into the next FY. 4.Describe the proposed method of funding? If funding is split between Funds(i.e. General,Enterprise,Grant),please include the percentage split. List the amounts and sources of anticipated additional revenue that will result from approval of this request. Grant Revenue from HUD=CDBG funding,this is a revenue neutral budget amendment. 5.Does this request align with the Department/City's strategic plan? If not,please explain how this request was not included in the Department/City strategic plan? Yes 6. Does this request require resources to be provided by other departments? If yes,please describe the necessary resources to be provided by other departments. No. 7.Does this Amendment include any needed Equipment or Software that will utilize the Cit 's network? Yes or No 8.Is the amendment going to result in the disposal of an asset?(Yes or No) No 9.Any additional comments? n/a Total Amendment Request $ - Every effort should be made to avoid reopening the budget for an amendment. Departments will need to provide back up and appear before the City Council to justify budget amendments. Budget amendments are intended for emergency or mandatory changes to the original balanced budget. Changes to the original balanced budget may cause a funding shortfall. Page 180 City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form F:\Grants\6003 CDBG Grant\CDBG PY2020-FY2022\FY2022 Budget Amendment Form-CDBG item 07. ing Approval/Agreement U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development it e of the Housing and Community Office of Community Planning and Development Development Act(Public Law 930383) Community Development Block Grant Program OMB Approval No.2506-0193 HI-00515R of 20515R exp 5/31/2018 1.Name of Grantee(as shown in item 5 of Standard Form 424) 3a.Grantee's 9-digit Tax ID Number 3b.Grantee's 9-digit DUNS Number Meridian 826000225 028451367 2.Grantee's Complete Address(as shown in item 5 of Standard Form 424) 4.Date use of funds may begin 33 East fdaho-7zvenne 1b(Oac)YJ&4 Nkv)" 10/04/2021 Meridian,ID 83642- 5a.Project/Grant No.1 6a.Amount Approved B-21-MC-16-0006 $501,559 5b.Project/Grant No.2 6b.Amount Approved Grant Agreement: This Grant Agreement between the Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)and the above named Grantee is made pursuant to the authority of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,as amended,(42 USC 5301 et seq.).The Grantee's submissions for Title I assistance,the HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 570(as now in effect and as may be amended from time to time),and this Funding Approval,including any special conditions,constitute part of the Agreement. Subject to the provisions of this Grant Agreement,HUD will make the funding assistance specified here available to the Grantee upon execution of the Agreement by the parties. The funding assistance specified in the Funding Approval may be used to pay costs incurred after the date specified in item 4 above provided the activities to which such costs are related are carried out in compliance with all applicable requirements. Pre-agreement costs may not be paid with funding assistance specified here unless they are authorized in HUD regulations or approved by waiver and listed in the special conditions to the Funding Approval. The Grantee agrees to assume all of the responsibilities for environmental review,decision making,and actions,as specified and required in regulations issued by the Secretary pursuant to Section 104(g)of Title I and published in 24 CFR Part 58. The Grantee further acknowledges its responsibility for adherence to the Agreement by sub- recipient entities to which it makes funding assistance hereunder available. U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(By Name) Grantee Name(Contractual Organization) Bryan G.Guiney Meridian(City of Meridian) Title Title CPD Director C Signature Date(mm/dd/yyyy) Sig re Date(mm/dd/yyyy) x Digitally signed byBRYAN 11/03/2021 BRYAN GUINEY x GUINEY —Dare—.M1.11.03 12:13:18 07'00' 7.Category of Title I Assistance for this Funding Action: 8.Special Conditions 9a.Date HUD Received Submission 10.check one (check one) 07/30/2021 ®a.Orig.Funding Entitlement,Sec 106(b) ❑None 9b.Date Grantee Notified Approval ®Attached 11/03/2021 ❑b.Amendment 9c.Date of Start of Program Year Amendment Number (10/01/2021) 11.Amount of Community Development Block Grant FY 2021 a.Funds Reserved for this Grantee $501,559 b.Funds now being Approved c.Reservation to be Cancelled 11a minus 11b 12a.Amount of Loan Guarantee Commitment now being Approved 12b.Name and complete Address of Public Agency N/A City of Meridian Loan Guarantee Acceptance Provisions for Designated Agencies: 33 East Idaho Avenue The public agency hereby accepts the Grant Agreement executed by the Meridian,ID 83642- Department of Housing and Urban Development on the above date with respect to the above grant number(s)as Grantee designated to receive loan 12c.Name of Authorized Official for Designated Public Agency guarantee assistance,and agrees to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement,applicable regulations,and other requirements of HUD Title now or hereafter in effect,pertaining to the assistance provided it. Signature X HUD Accounting use Only Effective Date Batch TAC Program Y A Reg Area Document No. Project Number Category Amount (mm/dd/yyyy) F FM 176 FM000 [11 0 YY Project Number Amount U I I I I Y Project Number Amount 0 1 1 1 1 Date Entered PAS(mmlddlyyyy) Date Entered LOCCS(mm/dd/yyyy) Batch Number Transaction Code Entered By Verified By Page181 24 CFR 570 form HUD-70 Special Conditions. (a) The period of performance for the funding assistance specified in the Funding Approval ("Funding Assistance")shall begin on the date specified in item 4 and shall end on September 1,2028. The Grantee shall not incur any obligations to be paid with such assistance after September 1,2028. (b) The Recipient shall attach a schedule of its indirect cost rate(s) in the format set forth below to the executed Agreement that is returned to HUD. The Recipient shall provide HUD with a revised schedule when any change is made to the rate(s) described in the schedule. The schedule and any revisions HUD receives from the Recipient shall be incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement,provided that the rate(s) described comply with 2 CFR part 200, subpart E. Administering Direct Department/Agency Indirect cost rate Cost Base Instructions: The Recipient must identify each agency or department of the Recipient that will carry out activities under the grant,the indirect cost rate applicable to each department/agency (including if the de minimis rate is used per 2 CFR §200.414(f)), and the type of direct cost base to which the rate will be applied(for example,Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC)). Do not include indirect cost rates for subrecipients. (c) In addition to the conditions contained on form HUD 7082,the grantee shall comply with requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB) concerning the Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System(DUNS);the System for Award Management(SAM.gov.);the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act as provided in 2 CFR part 25,Universal Identifier and General Contractor Registration; and 2 CFR part 170, Reporting Subaward and Executive Compensation Information. (d) The grantee shall ensure that no CDBG funds are used to support any Federal, State, or local projects that seek to use the power of eminent domain, unless eminent domain is employed only for a public use. For the purposes of this requirement,public use shall not be construed to include economic development that primarily benefits private entities. Any use of funds for mass transit,railroad, airport, seaport or highway projects as well as utility projects which benefit or serve the general public (including energy-related, communication-related,water-related and wastewater-related infrastructure), other structures designated for use by the general public or which have other common-carrier or public-utility functions that serve the general public and are subject to regulation and oversight by the government, and projects for the removal of an immediate threat to public health and safety or brownfield as defined in the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act(Public Law 107-118) shall be considered a public use for purposes of eminent domain. (e) The Grantee or unit of general local government that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds may not sell,trade, or otherwise transfer all or any such portion of such funds to another such entity in exchange for any other funds, credits or non-Federal considerations, but must use such funds for activities eligible under title I of the A� Page 182 Item#7. (f) E.O. 12372-Special Contract Condition-Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement,no funds provided under this agreement may be obligated or expended for the planning or construction of water or sewer facilities until receipt of written notification from HUD of the release of funds on completion of the review procedures required under Executive Order(E.O.) 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, and HUD's implementing regulations at 24 CFR Part 52. The recipient shall also complete the review procedures required under E.O. 12372 and 24 CFR Part 52 and receive written notification from HUD of the release of funds before obligating or expending any funds provided under this agreement for any new or revised activity for the planning or construction of water or sewer facilities not previously reviewed under E.O. 12372 and implementing regulations. (g) CDBG funds may not be provided to a for-profit entity pursuant to section 105(a)(17) of the Act unless such activity or project has been evaluated and selected in accordance with Appendix A to 24 CFR 570 - "Guidelines and Objectives for Evaluating Project Costs and Financial Requirements." (Source -P.L. 113-235, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act,2015,Division K, Title II, Community Development Fund). Page 183