Loading...
2022-02-15 Regular City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton (6:07 pm) Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilwoman Jessica Perreault PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 1. Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of $7,310.00 for Office of Drug Policy Grant Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Lakeview Golf Course 2022 Proposed Fee Schedule Resolution on February 22, 2022 agenda 3. Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. Continued to March 15, 2022 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Motion to continue to March 15, 2022 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 4. Ordinance No. 22-1969: An Ordinance (H-2021-0066 – Red Aspen) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW ¼ of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City Of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 2.99 Acres of Land from RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of this Ordinance Shall Be Filed With the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 7:23 pm Item#2. Meridian City Council February 15, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, February 15, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Jessica Perreault. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Alan Tiefenbach, Mike Barton, Jeff Brown, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton (6:07 p.m.) _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener _X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is February 15th, 2022, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: Our next item is the community invocation. Do we have -- David Rice here with us this evening? If you would like to come forward. The community invocation will be given by David Rice with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If you will all, please, join us in the community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. Rice: Our Father in Heaven, we are grateful to be gathered tonight, grateful for a City Council that recognizes thee in prayer. We ask thy blessings upon them that their deliberations tonight may be thoughtful and acting in the best interest of the city and those parties involved. We are grateful for the Council and ask thy blessings upon them and their associates and their families. Grateful for staff and ask thy blessings upon them and their associates and families. We are grateful for our first responders and ask thy blessings upon them and their associates and families. And this we do in the name of Page 24 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 2 of— Jesus Christ, amen. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Thank you. Council, now we are up to the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda is 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: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. Mike Luis. Simison: Michael, you will -- you will be recognized for three minutes. Luis: Thank you. I came tonight for a couple reasons. One is the Meridian City Library, the content that's available there, I think is inappropriate and anybody can go grab it at any age and you guys have a packet in front of you with some of the books. I talked to the library today and they did confirm that they have them. You do not need to be 18 to go grab these books and you guys could flip through that and you could read some of them and you tell me if you want your kids to go see that. It's very inappropriate. The City of Meridian has codes, which I have also brought and highlighted. I talked to one of your planning people and they said the red tape is -- you might as well not even think about opening an adult store here, but the City of Meridian library has the books. So, think you guys need to look at that. This is a big issue in the community. The second is it was -- my daughter brought to my attention that there is boys being able to use the women's bathroom if they identify as being a woman. That's not okay either. And that was passed by this Council I believe back in 2019. Could stand corrected. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's appropriate either that men are available or vice-versa, grown women are going into little boys' bathrooms. I don't think that's acceptable. And, then, would also like to give kudos to the Meridian PD for getting the grant for the Shoulder Tap, which is the underage -- making sure people aren't buying for them. So, I give you guys kudos for that. But I would like it brought to the attention of the Meridian library and if you Page 25 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 3 of— guys are going to do anything about that. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Luis: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Nary, would it be possible for you to speak to -- with Mr. Luis just so he understands the relationship between the city and the library district regarding that, as well as the -- the ordinance applicable to that, so -- and if we need to have a conversation we can set one up with staff in my office. Luis: Thank you. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 1. Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of $7,310.00 for Office of Drug Policy Grant Simison: Thank you. Okay. So, with that, Council, we will move on to Item No. 1 this evening, which is the Department/Commission Reports. The first item is with our Police Department, fiscal year 2022 net zero budget amendment in the amount of 7,310 dollars for the Office of Drug Policy grant and turn this over to Kendall. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? My apologies, Kendall. I wanted to make known that Councilman Borton is here. Simison: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Borton. And for the record 6:07 p.m. Kendall. Nagy: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. I am here for the net zero budget amendment, as the Mayor just stated. That is to conduct two alcohol compliance checks and Shoulder Tap operations that we do and, then, there were some incidentals there for participation in the statewide Sticker Shock campaign as well and I would be happy to answer any questions. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? If not, do I have a motion? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: I move that we approve the Police Department's fiscal year 2022 net zero budget amendment in the amount of 7,310 dollars for Office of Drug Policy that has been presented to us by Kendall. Cavener: Second the motion. Page 26 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 4 of— Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the budget amendment in the amount of 7,310 dollars. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. ACTION ITEMS 2. Public Hearing for Lakeview Golf Course 2022 Proposed Fee Schedule Simison: Thank you, Kendall. Up next is our Action Items. Our first item is a public hearing for Lakeview Golf Course 2022 proposed fee schedule. We will open this public hearing with comments from Mr. Barton. Barton: Good afternoon, Mayor and Council Members. We are here to talk about some new fees for the Lakeview Golf Course. On January 4th Director Siddoway was here and had a conversation with Council regarding some new fees for the golf course. At that time he presented two different options. The first option was an across the board six percent increase to daily green fees and also season pass offering. The second option was a six percent increase to green fees and, then, kind of a restructuring of the pass offerings to offer, you know, different times -- some people don't -- don't need an unlimited pass, they golf Monday through Friday and the weekends in the afternoon. So, at that time Council said that the preference that -- the general preference -- preference was that we bring back option number two, which was a six percent increase to the daily green fees and, then, also the variety of different offerings. I would like to bring to the Council's attention that we have noticed these fees and had a conversation with the golf course focus group and, then, also the men's and women's golf associations at the golf course, just to collect any additional feedback. Also when we noticed the fees that it was brought to our attention that there is a typo in that, in that the new pass offerings -- there is a restricted pass and so all of the restricted pass offerings were noticed as limited Monday through Friday after 12:00 and weekends and holidays after 12:00 and what it should have said was unlimited Monday through Friday anytime and, then, weekends and holidays after 12:00. So, any motion that you have should -- should correct that typo. We checked with the Legal Department to see if we needed to re-notice them and it was Bill and his team's opinion that the noticing that we did was -- was fine and that Council can approve them. As long as -- I think as long as the motion includes that correction on the record. So, I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for Mr. Barton? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 27 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 5 of 28 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mike, would you restate that again, that the restrict -- so, the restricted -- so we look at couple restricted, military, senior restricted, senior couple restricted and those are the ones that have the notation on there for that's incorrect? Barton: Correct. Hoaglun: So, it should read instead -- if you go through that Monday through Friday -- so, if you can repeat those again. Barton: Yeah. So, any restricted product--the couple restricted, senior, military restricted and the senior couple restricted, if you buy one of those passes you can golf anytime Monday through Friday. You are restricted to weekends after 12:00. So, Saturday, Sunday. And holidays after 12:00. Yeah. Yep. During the week anytime. Simison: Council, any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Mike. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to come forward and provide testimony on this item or anybody online that would like to provide testimony? And if you are online you can use the raise your hand feature. Seeing nobody in the audience and nobody online, do I have a motion to close a public hearing? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we close the public hearing for Lakeview Golf Course 2022 proposed fee schedule. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Mr. Nary, are you looking for a motion this evening to direct the resolution to be brought back or -- Nary: Yes, sir. Yes. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Page 28 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 6 of 28 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move approval of the adoption of the new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, with the fees to reflect for the restricted sections for couples, senior and military and senior couple, that the restrictions apply to Monday through Friday, the golf is at anytime and for weekends and holidays it is restricted to after 12:00 noon. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mike, Steve, team, appreciate your guys' work on this. Mike, we talked about it last time I really struggled with creating these special classes right now as we are still kind of getting our grips with the -- with the course. So, I'm not supportive of the motion, but I appreciate the work that you are doing to try and invite a new customer base and look forward to seeing what we learn from this. Simison: Is there further discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? Cavener: No. Simison: One nay, the rest ayes, and the motion carries and we will see that back -- Mr. Nary? Next week? Okay. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 3. Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots Simison: So, with that we will move on to Item 3 this evening, which is a public hearing for Friendship Subdivision, H-2021-0083. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Alan. Tiefenbach: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is Alan Tiefenbach, Page 29 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page , —— associate planner with the City of Meridian. This is an application for an annexation and zoning to R-8 and a preliminary plat for 40 lots. Forty-one were originally -- well, actually, 42 were originally proposed, then, it went down to 41. So, now we are at 40. 1 will talk quickly about that. Okay. So, the site is located south of Chinden and west of Locust Grove. Simison: Alan, do you have a visual that you were -- Tiefenbach: Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't sharing. My bad. I guess it's helpful if you are looking at what I'm looking at. Okay. The site is located south of Chinden, west of Locust Grove. Brookdale Estates Subdivision is to the west, which is over here. The Hightower Subdivision is to the east over here. Saguaro Canyon Subdivision is to the south and there is an existing church, which you can see in this aerial here. That's still zoned RUT in the county. Just a quick history on this property. So, this property was proposed for annexation of zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots is what was known as the Bull Ranch Subdivision and that was in 2015. This was subsequently denied by the Council with density being a primary concern and that R-4 zoning was more appropriate here than R- 8. Comprehensive Plan recommends this for medium density residential, three to eight dwelling units per acre. So, this is an annexation, again, of ten acres of land with the R- 8 zoning district and a preliminary plat to allow 40 building lots and seven common lots. North Elk Ranch Lane, which is what you see here -- this is a private road and this presently provides access from the subject property to Chinden, which is what you see up here. The subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets. So, it would be one, two, three different stubs. There is also another stub being provided eventually if the church property redevelops. Our code states that when a property has existing access from a state highway, again here, that if the applicant proposes a change or an increase in intensity of use, that they have to develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the highway and that this would be closed. So, the use of this -- staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the applicant vacate all their interests in North Elk Ranch Lane as, again, because the property already has three points of access and that's what the code requires. The plat shows the North Slough, which is what you -- find my pointer. The North Slough bisecting the property at roughly a 45 degree angle north to south and this is being relocated and piped in accordance with the code. According to an exhibit provided by the applicant, the ditch is being reconfigured towards the northwest part of the property. Obviously, this would need to be coordinated with the irrigation district. The applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project. These homes appear to meet the design requirements for single-family homes and are consistent with the architecture of the surrounding neighborhood. Staff did express several concerns with this proposal. One of them was that we thought it was too dense on the south and they needed to take a couple of lots out on the south to make it fit better and transition better with the adjacent properties. What you are seeing here is actually an older version. So, the other comment that we had is that we thought they should line up the lot lines that are on the lots to the east. Since our earliest discussion the applicant has lost a lot -- the applicant has actually lost two lots and I'm going to talk about that here in a second. As of today as far as written testimony goes, we have only gotten one letter of opposition, but there were citizens that showed up to the Planning Page 30 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 8 of 28 Commission meeting. Now, the -- the plat does meet all the requirements of the UDC and it's consistent with the density designation. With that staff did recommend approval. When the Planning Commission happened at the Planning Commission this was on January of 2022 and the -- the Commission moved to deny the subject annexation and rezoning request. This was based on --first of all, they preferred that it would be annexed as R-4, not R-8. They--they had concerns about it barely meeting the minimums. Under the current code this -- this property would need to require 15 open space, but it got -- it slipped in right before the code was actually -- the -- the updates of the code was approved. So, if there is an application that's made prior to the newest version of the code we have to review it under the old version of the code. So, they -- they don't meet the 15 that would be required today, but they exceed the ten that was required at the time that the application was received. Planning Commission had concerns with -- with whether or not that was -- I think the word they used was premier. They also had concerns with whether or not there was good open space and -- and whether or not, again, they thought that the density wasn't quite there. Since this time of the Planning Commission -- what you see on the left was the landscape plan that was provided at the Planning Commission. It's pretty basic. What you see on the right is the landscape plan that I received about a week ago. For the difference -- first of all, since Planning Commission they have lost a lot. You will see that they have included a pathway sort of around the perimeter of the property that wasn't there before. They have increased the central open space. They have actually moved it -- the -- the open space -- all of their usable open space on the original version on the left was here. Since that time they have increased it more and put some amenities in there, which I'm sure they are going to talk about. This has decreased the open space that was originally shown on the first exhibit, which was about 14.6 percent. Their most recent exhibit shows 14 percent. But, again, the open space is more usable that they have now. With that, again, staff recommended approval because they met the code. The Planning Commission was not supportive of this and recommended denial. With that I will stand for any questions or comments from Council. Simison: Thank you, Alan. Council, questions for staff? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. I do have a couple questions. Thank you. This practice of applying the current code at the time that an application is put in, is that just because of our current practice, how we handle things? Is that by code? Help me understand that. Tiefenbach: I can see Mr. Nary's hackle starting to pop up. Just -- it's -- it's been land use law that's been established for many many years in the United States, not just here. But I will let Bill sort of speak to that. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, no, he's correct. I mean that is -- that is the state of the law both here and everywhere else, that the application takes the code that exists at the time they file the application. So, that's the basis for it. Page 31 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 9 of— Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Perfect. Thanks for that answer. And, then, my other question is how would this look different if it was an R-4, either in terms of the dimensional standards or the density. Could you walk me through -- maybe just to compare and contrast what this -- how this would be different if it was an R-4. Tiefenbach: Well, R-8, Council Person and Mr. Mayor, the R-8 requires 8,000 square foot lots, if I'm correct. Going off the top of my head here. Somewhat bigger dimensional requirements. It was -- it sort of comes down to the same conversation that happened when we talked about Apex last month. You -- you know, if they went with R-4 would they really get less lots? Well, these lots are smaller than 8,000 square feet. Most of these lots just barely meet the minimums. So, yeah, it would probably be lower density under R-4. Strader: Thanks. Tiefenbach: I will double check -- I'm going to double check on those dimensional standards, because I'm not Bill and I don't have it memorized. So, if I'm wrong I will -- will let you know. Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. So, would the applicant like to come forward. State your name and address for the record, be recognized for 15 minutes. Canning: Yes. Mayor and Members of the Council, my name is Joe Canning and I'm employed by Centurion Engineers, formerly B&A Engineers, and the address is 2323 South Vista, Suite 206, in Boise, Idaho. 83705. And I am here tonight -- I think I'm going to do the main presentation. I am here with the applicant Mike Homan. Mike may want to come up and also say a few words after I am done. So -- and, then, also I submitted -- I did just three slides. I submitted before. We don't need those right away, I just want to make sure they are ready. I'm not sure how that gets loaded up and going. So, when I'm ready we can go ahead and put those up and they are pretty simple slides. Of course, we are here tonight seeking approval of this modified preliminary plat and modifications have been made per the comments that were made by the Planning Commission here a few weeks ago and Alan already discussed those, but just to reiterate, three main things we got was there was a suggestion that we should do an R-8 zone, instead of an R-4 zone. It was the quality of the amenities for the open space was an issue and the amount and location of the open space and I got the impression it really wasn't necessarily the amount, because we -- this -- this plat was submitted to the city I believe back in September. It's been around quite a while and that was before the new open space ordinance came in. So, I think there is a little bit of confusion there on which -- which ordinance applies. But I think we have really upped the game, so to speak, in the open space location and the quality of the amenities. So, annexation and zoning. So, why R- Page 32 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 10 of H 8. The comp plan designation for this property is medium density residential, which is three to eight units per acre. The project is 40 home sites. Now, that's four units per acre. So, we are -- we are pretty much at the low end of that designation for the comp plan. And when I come up with the slides I'm going to talk a little bit about the existing house that really does impact some of that lot area requirements. So, it's -- it's possible in existing development. I'm -- this -- this is really kind of sandwiched in here. It's kind of an island. It's surrounded by Meridian currently on three sides. There is a variety of zoning in the area and I will talk about that in just a minute, but I also want to reiterate that there is a development agreement proposed for this project. So, even if the zoning was approved at R-8, there is a development agreement proposed that would limit it to the -- to the submittal for the preliminary plat that you are seeing tonight. So, if I could, I would like that first slide -- there it is right there. I see it. So, I just wanted to show this as some of the reason why we really think the R-8 is appropriate, particularly with the development agreement. Number one, to the north is the church. The Friendship Celebration Lutheran Church. Although that's in the county, it has a Meridian city comp plan designation of MUC. So, that could be probable commercial or high density residential. So, what we typically try to do is buffer those more intense areas that could happen with --with a project of a little less intensity. So, whether R-8 is much less intensity or not I'm not too sure, but we feel that zoning is appropriate. Off to the east is the Hightower Subdivision. That's already zoned R-8. To the south is R-4 property, which is Saguaro Canyon Subdivision and, then, of course, to the west is Birkdale Subdivision, which is R-2. It's quite low density. But I think that part of the key here is how we are adjusting some of these lots to try to match that variety in zoning. So, if we could get the second slide, please. Thank you. So, this -- this was the prior preliminary plat, the one that the Planning and Zoning Commission first looked at and I just wanted to point out a few things on here. There is the existing home that's over on that west boundary. That home is very well landscaped, quite mature landscaping around it. It takes up quite a bit of property. So, that's part of the density issue we have is that parcel is big, it's existing, it's a very nice house. We are not really going to do too much to change that. Alan already mentioned the three existing stub streets that come into this property from the east, south, and the west. That's a real plus for the transportation network I think in the area. The Settlers Irrigation Facility North Slough does bisect this property. That was one of the challenges to the design was how to coordinate that piping and relocation and originally the open space was located more toward the west side. It was over by that existing house. Part of that reason was because of that relocation of the North Slough. It made that a little bit easier to do. However, there were objections to that. They wanted -- the Planning Commission really wanted that open space to be more centrally located. So, that was one of the changes we have made. And the original open space -- the -- the lock count popped up and down on this a little bit as it went through the process. I think the original that was actually submitted was about 13 percent open space. So, if we could go to the third slide. This is the landscape plan for the current proposal that's before you tonight. The big -- one of the big differences here is -- we think we listened pretty good and that canal relocation was still an issue. If we eliminated that open space over toward the west we had to figure out a new route for that canal relocation. So, the applicant did talk to Settlers and as long as that open space along that east side and north side is at least 30 feet wide, we are able to relocate that and it's a big pipe, it's a 36 inch pipe, in Page 33 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 11 —28 that open -- in that open space. Plus we can use it as a -- I think a pretty quality amenity for the project. So, now we have I think a good -- a good proposal for that open space and the canal to be rerouted along that east -- north side and it really provides some open space in fairly close proximity to -- to everyone that would be in the subdivision. This current layout has open space approximately 14 percent. So, it's approximately the same as before, but a little bit more and, once again, I just wanted to remind everybody that this did come in under the original -- or the old ordinance. As far as amenities, that was one of the concerns -- quality amenities from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The larger area down there toward the south contains play equipment, a Bocce court, benches, a shade structure. There is walking paths throughout the project now and, of course, there is always pet and waste stations that are proposed, so you can walk your dog and have them taken care of. I think in general we can just lay out some of the project assets. Number one, a big item is we will be piping the Settlers Irrigation facility that runs through this project. This is an easy to serve property with existing access and infrastructure. City water and sewer is there. The stub streets are there. It's pretty easy to --to serve. The stub street to the north going up to -- the private road to the north going to Chinden would be eliminated. So, I think that's a -- that's an asset for the project. I want to talk a little bit about adjusting the lot sizes. Off to the east is the R-8 property. So, we have kind of feathered these lot sizes. As you start on the east side you will find them more or less matching what's over on the -- the R-8 property to the east and, then, as you go south and west the lots get larger and in particular on the R-2 side, on the extreme west property, we have approximately the same number -- I think it is the same number of lots that abuts that property over there and a big part of that is that existing home. So, we have kind of feathered this -- these lot sizes to match those perimeter homes. To the south it's almost an R-4 layout. You will see the lot count there is quite similar to what's -- what's further to the south of it. Once again, I just want to mention that even though we are seeking an R-8 zone, a development agreement will cap this at four units per acre. So, we are really kind of the low end and almost at the R-4 density anyway. And as I mentioned, this is really surrounded by existing neighborhoods in Meridian. We think -- it's time to be annexed and brought in. It will provide much needed housing. I can't-- no one can say enough about the housing necessary for the area. We believe we have provided a much improved project over what was before the Planning and Zoning Commission and we certainly hope that Council agrees and we would hope they support the annexation, zoning and preliminary plat. Thank you. And, then, Mike, did you want to add anything? I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: One question for the applicant. Back in 2015, sir, you -- this body denied a project at the same density of R -- I guess I shouldn't say -- the same zoning of R-8. Is there a reason why you brought R-8 back -- a project that was R-8 instead of at a lower density than what was recommended by a previous Council? Page 34 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 12 of 28 Canning: Well, there is not a specific reason why, other than when we looked at the lot sizes in the R-4 zone it would have really reduced the density. There was a question earlier on what -- it would have an impact. It would reduce the number of lots in this by about 30 or 40 percent and we are not sure the R-8 really fits with the area. I mean it's already R-8 to the east. It's R-4 to the south. R-2. We tried to accommodate that difference by, number one, there are less lots than in 2015. We tried to feather these lots to match those other perimeter areas. I'm not sure that's a great answer, but that's -- that's why we did it. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Canning, I appreciate you bringing this kind of unique in-fill project. remember the previous iterations before us back in -- in 2015 and while a lot's changed, a lot has also stayed the same and what's kind of caught my eye about your layout -- I really appreciate the pathway and the open space and I see this really cool play structure, which tells me, again, you are being thoughtful, you know young families will likely be a lot of the residents in this neighborhood. Over the past few weeks and months Council have really deliberated on projects, particularly those that bring students into a school that is over capacity and in looking at the letter from West Ada it looks like -- I think this would fit into a Rocky Mountain and Sawtooth Middle School and both of those are over capacity. So, help me kind of understand as a Council Member who have a lot of our residents who have really been pretty vocal about their concerns about the impact on the schools, how this project is a win for our community when it would put students at an over -- over capacity school. Canning: Well, I can't speak too much to the overcapacity of the school, but I will tell you why I think it might be a win for the community. I personally love in-fill projects. I think they are the way to go and I would much rather see a project like this here than somewhere else farther out. I think that's the main thing. There is not much we can do about the schools. Perhaps we could go senior citizens. I don't know. But that wouldn't be what happens. Simison: So, Joe, maybe I -- I missed this. What's with the little micropath at the end of the cul-de-sac to the property line? Canning: I should have mentioned that. There is an existing micropath that goes off to the subdivision to the west that comes up to this property line, so we would continue that. Simison: Okay. So, it has functionality? Canning: Yes. Simison: Okay. Thank you. Page 35 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 13 of 28 Canning: Yeah. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you. Canning: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, I assume some of these fine people are here to talk about this item this evening. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, several fine people have signed in. The first is David Marsey. Simison: When your name is called if you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Marsey: I'm David Marsey. I live at 768 East Pasacana Street, which backs up to the property. So, good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. First of all, when we bought our house that backs up to the property five years ago we were absolutely told there was going to be development there and we said good. What -- what kind of development? Are we going to see a Walmart? What are we going to see back there? And they said, no, we expect to see no Walmart, we expect to see homes that are very similar to your homes and it would be classified as R-4 and I said, oh, fantastic. So, if it matches what is in our subdivision we were absolutely good with that. So, we were told they were going to be like homes, but now it appears the developer wants to make it R-8, so that we can jam more homes into that ten acre parcel. I'm a businessman as well. I understand the financial part and the reasons why someone would want to get more properties in there. I just ran some basic math looking at what our subdivision homes sell for and the -- the numbers are -- they are raw numbers, but they are real. R-8 it's worth about 26 million dollars and as R-4 it's worth about 16 million dollars. So, taking what the homes that are selling for in our subdivision, you know, I see the developer clearing about 16 million, minus all the expenses. So, that -- that was one thing where I said, okay, I get it. That's why I would want R-4 as the developer as well, because I stand to make more money. I'm very pro-growth. As matter of fact, I love the fact -- we have been in Meridian since 1993 and we have seen a lot of very good smart growth happen in the area, which makes me extremely happy, not only as a homeowner, but as a business owner as well. So, like to see it. Planning and Zoning agreed that R-4 was the way to go. I believe that they denied it. Well, I believe -- they did deny it last month and I was in full support of it. So, I would hope, Mr. Mayor, that you would consider pushing it to an R-4 to match what is predominantly around in the other subdivisions. I do like what they have done. I think if they would have presented this to Planning and Zoning they probably would have got a check mark it looks great. But they didn't. So, it was denied by Planning and Zoning. So, I hope you would support holding to an R-4. So, thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? I appreciate your testimony. I didn't catch your name. I'm sorry. Page 36 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page ——28 Marsey: David Marsey. Cavener: Mr. Marsey, thank you for your testimony and I guess something that would be helpful for me -- recognize that what's proposed with this is a development agreement that would essentially lock these units -- this amount of units in on this particular project. From your perspective what would you see differently in an R-4 that you are not seeing before you today? Help me understand -- I -- I understand an R-4 versus an R-8 and it's, oh, we don't get a lot of people that come and say bring on more density, so I can appreciate that argument. But help me -- as it pertains this project what would you like to see differently? Marsey: Yeah. I mean I personally I think looking at going R-4 versus R-8, one -- I don't know if anybody travels Chinden or anybody travels any of the subdivisions near Chinden, the traffic is exponentially growing already. I regularly have to get on Chinden to take -- towards 1-84 towards Caldwell. If I try at 8:00 o'clock I'm guaranteed it's ten minutes, 15 minutes to try to make a left turn. So, I -- I'm just looking at it from the sheer fact that we are going to just be placing more traffic and more burden into a pretty tight area already. I love the fact that you talked about the schools. I have grandkids -- we have four grandkids that live on Pasacana as well. Same thing, that the schools are overcrowded. So, I really liked -- even thinking about that, that is some -- something that hadn't crossed my mind. But that would be my take is the fact that we are just jamming more traffic into a tight box already. Simison: All right. Thank you very much. Marsey: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Darrell Gallup. Gallup: Good evening, Honorable Mayor and City Council Members. My name is Darrell Gallup. I reside at 554 East Pasacana Street in Meridian. 83646. As you have already heard, about six years ago this -- essentially the same subdivision was proposed to Council and turned down and Mayor de Weerd and Councilman Bird were especially against the project due to the high density of housing requested. I oppose the zoning of R-8 for this project. R-4 zoning is more appropriate for the subdivision, so as to be compatible with the R-2 zoning to the west of the project and R-4 zoning to the south of the project. R-8 zoning of this subdivision is too dense. It would create significant traffic on roads going in and out of the subdivision and would also potentially place a burden on neighborhood schools, which are already overcrowded. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Greg Barron. Barron: My name is Greg Barron and I live at 5997 North Senita Hills Avenue. When I purchased my home directly adjacent to the empty land and proposal, I was aware that Page 37 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 15 of 28 one day it would likely be built upon. I am not against growth. However, I do have significant concerns regarding the current zoning request of the R-8 for this project and my concerns are these: First and foremost is a significant influx of traffic that these 40 new homes would bring to the surrounding neighborhoods. That is likely to be at least 80 additional drivers making trips in and out of the Friendship Subdivision. Being that two of the three access points, Lockhart Way and Senita Hills Avenue would require a driver to make a lengthy trek through the adjacent subdivision to gain access to a main roadway, it is fair to assume that the Tallinn Street would be the primary point of entry-exit for the Friendship Subdivision. This street -- or this is the street most accessible from Chinden, which is the closest artery feeding into the area. Tallinn Street would become far too busy as a thoroughfare for these 40 new homes, significantly disrupting the quiet community made up primarily of retired people. The surrounding -- number two. The surrounding subdivisions, both to the south and to the west, are zoned as R-4 and R-2 respectfully. To insert a subdivision zoned as R-8 amongst these much larger lots would have a undesirable effect on the property values and aligning with the aesthetics of the surrounding communities. This higher density housing would mean that I would personally gain two new neighbors along my north property line. My neighbor to the west would gain three new neighbors along his north property line. This could all be rectified if zoning were mandated as R-4 to align with existing lot sizes in the current subdivision. I respectfully urge you to deny the zoning request for R-8 and, instead, require either R- 2 or R-4 as the standard for this project. It should be noted that the zoning for R-8 was denied back in 2015 and, again, recommended for denial by Planning and Zoning just last month and the schooling issue was on my mind, too. Thanks for your time. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Mr. Barron? Mr. Barron, question. I just want to make sure I was following you there. On -- on Tallinn, that's the stub street that -- stub street that is stubbed currently to the west that comes in from the east, from the R-8 that is that way and, then, I am assuming to go to Chinden -- I -- I didn't catch the street you were mentioning, because I see looking on Google Earth North Saguaro Hills Avenue can lead out to Chinden. Is that the street you are referencing or where would people -- where were people going? Barron: Tallinn Street -- Hoaglun: We don't have it here. I see where Tallinn Street is. Barron: Right. Hoaglun: Yeah. And it heads east and, then, they can take a left on North Saguaro Hills Avenue -- Barron: And then left. Page 38 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 16 of H Hoaglun: And then left. Okay. But there is not a light yet there at that intersection, although that is the half -- it looks like it's the halfway point -- Barron: Yeah. Hoaglun: --ACHD typically -- and ITD go at that half mile for when they eventually do a light. So, that -- that would be the -- Barron: It looks like halfway in between Locust Grove and Meridian. Hoaglun: Right. So, the normal spot. Bernt: I think there is a coffee shop right there. Is that where Bright Eyes is? Hoaglun: That is where Bright Eyes is, yes. So -- okay. I just wanted to make sure I was -- I was following your -- your directions there on that, because it's -- I didn't understand the street -- Barron: Right. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you, sir. Barron: Thank you. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, the only other person saying they wanted to speak was the applicant. Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? If so please come forward at this time. Or anybody online, if you would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand feature. Seeing none, ask the applicant to come forward for final comment. Canning: Thank you, Mayor. Again, Joe Canning and Mike is still here if he needs to add anything at the end. I'm going to make one more pitch I think for that R-8 and I think it has to do with the future planning. Please keep in mind that the properties to the north is set up in the comp plan as MUC. I personally don't really think it's appropriate to have an R-4 zone that close to an MUC. The R-8 is actually a fairly low density transition from those commercial or high -- potentially high density residential projects. We already have R-8 to the east and, like I say, we have tried to feather this so it really does feel like larger lots, particularly at the south and the west. Just, please, keep in mind that future area to the north. The church has quite a large area behind it. We are seeing churches redevelop some of those properties. They typically have to wait until water and sewer gets there. We will be providing water and sewer to that church property, along with this stub street. So, that's the main thing I want to comment on the R-4 versus the R-8. Regarding traffic, there are three access points, even if everyone uses the same access point, there will be less than 400 vehicle trips per day from this project. The ACHD had no issue with the Page 39 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 11 of 28 project, so -- and, once again, this is not an uncommon issue with in-fill projects. These folks have to go somewhere. We are going to be closing that access out to -- out to Chinden. I really think that is about all I have to respond. I would be more than happy to answer any other questions that Council has. Simison: Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Mr. Canning, you touched on this a couple of times and so it's at least piqued my interest. Is the -- is the church trying to be sold? Are they trying to sell their lot and move someplace else? Is that what's warranted kind of-- you keep referencing the -- the designation for that land, but it is -- it's still a church that's in operation as far as I know. Canning: Yes. Mr. Mayor, Council Member, yes, it is still a church. We are just stirring that as planners. Our office planners have been looking at it and saying there is a good chance something will happen there and the big issue is water and sewer provided to that parcel. We did a recent project with Zamzow's just to the west on Chinden and they were sure wishing they had water and sewer. So, that -- we just expect it. It happens. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Curious that -- I'm just looking -- it looks like you made a lot of positive changes in response to comments and it looks like on the west --the westernmost side you lined up the lot lines from what I can tell. It looks like on the east side you did. guess I'm curious in the southwest part, Lots 1 through 5, why you didn't try to match up -- did you -- or did you consider matching those lot lines with the neighbors? Canning: We -- we did. Mayor and Council Member, we did look at that. Part of the -- part of the issue there is there is a couple of those lots that are around the corner in Saguaro Canyon, so they are -- they are huge lots, because they are -- they are -- they are kind of like a segment off of a curve. So, it was nearly impossible to -- to really match that without just making an enormous lot. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I'd just like to follow-up. I think in the past on this exact property City Council has been -- it sounds like pretty emphatic in wanting to see R-4. I guess I'm Page 40 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 18 of 28 surprised that you wouldn't -- and these in-fill projects are really hard, so I -- I empathize a lot. But I guess I'm surprised that you wouldn't lose like two lots in that southwest corner to try to say, hey, look, we have lined up exactly with R-4 on three sides. Maybe you put some more density in the middle. But I think that would have buffered the neighbors a lot more. I guess I would be curious if that's something that you would consider down the line or if you feel like this is what makes the most sense for the project. Canning: It probably makes the most sense. That question specifically probably have to be addressed to the -- to the applicant. Mike? It looks like he wants to -- Homan: Mike Homan. 6820 West Randolph Drive, Boise, Idaho. This is a -- been a difficult project being an in-fill. We had that huge ditch to deal with going across it and we finally talked to Settlers Irrigation about moving it up and around and piping it and, then, we are doing it 30 feet wide where it can work as a pedestrian path and they will be able to get around that and, then, we really stepped our game up centralizing the common area with the Bocce court and several other amenities. Joe, where is -- they were talking about where we are not matching up yet? I'm sorry to -- Canning: It would be this area. Homan: Right here? Yeah. We have already dumped a lot to the west there and over to the east we are matching -- that's R-8 and we are matching their lot lines and, again, Joe mentioned the north that could be redeveloped into apartments or other things. So, we are good there. I would be willing to drop a lot on the west if that helps getting approved. And, then, again, our development agreement, we are locked into the lot count, which would be at four lots to the acre. So, right now we have got 30 -- huh? We got 40 -- counting the existing house. Yeah. So, on the west there to be more compatible I would be willing to drop a lot and that would be to the west of the property. Canning: This might be an opportunity also to complain a little bit perhaps. When we do in-fill projects we typically get these stub streets that come into our projects. That south stub street certainly isn't where I would have preferred it. If it would have been in a different location we would have been much better off and just to say one more word about the R-4 zoning, to get that 8,000 square feet we are probably not going to be able to meet offset separations to intersections that ACHD requires, because of that south stub street. It's going to pretty much ruin that alignment of those lots over on the east side. We have to provide so many feet from that north-south road to that stub street and it's really marginal right now. So, going to R-4, just 8,000 square feet, it's -- it's going to be a heck of a density. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, just to delve into this a little bit more. So, under the R-4 zone I think we have a different new open space requirement as well, but I guess I would be curious if Page 41 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 19 of 28 you could compare -- if this was under the R-4 zoning -- previously you mentioned you would have to reduce the number of lots by 30 to 40 percent. That seems really high to me. I'm surprised it actually makes that big of a difference. What would be the dimensional standards of R-4 lots if -- you know, just to compare with whether it's 8,000 square feet -- Homan: Yeah. So, the R-4 my understanding is a minimum lot width of 60 feet wide and a square footage of 8,000 and so those ones where we dropped a lot already, the ones to the south, our lots there are 101 deep by 76, somewhere right in there. So, if I take another lot out there it would be more compatible. Some of those lots that back up to us are flag lots where they are super wide in the back and narrow on the front. But I would be -- we have worked real hard on this project to try to get everything to work and so I think where we got R-8 to the east there, we are compatible to the north. We are compatible. And, then, just this west property line, if we drop a lot out of there, those on that bank of lots, we would be over the square footage requirements there and be compatible. But, again, we will have it locked in in a development agreement that's holding us to 39 buildable lots. Canning: And if I may maybe I could address that a little better. And a lot of that has to do with that offset difference between the intersections. In the R-8 zone you need 8,000 square feet. We can't really move the east boundary of that north-south road on the east road further to the west, because we will be getting too close to that stub street, so that means those lots along that west side -- or excuse me -- the east side, as an example, would have to be 80 feet wide to get to that 8,000 square feet. So, it makes a heck of a difference on the -- on that east side and similarly on that interior row of lots that would be a similar thing there. You would have to keep shoving that west road further and further to the west and that may be doable there. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: One more thing I would like feedback on -- I personally have really been struggling with annexations because of the overcrowding in the school system. This area is very acute. I personally have been an advocate for continuing projects for a couple months while we continue to have these conversations with the West Ada School District to at least get an understanding of their plan to cope with future growth. You know, is -- is that something that you are open to if this process takes longer for you to perhaps work on and come back with something a little different? Just wondering what your feedback is in terms of your timing and -- Homan: Yeah. Unfortunately, I'm about out of time on my purchase agreement with the seller and if there is a way that I could drop another lot on the west or to be more compatible and, then, the rest of the subdivision I think -- you know, we got R-8 to the east. We are good there. To the north with the church. Then we were real sensitive on that west property line to put very few lots in there. We only got two lots -- two new lots. Page 42 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 20 of 28 Yeah. Sorry. But drop another lot if it makes it easier for you guys. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I apologize. I'm not trying to hog the mic. I guess it's -- it's hard without a different plan being in front of us to react to it. Yeah, there was one gentleman who was up here who was saying, you know, he will have three neighbors now. I mean can you tell us like more specifically if you drop one lot, like kind of how that would line up? I honestly was suggesting that you drop two lots, which I'm sure you wouldn't love that idea, but that would exactly match up, then; right? Homan: Okay. Sorry. Yeah. Just out of time. So, I mean if -- I would be willing to drop two lots to the west and line them up to be able to try to -- Strader: Thank you for the feedback. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I don't know if this is a question for Joe or Mike, but in -- in your-- your redesign are those lots on the east going to line up? You have got them one for one and if you go a lot wider now does that devalue the property that you are developing, because supposedly they don't line up now and there is going to be two houses -- I have two houses behind my lot. I have got a big lot. It is what it is. I mean are the houses that are on Tallinn that -- that face Saguaro, since there is -- yeah, people are matching two lots, how -- I -- I -- I don't know. You know, with your -- with your -- your pathway between there, you have got the easement if you put in the -- the canal and the ditch through that and pipe it, then, you have got some buffer. So, I think that -- that would help. But is there going to be any concern now if you change that and move those lots around, does that devalue the lots, because you are up against R-8? I mean you are -- Joe, I have to say, I was surprised you say you like in-fill. I think we are really hard on in-fill, because you got different people wanting different things and you can't really make it work for everybody. So, you have my sympathy, but -- Homan: To the east there when we had our neighborhood meeting we were -- before we had -- did the stub road to the church, we had one big lot back there. The neighbor behind there says I don't want a monster house behind me, you know. Can you readjust it. And I was like, oh, okay. So, we did when we put that stub road there, so their lot sizes -- we are matching the width that they are and, then, down here on the -- the only thing is to the south, you know, if we take two more lots out, we will be over the dimensional standards for the R-4 and, again, we are tied to that development agreement to -- that we can't, you know, add lots. So, just because we have the R-8 zoning, we are not putting eight lots in. You know, we would be -- right now we are at four and with his property, to Page 43 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 21 of 28 make everybody happy, I -- I think that if we drop a couple lots -- our lots are bigger than the R-4 standards. Hoaglun: And Mr. Mayor -- oh. Canning: If I may, I think Mike's talking about two lots on that south row and you are referring to the -- the R-8 lots? Hoaglun: East side. Yes. Canning: Yeah. And that was one advantage of putting that open space over there is that the units to the east in that subdivision are substantial structures. They are big and there is not much to set back to the side lot lines. So, when we first thought we -- we -- we tried to offset those property lines so that at least folks could look down at some kind of a corridor. But now with the open space there it's even we think much more attractive. We have pulled them further away from those buildings over there and they -- they are substantial structures. Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: My question for Alan -- and kind of for the benefit of people out there. If-- if we reach an agreement with -- on certain things and it goes into a developer's agreement, which when we refer to as DA, that's what we are talking about, that locks that property to that proposal, so if by chance Mike decides I'm going to sell, that DA goes with that property; is that correct? Tiefenbach; Council Person Hoaglun, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Alan Tiefenbach. That's correct. The DA is -- is -- the -- the staff report, the concept plans, the elevations, the landscape plan, all that is tied to the DA. That's the project that has to get built. As long as they substantially comply to that, like maybe they lose a lot, but it's the same general configuration, they could still build. They couldn't add another lot though. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor and Alan, to follow that, then, so if someone comes in, it's R-8, they can't now go, hey, we are going to do eight units, you know, to the acre. They have to follow that DA. Tiefenbach: They can do less, but not more. Hoaglun: Right. Okay. Thank you. Simison: Council, any additional questions, comments? Canning: If I could for just a moment. The only reason I like in-fill projects is I think from a planning perspective they make sense. They are hard to do. Page 44 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 22 of 28 Simison: Joe -- and I think -- if I could -- I'm going to speak up for the applicant just a little bit on this is if we are asking people to do in-fill there is give and take and I think we have seen that our zoning standards have not made sense in some of the applications we have seen, whether they are in-fill or whether they are on odd-shaped parcels. Sometimes zone matters, sometimes design is more important than zoning. I'm not going to say which one is appropriate here, because right or wrong some of your challenges are because you have an existing home that has chosen to stay there. If that home wasn't there, how would this design be different even from that standpoint. You know, we can't say from that standpoint, but you are dealt the circumstance you are with and you try to make it work and sometimes zoning matters, sometimes design is more important. I will let you guys sit down now, but I would sit in the front row. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Kind of kick off discussion a little bit. You know, that's the interesting thing about in-fill projects is they are -- they are a challenge, because you do have different interests and different things and -- and this is -- this is interesting, just because it's actually following the comp plan and how many times do we get developers coming in wanting to change the comp plan and everyone around it is saying follow the comp plan. You are not following your own plan. So, you know, we are -- we are following our plan here, but we are thinking what -- well, we might need to change it, when, you know, that's what we try not to do. And we also know that topography, man-made features, in this case a canal, make in-fill projects a challenge. How it's designed. As you noted, Mr. Mayor, the existing house. They have already decreased the -- from the 48 to 40, which is a, what, 16, 17 percent decrease in the number of homes. There is that challenge to the -- to the north of what will that be someday. Is that going to be commercial? Is it going to be something else? The willingness of the applicant to fix that -- what would that be, the southwest corner with lots, making that match makes it more attractive. The other hard part is in-fill is the most inexpensive impact to the city when it comes to sewer, water, police, fire. It's all in place. Roads, they are -- they are there. They are ready to go. It just -- that's why I'm always -- when we don't do an in-fill project that's a good project, it just kind of weighs on me a little bit just from the fact that, man, everything is there, the cost is -- it's as low as we can get it and -- to make it work and, yes, there is an impact to the schools, we have got them coming. I think staff for the first one on the 22nd and, then, other officials later on. But for our lane, for city services, this --this -- it makes sense to -- to do in-fill projects like this. It just -- it works. But, you know, depends on what the whole Council wants to do. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I will dovetail on Councilman Hoaglun's comments. This is quite different. It's progressed from 2015 to today, even from P&Z to today and -- and even through today's Page 45 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page—of H hearing I think the applicant's made a couple of concessions, which do assist in that transition and capture some of the characteristics of some R-4 lot size design, at least to that south, southwest. So, I -- I thought with the concession of removing those two lots -- I understand the road setback issue. I -- I think it's a good project, quite frankly. It's -- it meets the mark in my eyes. The setback -- or excuse me. The open space around the perimeter also provides some buffer and setback to the east and also to the north. So, all in all these in-fills -- Councilman Hoaglun is correct -- are difficult. I'm glad that we take our time and grind through them, because they are hard, but they are very important to get done right and I think the applicant with the -- the changes that were provided today in my eyes it meets the mark. I know we don't have findings of approval, so I think if something were to proceed my sense is it still has to come back for conditions, but I think it's met the mark. Simison: Yes, Alan. Tiefenbach: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Alan Tiefenbach. Staff did draft conditions of approval. Those are in the staff report and those are crossed out. So, if you were inclined to approve this tonight you could just overturn what the Planning Commission struck and resustain the conditions of approval. They have already been written. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Does the applicant agree to -- if this were to be approved -- the conditions of approval that were struck out? Canning: Mayor, Council Member, yes. The one exception is I think Alan, yeah, talked about the offsets on the east side. Tiefenbach: That's correct. That's the only one they didn't agree with was lining up the side lot lines with the subdivision to the east. Staff mentioned at Planning Commission that we weren't going to die on the sword for that one. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: So, Members of the Council, if you were to go that direction we would need a new plat map, though, because this -- with the two less lots they have agreed to remove on the southwest. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Page 46 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 24 of H Strader: You know, I originally was -- after reading the application was pretty dead set against this, but I do feel you have made a lot of changes. I appreciate the concession the key concession of losing two lots to the southwest. I think that's going to make a big difference for the neighbors, you know, look, in-fill development is really tough. I think we all know that the city is growing. I think when you are looking at medium density residential in your future land use map, probably the best transition you could ask for as a neighbor, if I were in your shoes, that I would be hoping for is to have the lot lines match up or very close. I think that the applicant hopefully will be able to accomplish that with this change and it's a very small -- relatively small project compared to some of the ones we look at at ten acres. Given that it's in-fill I think I could probably stomach it, although I'm still upset about the school issues, but I think we are definitely making a lot of progress on setting up some meetings on that and certainly 20 kids is not going to make or break it anytime soon. I think we have time to work through that. So, that's where I'm at. I think I'm supportive of it now with that change. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: The public hearing is open. I -- I tend to agree. What I -- I appreciate, honestly, the -- the communication from our Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant being responsive. Sometimes when P&Z says go one way and the applicant shows up not taking that into consideration, that really -- I think at least irritates me as a Council Member. So, I appreciate, one, taking the feedback from the Planning and Zoning Commission to heart and the feedback from the public tonight. I was pretty opposed to this project mostly for the student piece. I think, honestly, with the -- with the loss of two lots we get much closer to -- I think what the residents would envision around an R-4. I do think these homes would mirror similar to what's around the neighborhood and, obviously, being tied to the developer agreement gives me enough comfort and I agree with the sentiments that in-fill is so hard and I -- I think that we -- we tend to be a little more critical of -- of in-fill than -- than other projects. But I think this does meet the mark and I could be supportive of it in light of the reduction of lots. Simison: Well, as was mentioned -- I don't want to presume, but I'm -- do we need to continue this to give time to redo the plat? Canning: Mayor and Council, as far as adjusting that plat, that will be just a few days. I'm not moving any streets, so that's pretty easy. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. The -- your part is easy. Our-- getting on our schedule is the hard part. Chris, I -- I don't have the agendas in front of me from future meetings and Alan's got some different things. Page 47 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 25 of 28 Tiefenbach: Mr. Hoaglun, Members of the Council, Mr. Mayor, my only comment would be that we have code now that says that if they are making revisions to plans they should be 15 days in advance at least. Hoaglun: That would -- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: What -- what does our schedule look like, Mr. Clerk, for mid -- mid March? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, looking at the hearing calendar, mid March, the 3/15 hearing, appears to be pretty light. 3/22 as well. 3/8 you have three -- three public hearings that are quite large already scheduled. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun? Hoaglun: Mr. Homan, March 15th, knowing that -- where we are headed, does that work for you and your situation that you find yourself in from a timing standpoint? Simison: You will have to come up to the mic, Mr. Homan. Thank you. Homan: Looking at it with losing two lots there on the south side, those lots go from 76 to about 85 on width. If there is a way that -- that we could -- I'm really tight on my time frame on my offer, but if not that will work, you know, with that date. Hoaglun: I guess, Mr. Mayor and Mike, you know, I mean the Council is talking about, you know, the changes that you have made looks acceptable and, you know, with everything coming in the way we think it's going to come in would -- would be favorable over moving forward, so -- Homan: Correct. Hoaglun: -- on the public record does that help you in your situation? Homan: Yeah. Yeah. It would. Thank you. Hoaglun: Okay. Simison: Okay. Then with that do I have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Page 48 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page——28 Hoaglun: I move that we continue the public hearing for Friendship Subdivision, H-2021- 0083, to March 15th. Strader: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue the public hearing until March 15th. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is continued. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: To add one more -- so, since Alan said the previous findings were for approval and if he can adjust those for the 15th, I don't like to have the development agreement done before the findings are approved, but if we feel that we are going to be comfortable with that we can have the development agreement also ready, so that if that can be approved with Mr. Homan's signature, then, it will be only one additional week to add the ordinance. Simison: Alan, would you like to rebut that? Tiefenbach: I don't want to rebut, but just to clarify, how many lots did we land at? Hoaglun: Minus -- minus two. Tiefenbach: So, we are at 38 lots? That's the agreement? Okay. Fine with Mr. Nary. mean he's the attorney. They would be the one drafting the agreement. I would just be doing pretty simple work with the conditions of approval. Simison: Okay. All right. Joe, see you back on the 15th with whatever you can get accomplished. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 4. Ordinance No. 22-1969: An Ordinance (H-2021-0066 — Red Aspen) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW '/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City Of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 2.99 Acres of Land from RUT to C- G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of this Ordinance Shall Be Page 49 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 27 of 28 Filed With the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: So, with that, Council, we will move on to Item 4, which is Ordinance No. 22- 1969. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2021-0066, Red Aspen, for annexation of a parcel of land lying in the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Ada county, Idaho, and being more particularly described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 2.99 acres of land from RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move approval of Ordinance No. 22-1969 with suspension of rules. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1969 under suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Or do I have a motion to adjourn? Hoaglun: Move to adjourn. Page 50 Meridian City Council Item#2. February 15,2022 Page 28 of 28 Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? You ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 3 / 1 / 2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK Page 51 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : February 15 , 2022 Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals , business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit ( you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed inappropriate for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic � <-IA.5 �\ Se-r� \ "a Meridian , Idaho - Code of Ordinances / TITLE 3 - BUSINESS AND LICENSE. . . CHAPTER 10 . - ADULT ENTERTAI . . . ,—, CD 1 Q < 3 -9 - 6 . - Prohibited acts; penalty; enforcement . CHAPTER 11 . - MOBILE HOME PARKS > CHAPTER 10 . - ADULT ENTERTA NMEW 3 - 1 Owl . - Definitions. z ' The following definitions are applicable to this chapter : Adultarcade machines means machines which are used by an individual to view films , videos , or segments of films , which distinguish , characterize , or emphasize matters depicting, describing or relating to activities of a sexual nature for the purposes of adult entertainment . Adultbusiness means an adult store, adult theater, adult entertainment establishment or adult business which also includes any business that operates adult arcade machines on its premises . Adult entertainment establishment means any place of business, or commercial establishment, wherein the entertainment or activity therein consists of substantially nude persons dancing with or without music or engaged in movements of a sexual nature wherein the patron is directly or indirectly charged a fee or required to make a purchase in order to view the entertainment or activity which consists of persons exhibiting or modeling lingerie , bikinis or similarly styled garments , or where the patron , directly or indirectly, is charged a fee to engage in personal contact by employees , devices or equipment, or by personnel provided by the establishment. A . An establishment which has semi - nude dancing or strip tease performances , whether these occur regularly or occasionally . Be "Adult dancing ' includes , but is not limited to : erotic , exotic, striptease , bikini or lingerie and shall mean and relate to any performance , preview, play, show, skit, film , dance or other exhibition performed before an audience depicting , rittos : //library. municode , com /id /meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeld =TIT3BULIRE_CH10ADEN 2 /15/22 , 4 : 42 PM ? age 1 of 10 describing or relating to activities of a sexual nature for the purposes of adult entertainment . Co " Substantially nude " as used in this section shall mean dressed in a manner so as not to display any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola , or displaying any portion of any person ' s pubic hair, anus , cleft of the buttocks , vulva or genitals . This definition of " adult entertainment establishments " is to include , but not be limited to , bathhouses , massage parlors , lingerie , modeling studios , or related or similar activities . D . Establishments which have as their sole purpose the improvement of health and physical fitness through special equipment and facilities , rather than entertainment, as herein above described , are specifically excluded . Adult store means : A . An establishment having as a substantial or significant portion of its stock or trade , books , magazines or films which are distinguished or characterized by their emphasis on matter depicting, describing, or relating to adult entertainment; Be An establishment with a segment or section devoted to the sale or display of such material ; or C . An establishment which sells or displays for sale devices designed to stimulate sexual arousal by contact with the skin or bodily orifices . Adult theater means an establishment, either enclosed or in the open air, used for presenting to an audience through film or live performance material distinguished or characterized by emphasis on matter depicting, describing or relating to activities of a sexual nature for the purposes of adult entertainment . Holding company means : A . Any corporation , firm , partnership , trust or other form of business organization not a natural person which , directly or indirectly : 1 . Owns ; 2 . Has the power or right to control ; or 3 . Holds with the power to vote , all or any part of the outstanding voting securities of a corporation which holds or applies for a license required by this chapter . https : //library. municocie . com / id/ iiiericiian/codes/code_of_ordinances ? nodeId = TIT3BU1_ IRE_CH1OADEN 2 / 15 / 22 , 11 : 42 Nvl Pare 2 0 ! If ) Be For the purposes of this section , in addition to any other reasonable meaning of the used , a holding company " indirectly " has , holds or owns any power, right or security mentioned in subsection (A) of this definition if it does so through any subsidiaries , V many such subsidiaries may intervene between the holding company and the corpor licensee or applicant . Intermediary company means any corporation , firm , partnership, trust or other form of business organization other than a natural person which : A . Is a holding company with respect to a corporation which holds or applies for a license required by this chapter . Be Is a subsidiary with respect to any holding company . Subsidiary means : A . Any corporation all or any part of whose outstanding equity securities are : 1 . Owned ; 2 . Subject to a power or right of control ; or 3 . Held with power to vote , by a holding company or intermediary company; or Be Any firm , partnership , trust or other form of business organization not a natural person , all or any interest in which is : 1 . Owned ; 2 . Subject to a power or right of control , or 3 . Held with power to vote , by a holding company or intermediary company. ( Ord . 792 , 4-71998 ) 3 - 10 - 2 . - Persons subject to license , Whenever in this chapter a license is required for the maintenance , operation or conduct of any business or establishment, or for doing business or engaging in any activity or occupation , any person or corporation shall be subject to the requirement, if by himself or through an agent, employee or partner he holds himself out as being engaged in the business or occupation ; or solicits patronage therefor, actively or passively; or performs or attempts to perform any part of such business or occupation in the city. ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) 3 = 10 - 3 . - Licensing focus . https : //Iibrary. municode . com / id/meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeld = TIT3BULIRE_CH10ADEN 2/15/ 22 , 4 : 42 PM Page 3 of 10 This chapter is not designed to define , nor regulate , the sale , loan , distribution , dissemination , presentation or exhibition , of material or live conduct which is obscene . This chapter is designed to license establishments that provide adult entertainment or themes of a distinct sexual nature . ( Ord . 792 , 4 - 7 - 1998 ) 3 - 104 . - License required ; alcohol license prohibited . A . License required. It shall be unlawful for any person to operate within the city limits any adult store , adult theater , adult arcade machine business , or adult entertainment establishment , without first obtaining an appropriately classified license to do so as set forth in ection 3 - 10 - 5 of this chapter . B . Alcohollicense prohibited. No beer , wine or liquor license shall be issued to any adult theater, adult store , adult arcade business or adult entertainment establishment business as described above . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 5 . - License classifications . Class A : Adult store which does not admit persons eighteen ( 18 ) years or younger . Class B: Adult store which admits customers eighteen ( 18 ) years or younger to purchase publications or items not relating to specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas but which has a portion of its premises devoted to the sale or display of such publications , films , or sexual devices . Class C: Adult theater . Class D: Adult arcade machines . Class E: Any adult entertainment establishment which may also include the elements of Class A , C , and D but not Class B . ( Ord . 792 , 4- 7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 6 . - Application for license . An application for a license to operate one ( 1 ) of the establishments described in subsection 3 - 10 - 4 . A of this Chapter shall be made to the City Clerk in such form and manner as prescribed by the City Council accompanied by the annual fee hereinafter prescribed , but the Iitlps : // Ii13rary. municode . com/ id/ meridian/codes/cocle_of_ordinances ? nodeId = T ] T3BULIRE_CH1OADEN 2/ 15/ 220 4 : 42 PM Page 4 of 10 application shall contain at least the following : Code of Or� i CWu ne and residence addren of A applicant . B . The name and address of each employee . C . If applicant is a corporation , the names and resident addresses of each of the officers , directors and managers of said corporation and of each stockholder owning more than ten ( 10 ) percent of the stock of the corporation and the address of the corporation itself, if different from the address of the proposed establishment . D . If applicant is a partnership , the names and addresses of each of the partners , including any limited partners and the address of the partnership itself, if different from the address proposed for the establishment . E . Written proof that the applicant is over the age of eighteen ( 18 ) years . F . The business , occupation , or employment of the applicant for the three (3 ) years immediately preceding the date of the application including the names , dates of, location and nature of same . G . The number of adult arcade machines to be installed , if any , and the name , address and employer of the owner of said machines . If the owner is a corporation , the names and resident addresses of each of the officers , directors and managers of said corporation and of each stockholder owning more than ten ( 10 ) percent of the stock of the corporation and the address of the corporation itself, if different from the address of the proposed establishment( s ) . H . The class of license applied for and a statement why the proposed establishment falls within the requested classification . S If the applicant is seeking a Class B adult store license , a description of the manner in which minors will be prevented from viewing publications , films of specified sexual activities or sexual anatomical areas . J . If a Class A adult store license is being requested , a statement whether the applicant will display for sale or sell any device designed to be used to stimulate sexual arousal or arousal by contact with the human skin or bodily orifices . K . A diagram of the floor plan and number of square feet and on - premises parking spaces . L . If the applicant is seeking a Class C adult theater license , a statement whether ittus : //Iibrary. municode . com /id/ meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId = TIT3BULIRE _CH10ADEN 2 /15/ 22 , 4 : 42 PM age 5 of 10 the entertainment will be live or on film . If live , a statement as to the nature of the live entertainment, e . g. , burlesque , dance , musical , drama , etc . M . If a Class E adult entertainment license is sought, a statement of the type and nature of entertainment, whether Class A items are to be sold or offered for sale , and if adult arcade machines , including the number of, will be available for patronage . N . The date on which the applicant intends to open for business . O . The type and nature of activity desired to be licensed and whether the type of activity shall at any time require the total exclusion of minors from the premises . P . A legal description of the real property on which the premises is to be located , the name and address of the record owners the name and address of each lienholder; the name and address of each party to a valid and subsisting contract of sale , deed of trust or other agreement the subject of which is the aforesaid real property . If any of the persons sought to be identified by this section is a corporation , the names and resident addresses of the officers , directors and managers of said corporation and of each stockholder owning more than ten ( 10 ) percent of the stock of the corporation and the address of the corporation itself, if different from the address of the proposed establishment . Q . If any of the information supplied pursuant to this section becomes outdated by virtue of changes in the operation of the business or otherwise needs to be supplemented , the licensee shall provide the City Clerk with the modified or supplemental data within ten ( 10 ) days of the change or addition being effective . R . As to subsections ( C), ( G ) and ( P ) of this section , if the owner or applicant corporation is an " intermediary company" as defined in section 310 - 1 of this chapter, the identity of each related " holding company" or " subsidiary " as those terms are defined in section 3 - 10 - 1 of this chapter . In providing the identity of each such corporation , the applicant shall furnish the names and addresses of each of the officers , directors and managers and of each stockholder owning more than ten ( 10 ) percent of the stock of the corporation , and the address of the corporation . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) littps : //library . municode . com/id/ meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances ? nodeId = T ] T3BULIRE_CH10ADEN 2 /15/ 22, 4 : 42 PM Page 6 of 10 3 = 10 - 7 . - Control by City Clerk . The City Clerk shall , within three ( 3 ) working days of a receipt of an application for license required by this Chapter submit a complete copy of the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission , Building Inspector, Central District Health Department of the State of Idaho , Fire Inspector for the city, City Attorney, City Engineer, Ada County Highway Department and the Chief of Police . ( Ord . 792 , 4 - 7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 8 . - Investigation by city officials and other agencies , On receipt of an application for licensing from the City Clerk as required by this chapter, respective city officials and other governmental agencies shall commence investigations as to whether the physical plant of the proposed establishment is in conformity with the state law and City Council within ten ( 10 ) days of receiving the license application and state whether the proposed establishment is in compliance with the applicable ordinances , state laws and regulations . It shall further be the duty of each respective official agency , should a license subsequently be granted to the applicant, to examine and inspect such place licensed on a regular basis to determine continuing conformity to the applicable laws and regulations . If, during such routine inspection , a discrepancy is noted , the official noting such discrepancy shall so advise the licensee in writing . The licensee shall have ten ( 10 ) days within which to correct the discrepancy. Reasonable extensions of time will be granted the licensee if the discrepancy cannot be eliminated within a ten - day period . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 9 . - Issuance of license . A . Submission of application and report to Council. When the City Clerk has received a report and recommendation from each of the officials or agencies designated in section 3 - 10 - 6 of this chapter, and not later than twenty ( 20 ) days from the filing of the application , the City Clerk shall submit the license application and official reports to the City Council for inclusion in the Council agenda . B . Council action. The City Council shall act upon the application at the next regular scheduled meeting after submission of the application by the City Clerk . If each of the designated officials or agencies has determined that the proposed business establishment is in conformity with all applicable city and state laws , and if it https : //Iibrary. municode . corn / id/ me rid ian/codes/code_of_ordinances ? node Id = TIT3BULIRE _CH10ADEN 2 / 15/ 22 , 4 : 42 PM gage 7 of 10 appears that there are no material misrepresentations or fraud in the application or in connection with the investigation by the city officials or other governmental agencies , the City Council shall grant a license to the applicant . ( Ord . 792 , 4 -7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 10 . - Further investigation by City Council , The City Council , prior to the issuance of any license requested by this chapter and after review of the submitted application , may undertake further investigation if it has reasonable cause to believe that the applicant has or is attempting to perpetrate a fraud or material misrepresentation on the city . Such further investigation may be completed and written findings issued at or prior to the next regular meeting following the meeting at which such application was initially considered . Upon a finding by the Council that the material misrepresentation or fraud has been perpetrated either in the application or in connection with the investigation by city officials or other governmental agencies , said application may be denied by the City Council . Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit any investigation into the substantive content of the publications or films to be displayed or sold by the applicant . ( Ord . 792 , 4 - 7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 11 . - License fees . A . Fees established. The following annual license fees must be paid to the city at the time the license application is submitted : Class A license : Three hundred dollars ( $ 300 . 00 ) . Class B license : One hundred twenty-five dollars ( $ 125 . 00 ) . Class C license : Two hundred dollars ( $ 200 . 00 ) . Class D license : Fifty dollars ( $ 50 . 00 ) per adult arcade machine . Class E license : Three hundred dollars ( $ 300 . 00 ) plus applicable fees for Class A content and fees for each arcade machine under Class D . B . Renewals. The request for renewal of licenses must be made on forms supplied by the City Clerk and such requests must be submitted by December 1 for renewal for the next calendar year . Each renewal application must be accompanied by the bttps : //library. niunicode . com/id/ meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances ? nocield = TIT3BUL. IRE _CF110ADEN 21151221 4 : 42 PM Page 8 of 10 annual fee set forth in subsection (A ) of this section . C . Proration of fee. Where an application for a new license is made after January 1 , the applicable fee shall be apportioned in accordance with the number of days remaining in the calendar year . ( Ord . 792 , 4- 7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 12 . - Misdemeanor . It shall be a misdemeanor for an applicant or licensee to make a material misrepresentation on his application , to perpetrate a fraud on any investigative official or agency or to operate a business licensed under this chapter in contravention to the laws of the state or the ordinances of the city . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 13 . - Revocation of license . The licensee shall be responsible for the operation of the licensed premises in conformity with the ordinances of the city and the state . Upon a conviction of the licensee or the agent or employee of the licensee of violating any law or ordinance including this chapter , intended to protect the health , welfare or safety of individuals in this state and which violation occurs in the course of the main business activity licensed under this chapter, and not incidental thereto , the City Council may revoke all licenses held by the licensee under this chapter for a period up to and including eighteen ( 18 ) months from the date of conviction . Upon expiration of the period of revocation , the applicant will be eligible to reapply for a license according to the procedures and requirements of this chapter . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 14 . - Procedure for license revocation . A . Hearing. Any revocation of a license pursuant to this Chapter shall not occur until a hearing is held before the City Council . Twenty ( 20 ) days ' written notice of the time and place of the hearing and the nature of the grounds for such revocation sufficient to inform the licensee and enable him to respond shall be given . The licensee shall have the right to appear at said hearing in person or by counsel to present evidence and argument on the licensee ' s behalf and cross - examine witnesses . https ://Iibrary. municode .com/id/meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeld =TIT3BULIRE_CH10ADEN 2/15/22, 4 : 42 PM Page 9 of 10 Be Council ruling. The City Council shall make a ruling based on the evidence presented to i the hearing . Thereafter, the licensee shall be informed in writing of the Council ' s decisioi the Council by majority vote favors revocation , such revocation shall take effect when personal service of the written decision is made upon the licensee or an agent or emplo, said licensee . ( Ord . 792 , 4 -7- 1998 ) 3 - 10 - 15 . - Prior location and license lapse . Nothing in this chapter shall in any way affect the rights of present adult businesses to continue their operation so long as they adhere to the provisions of this chapter, including submission of properly completed applications within thirty (30 ) days of the effective date hereof and otherwise maintain a current license . Once an existing operation obtains a classified license , any subsequent change in classification shall be treated as a new use and must qualify under the provisions of this chapter . If there is a failure to timely renew a license , any subsequent application must satisfy all the requirements of this chapter . ( Ord . 792 , 4-7 - 1998 ; 1999 Code ) < 3 - 9 - 6 . - Prohibited acts; penalty; enforcement . CHAPTER 11 . - MOBILE HOME PARKS > https ://Iibrary, municode .com/id/meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeld =TIT3BULIRE_cH10ADEN 2/15/220 4 : 42 PM Page 10 of 10 FROM THE AU "Qft AND ILLUStRAtOR OF WHAT MAKES A BABY t t ' S i . - r . _ f � � � v . . Y 0p DES CORY SIIVERBERCr AND FIONA SMYTH �C j r o� o 1 0 0 I _ dip _ r N d N u O c 'N >� d U - O M i L L� d O C L d r c d > d N 3 wo t C . - d c p 0 L N N C V Y M L L _ 3 v O N E y v > u v c -Z d � d o o` D ' m '� o v r Q > Y m �f PC o ° r v 3 00 u v o ` G N N C N a) Q) d = sd, -O u J t . . . d d N E O E V d N d `O L 7 V t s Ql d O O F- PCPC uu .O . N a a N a O -- �l o N o v v ~O N > T r d a) PC>� c ti Y U `O C O — ,c j F N (U ...r m d v H m o c C o p 0 7 E o a 3 N c _T APF O N '�0 a � Ql N N0 d Na; N t N> 0 > aU v OO d N Q - _ .6 C T J PCN d E O Y O . . Sc a 3 c c .c v 0 PC W N d �m L d O d O G - 0 5 3 E O v _ e v o u � j N N W 0 O O O N d o ' m u 3 d N m a 3 w v $ v a v r c o d 0) Q .? L 0 Q O Q a -p i � y . H Q O Y G U d l� N j 'c E i O Ol d c u o a r 3 o 0 Po d a v a y p •c J n u p ', c � y a) c m c a mo m PCO -C O II U/ a. N a O N c _ N C A,,. y N t 'C N Q 3 = 01 a Q r .N o v N -C ° 3 3 N F 0 a - F F •� O H r y r O r W v 'PPPP v Q c u v v v ti -0 -0 d F E a 3 0 .� Q v c �, o a O O 0 Q Q : a Q O V o ~ 0 v ? N y o° 3 i � r H o Y F a o v a o � 0 3 a O U Nzz Q 3 F N O -c I - , . z = - ` za y of Ia '_ ` ': • Am 1Ll Im I JILL (/P) LU` J ILL F 1 Lis �i4 LLLL Lb >` In O cs Qk AzILL U LUcrl _ d 1p ,.. _..:; � C CAI lU Jc Gc, e / � a Z Q � _ o aR • D O � 3 �+- IIIIISO oc ILL. d 3 Qummommomme 49 L w 41ICU � • mom It mc) Ll cl o ` 7 _ 0 - {{ - _ 0 � 17 Ir Z � - Am -!m v T 3 72Z � u Z � 41 �jj 3 Qcn <CI �`�4► 3O coLAY J _/ Cr A. 30J Ccl cn o O 3 Zy 4J o �� r ' al C 0i aA v � {— 3 u H T T d � ® c 0 O 4J o +� o 4 O H t ~ 0 4- 71 F—i 0 0 0 0 a) In i III 7/tem 77 E IDIAN'-'---- JAMu AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount of$7,310.00 for Office of Drug Policy Grant Page 3 Item#1. C� fIEN DLAN HO MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Police Department Meeting Date: February 3, 2022 Presenter: Lt. Brown Estimated Time: 10 Minutes Topic: Budget Amendment in the amount of$7,310 for Office of Drug Policy Grant Recommended Council Action: Approve Spending Background: Page 4 g a6ed N O N d l Ln N 0 Qi N j 0 en A r1l o o N � N M } } N � N +> o O N u a chi c ac 7 U . Ul v(uLu ~ >. o °�° E Y a w v •� i F N i �T� •o v c c > W a O A eo. t 0 0 LL V bn Z cr 1�` �' , i " t O e U ++ o m _ 1 0 00 Cc _ c ~ a � R. o75 "a o W d = 3 t o c° v Q `o +f0. p Q Q v° H ` c 7000 < c V^ V N 0000 O n m N 00 O O C o E M m m N o i= ° M ^ n n O ~ c 0 o ` V- w yN K C Da Y O G = C •L. > O 0 Y V ^` 3 i X CL CT- w NJ R N J w e a N c V c a0 E 0 04 u o c c Y c w C: an m o m Y m o > U Q - O c 1 c W O N (0 01 Oc N N O r2o G Q ti Y n E F a w U C7 ('`7 m ' M M M M M M m a 0u1 vl ul (n �n u) MN d N N N N N N( N N N ry N N N a MMn M Mn M M O mN 2 0 0000000to M I m 'nn 0 O O O O O OM o N Nm m m o 0 0 aLO E LL `o N N N 7k O O 0) N N N m 0 0 0 o J J 00 E m c 5�. m r.a E V} M M N lf1 N tl1 (n (A �i 3 L( Q M m m m m M M M `n N M M M N (/) (/1 to (� to � 0] M m m m m m M m m M M M m +' M � M M �n N i:l M M N N N N N N N N N W Q N N ry N N ry ry N N N N N N N N N N N N �i N N N O ++ C y v No y o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N 'L'( C ON 0 0 0 0 0T�� ' 0 0 0 0 0 � d V" N N N N ry N N N iy � N NINOR N NO = 0 0 N LL ] N N ON 0 O C) CL E E' US c ao O ai LL E M rL W i O Z- I IE L) ro cu v ig -0 V E Ci z Q 0 m vo 0 ar A A Au A A A cu DA a m Ij 0 cr tu CL '13 v C.4 7Ej LLI Qj 43 a) C: 0 , p _ w no u w CL x LS m 72i m fo 'a 0 0 0 > m Z .r-I — ; t q, I W M E OD U! 5! >0 I SL o 7�1 -80 m I m w u oil CL 'T a IV 0 m m DD U) 13 Z -0 ' (U cz tw u N i�bm f TO a m Im ka a) en 1 a 0 Z, 2 Z 0 on .2> = u u N co 0 Q) < C: hi w 0 at 0) E, 0 n = o me Iz Ll ro C, o ot Ae CD -1 " - (Ii m 0 aj o cii 0 C) C 2� .0 C� crM Q) (1)- rL - 0 cr, C tw M c m a 4 m LAD 0 Vj .0 1 75 a ol c r a 0 @ 1 w m w Q >, -1," 2 0 X CL (N as` E w V 3:. 'Zol -6 a) CL T E -0 t > bp < a o z 13 0 < m -0 M, mu -p z 0 M — - I. a (E u LA 0 ot 0 u 4� LE d#mall Item#1. IDAHOOFFICEOF DRUG Camille McCashland MPOLICY 304 N 8" St.,Room 455 Grant Director Boise, ID (208)854-3046 June 10, 2021 Kendall Nagy Meridian Police Department 1401 E Watertower St. Meridian,ID 8642 Re: Notice of Partnership for Success Law Enforcement Grant Funding Dear Ms.Nagy, The Office of Drug Policy(ODP)is pleased to announce that the Meridian Police Department has been approved for a Partnership for Success Law Enforcement grant aimed to prevent underage drinking,marijuana use, and methamphetamine use through June 30,2022. The Meridian Police Department has been funded for the following activities: compliance checks and shoulder tap operations.Please reference the attached documents detailing the award. The total funding allocated for this grant is$7.109.74. It is required that you return a signed Grant Agreement and Grant Allocation Summary and initialed Special Terms and Conditions by June 29,2021. If these documents are not received within that timeframe,the grant award may be withdrawn. A required virtual training will take place on Wednesday,July 8 from 10 AM to 1 I AM to review the process for requesting reimbursement and reporting data for activities related to this award. All grantees must have at least one individual participate in this training.Login information for this training will be sent July 1. If at any time you have questions or concerns about this grant award,please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to working with your agency. Warm regards, cav"J11, ri1e91�nd Camille McCashland Grant Director Idaho Office of Drug Policy 208.854.3046 camille.mccashland@odp.idaho.gov Page 7 Item#1. GRANT AGREEMENT This Grant Agreement(the"Agreement")is by and between the Idaho Office of Drug Policy (ODP)and the Meridian Police Department(the"Sub-recipient"). Section 1: Delivery of Services 1.1 Grant Award Period—The tern of this agreement is July 1,2021 —June 30.2022. Services shall begin no sooner than July 1,2021, or when both parties have signed this agreement,and will tenninate June 30,2022. ODP with NOT pay for any services delivered prior to July 1, 2021 or after June 30,2022. 1.2 Grant Services—The Sub-recipient shall deliver services as outlined in the Grant Allocation Summary attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.The parties may amend the Agreement from time to time if needed, in order to accurately reflect the services provided by the Sub-recipient. 1.3 Sub-recipient Role—ODP requires the Sub-recipient to deliver the services as outlined in the Agreement.The Sub-recipient may not transfer, subcontract, or delegate its obligations to any third parties without ODP's written consent.Failure to abide by this restriction may result in termination of the Agreement,or any other remedies available to ODP. Section 2: Terms of Funding 2.1 Use of Funds—The Sub-recipient agrees that funds will be used only for the approved cost categories shown on the approved budget;however,the Sub-recipient may make budget changes within the approved cost categories not to exceed 2%of the total award amount.Any changes in excess of 2%or outside of an approved budget category must be requested by the Sub-recipient and approved by ODP in a written notice prior to incurring cost. 2.2 Payment of Grant Funds—ODP will pay the Sub-recipient within 60 days of receipt of invoice contingent upon the completion of the agreed upon services,entry of required data on the quarterly reports,and compliance with the Special Terms and Conditions listed in this Agreement. Information regarding data entry will be provided. Section 3:Roles and Responsibilities 3.1 Relationship—The Sub-recipient's relationship with ODP will be that of a grantee. Nothing in this Agreement creates a partnership or employer-employee relationship between the parties. ODP will not obtain workers' compensation insurance for Sub- recipient or its employees and is not a"statutory employer''of Sub-recipient or its employees. 1IPage Page 8 Item#1. 3.2 Taxes and Record Keeping—The Sub-recipient is solely responsible for filing all tax returns to any federal, state or local tax authority.Additionally,the Sub-recipient must maintain and provide to ODP, upon request,all documentation supporting the Sub- recipient's request for payments. 3.3 Review—All records and documents related to this Agreement, including but not limited to fiscal records, shall be available for review,audit,and copying by ODP,and by state and federal inspectors or auditors for the period of 3 years,beginning July 2022. Section 4: Termination 4.1 Termination of Agreement—If the Sub-recipient fails to provide any of the services outlined in this Agreement,ODP may provide written notice to require any of the following: 1)require the Sub-recipient to make corrective action to ensure compliance with the Agreement;2)reduce the funding allocation to more adequately reflect the services that will be provided, as determined by ODP in its sole discretion;3)termination this Agreement;or 4)pursue any other remedy available at low or in equity. Section 5: Insurance 5.1 Insurance—The Sub-recipient shall maintain comprehensive general liability insurance and all coverages required by law sufficient for the purpose of carrying out the duties and obligations arising under this Agreement. Sub-recipient shall maintain, at all times, applicable hereto,a comprehensive liability coverage in such amounts as are prescribed by Idaho Code §6-924 as amended from time to time,as well as worker's compensation coverage for its employees as required by Idaho Code §72-301 as amended from time to time. Sub-recipient's liability coverage obligations shall be administered by the Administrator of the Division of Insurance Management in the Department of Administration for the State of Idaho, and may be covered,in whole or in part, by the State of Idaho's Retained Risk Account. Sub-recipient shall cover its liability for worker's compensation through the State of Idaho's State Insurance Fund. Upon written request, Sub-recipient shall furnish ODP with documentation evidencing the insurance required by this Agreement. Section 6: Allocation of Liability 6.1 Allocation of Liability—Each parry will be responsible only for liabilities associated with the conduct of its own officials, employees,agents and volunteers,subject to the provisions of the Idaho Tort Claims Act,Idaho Code§6-901 through §6-929. Each party will defend the other party against any claims that arise solely from alleged wrongful acts, omissions or negligence of the defending party in the course of this Agreement, but does not assume responsibility for the acts,omissions or negligence of the other party of the other parry's officials,employees. agents and volunteers.Each party shall promptly notify the other party of any claim arising under this Agreement and shall cooperate fully with the defending party or its representatives in the defense of such claim.The parties acknowledge that, if both parties participate in the State of Idaho Risk Program,any tort 21Pa�e Page 9 Item#1. liability claim,suit or loss arising from this Agreement shall be allocated in the accordance with law by the Office of Risk Management for purposes of the respective loss experiences and subsequent allocation or self-insurance assessments.Any party participating in the State of Idaho Risk Program shall notify such program in the event is receives notice or has knowledge of any claims arising out this Agreement. Section 7: Assurances 7.1 Authority—The Sub-recipient represents that the individual signing this Agreement has authority to bind the Sub-recipient to the terms of this Agreement. 7.2 Assurances—Sub-recipient assures ODP that all activities performed under this grant will conform to the following ODP Substance Abuse Prevention Services program standards: 7.2.1 Assurance of Compliance with Record Keeping/Data Collection Standards— The Sub-recipient will maintain detailed records on all grant funded activities, which indicate the date,time, number of participants reached,and the nature of services delivered under the grant award.The Sub-recipient will be required to collection evaluation data on all projects and submit that data to ODP via an online platform.These records shall be subject to inspection by ODP. ODP has the right to audit reimbursement requests both before and after payment and to contest any billing or portion thereof. 7.2.2 Assurance of Compliance with Idaho State Laws—The Sub-recipient assures ODP of its commitment to abide by any applicable state and federal laws,rules, regulations, and executive orders of the Office of the Governor of the State of Idaho,pertaining to equal opportunity.Pursuant to all such laws.rules, regulations, and executive orders,the Sub-recipient assures ODP that no person in the State of Idaho shall, on the grounds of race,color,religion, sex.national origin, age, or disability,be excluded from employment with or participation in, be denied the benefit of,or be otherwise subject to discrimination under any program or activity performed under a grant award(s)entered into pursuant to this Agreement. 7.2.3 Assurances of Compliance with Parental Consent Policy—The Sub-recipient assures ODP that all activities conduced with grant funds to provide services to minors will collect appropriate parental consent.All applicable staff will be fully informed of and will abide by,the policies and requirements set forth therein. 7.2.4 Assurance of Compliance with Charitable Choice Policy—The Sub-recipient assures ODP it shall comply with the Faith-based Status and Policy Compliance. 7.2.5 Assurance of Compliance with Lobbying Policy—The Sub-recipient assures ODP that lobbying activities will not be conducted using grant funds. 3 1 P Page 10 Item#1. 7.2.6 Assurance of Compliance with Federal Law regarding Supplanting of Funds The Sub-recipient assures ODP that Partnership for Success Law Enforcement ;rant funds will not be used to supplant expenditures from other Federal. State or local sources. Section 8: Miscellaneous 8.1 Governing Law—Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the state of Idaho and the parties hereto consent to the jurisdiction and exclusive venue of the state courts of Ada County in the state of Idaho in the event of any dispute with respect to the Agreement. 8.2 Termination of Fiscal Necessity—ODP is a government entity and it is understood and agreed that ODP's reimbursement payments under this Agreement shall be paid from Idaho State Legislative appropriations,funds granted by the federal government,or both. The Legislature is under no legal obligation to make appropriations to fulfill this Agreement.This Agreement shall in no way or manner be construed so as to bind or obligate the state of Idaho beyond the term of any particular appropriate of funds by the Idaho State Legislature, or beyond any federal funds granted to ODP,as may exist from time to time. ODP shall have the right to terminate the Agreement in whole or in part(or any order placed under it) if, in its sole judgement,the Legislature of the state of Idaho fails,neglects, or refuses to appropriate sufficient funds as may be required for ODP to continue such payments,or requires any return or"give-back"of funds required for ODP to continue payments, or if the Executive Brach mandates any cuts or holdbacks in spending,or if funds are not budgeted or otherwise available(e.g.,through repeal of enabling legislation),or if the State discontinues or makes a material alteration of the pro-ram under which funds were provided,or if federal grant funds are discontinued. ODP shall be not be required to transfer funds between accounts in the event that funds are reduced or unavailable.All affected future rights and liabilities of the parties shall thereupon cease with ten (10)calendar days after notice to the Sub-recipient.Further, in the event that funds are no longer available to support the Agreement, as described herein, ODP shall not be liable for any penalty, expense,or liability or for general, special. incidental. consequential or other damages resulting therefrom_At Sub- recipient's request,ODP shall promptly provide supplemental documentation as to such Termination for Fiscal Necessity.Nothing in this section shall be construed as ability by ODP to terminate for its convenience. 8.3 No Waiver—The failure of either party to require strict performance of any term of condition of this Agreement, or to exercise any option or discretion granted to it, in any one or all instances shall not be construed to be a waiver or relinquishment of any such term or condition. The same shall be and remain in full force and effect unless there is a prior written waiver by the wavering party. 8.4 Force Majeure—If either party is delayed,hindered,or prevented from perforninQ any act required under the Agreement by reason of delay beyond the reasonable control of the asserting party including,but not limited to, interruption of the power supply,theft,fire, 41Page Page 11 Act of God or public enemy,severe and unusual weather conditions, injunction,riot, strikes, lockouts, insurrection,war,or court order,then performance of the act shall be excused for the period of delay. In that event,the period for the performance of the act shall be extended for a period equivalent to the period of the delay. Matters of the Sub- recipient's finances shall not be considered a forced majeure. 8.5 Severability—If any term,provision,covenant,or condition of the Agreement, or the application thereof to any party or circumstance, shall be held to be illegal,invalid,or unenforceable in whole or in part of for any reason,the remaining terms,provisions, covenants and conditions of the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect as if the Agreement had been executed with the illegal, invalid or unenforceable portion eliminated,so long as the Agreement as so modified continues to express,without materials change,the original intentions of the parties as to the subject matter of the Agreement, and the deletion of such portion of the Agreement will not substantially impair the respective benefits or expectations of the parties to the Agreement. 8.6 Entire Agreement—The Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties hereto and shall supersede all previous applications,proposals,oral or written, negotiations,representations,commitments,and all other communications between the parties.All exhibits attached hereto and referenced herein are hereby incorporated and made an integral part of this Agreement. 8.7 Counterparts—This agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Accepted and Agreed Sub-recipient Organization Office of Drug Policy i Signed: L U Signed:LT J Title: :� _ f11Vs7�c Title: Administrator Coo V-Ai,'Ojc Y Date: C_al 144�(2 C7 Date: OL,- QL'b, 51Pa e Page 12 Item#1. PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS Due Date: Quarterly Report Deadlines Quarterly Progress and Financial Reports are due to ODP as follows: Quarters Months Reporting;Deadlines Q 1 July-Sept Oct 15 Q2 Oct-Dec Jan 15 Q3 Jan-March April 15 Q4 April-June July 15 • The Sub-recipient must enter all data required for quarterly outcome reporting into ODP's online platform to accurately record delivery of services: https:ilft)i-m.Iotform.eom,('ldahoOD P/le-cIi iarterly-report. • Requests for reimbursements must be submitted as needed throughout the quarter through an online platform: http)s:2;farm.iotfoi-n7.ec)ni/CdahoODP!PFS-LE Reimbursement. • All requests for reimbursements pertaining to the fiscal year must be made before July 15,2022. Other Performance Requirements • The Sub-recipient shall deliver the programs/services as detailed in the Grant Allocation Summary. • The Sub-recipient shall collect and report data in accordance with ODP's directions and standards. • The Sub-recipient shall be responsible for all news and information emailed and posted on prevention.odp.idaho.gov. 6IPa2e Page 13 Item#1. GRANT ALLOCATION SUMMARY Partnership for Success(CDFA 93.243)Law Enforcement Grant Award State Fiscal Year 2022 Sub-recipient Name: Meridian Police Department Grant Allocation: $7,109.74 Budget Summary Activity Personnel Contractual Total Compliance Checks $3,362.87 $192.00 $3,554.87 ". Shoulder Tap Operations $3,362.87 $192.00 $3,554.87 Total Budget $7,109.74 This award is subject to the Special Terms and Conditions attached. Granting Official: lute: Recipient Official: A�, " Date: 61141262i 71Pa_;r Page 14 Item#1. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Initialing below ensures that the Meridian Police Department is aware and willing to comply with the Special Terms and Conditions. Grantee The Sub-recipient will not use federal funds made available through this award to supplant state or local funds. If there is a potential presence of supplanting, the Sub-recipient will provide documentation demonstrating that any reduction in non-Federal resources occurred for reasons other than receipt of expected receipt of Federal funds. „ Tom-/ V The Sub-recipient must ensure that project funds are not commingled with funds from other federal services. In addition.the Sub-recipient is prohibited from commingling funds on either a program-by-program basis or a project-by- project basis. Funds specifically budgeted and/or received from one project cannot be used to support another. Where a Sub-recipient's accounting system cannot comply with this requirement, it is recommended that the Sub-recipient establish a system to provide adequate fund accountability for each project that it has been awarded. r� The Sub-recipient will ensure that all persons having contact with vulnerable populations, including but not limited to children, incarcerated individuals,the elderly,the unhoused, and individuals with mental illness.to deliver services funded by this grant will obtain a background check before services are delivered.The Sub-recipient shall supply ODP with documentation ensuring a proper background check,upon request. ' J The Sub-recipient is responsible for employing organization and management techniques necessary to assure proper and efficient administration including accounting,budgeting,reporting, auditing,and other review controls and maintaining such records. The Sub-recipient will spend funds according to the Grant Allocation Stunmary.If there are needed modifications in the project budget or activities. the Sub-recipient will complete proper paperwork and await ODP approval before monies are spend on said modified activities. The Sub-recipient will ensure that all personnel costs associated with these funds are considered overtime. S1Pa�e Page 15 Item#2. E IDIAN'-'---- JAMu AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Lakeview Golf Course 2022 Proposed Fee Schedule Page 16 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 15 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Lakeview Golf Course 2022 Proposed Fee Schedule Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERREAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING NEW FEES OF THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING THE MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO COLLECT SUCH FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, following publication of notice in the Meridian Press on February 6, 2022 and February 13, 2022, according to the requirements of Idaho Code section 63-1311A, on February 15, 2022 the City Council of the City of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department, as set forth in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, following such hearing, the City Council,by formal motion, did approve said proposed new fees of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO: Section 1. That the fees set forth in Exhibit A hereto are hereby adopted. Section 2. That the Meridian Parks and Recreation Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Feb.2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of Feb. 2022. APPROVED: Robert E. Simison, Mayor ATTEST: Chris Johnson, City Clerk ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 1 OF 2 Item#2. EXHIBIT A Lakeview Golf Course—Green Fees New Fee Weekday— 18 holes $34.00 Weekday—9 holes $24.00 Weekday Senior— 18 holes $28.00 Weekday Senior—9 holes $20.50 Weekday Junior— 18 holes $14.00 Weekday Junior—9 holes $9.00 Weekend— 18 holes $39.00 Weekend—9 holes $29.00 Weekend Junior— 18 holes $16.00 Weekend Junior—9 holes $11.00 Twilight $29.00 Winter— 18 holes $29.00 Winter—9 holes $21.00 Cart— 18 holes $16.00 Cart—9 holes $11.00 Cart Trail $13.00 Range Token $6.00 Lakeview Golf Course—Golf Pass Fees Single—Unlimited $1,749.00 Single—Restricted $1,249.00 Couple—Unlimited $2,699.00 Couple—Restricted(weekday afternoons, weekends, holidays only) $2,049.00 Senior/Military—Unlimited $1,649.00 Senior/Military—Restricted(weekday afternoons, weekends, holidays only) $1,149.00 Senior Couple—Unlimited $2,599.00 Senior Couple—Restricted(weekday afternoons, weekends, holidays only) $1,949.00 '/2 price (daily green fee package) $529.00 Junior—add on $299.00 Private Cart Trail Pass $580.00 ADOPTION OF FEE SCHEDULE OF MERIDIAN PARKS&RECREATION DEPARTMENT PAGE 2 OF 2 Page 18 E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting February 15, 2022 Item #3: Friendship Subdivision AERIALZONINGFLUM 8 and Preliminary Plat-Annexation, Zoning to R BeforeAfter Changes to Agenda: Item #3: Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) Application(s):  Annexation, Zoning to R-8 and Preliminary Plat for 40 lots. (41 were proposed at Planning Commission.) Location: This site is located south of Chinden and west of Locust Grove. The Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west (R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east (R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south. There is an existing church on RUT zoned property in the County directly north History: This property was proposed for annexation, zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15- 013, PP 15-017). This was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern and that R-4 zoning was most appropriate in this area. Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential 3-8 du/acre Summary of Request: Annexation of 10.06 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat to allow 40 building lots and 7 common lots. N. Elk Ranch Ln., a private road, presently provides access from the subject property to E. Chinden Blvd. This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets which already stub at the property – E. Lockhard St. to the west, E. Tallin St. to the east, and N. Sanita St. to the south. The plat also provides a stub street to the church property at the north in case some or all of this property redevelops in the future. UDC 11-H-4 states when a property has an existing access from a State Highway and an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use, the owner shall develop or otherwise acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant vacate all interest in the N. Elk Ranch Ln. private street, as the property already has three existing access points from local roads. The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the property at a 45-degree angle north to south being relocated and piped in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. According to an exhibit provided by the applicant (this ditch is being reconfigured toward the northwest corner of the property. This reconfiguration effort should be coordinated with the irrigation district. The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project. The single-family homes appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes and are consistent with the architecture of existing surrounding residences. Staff expressed several concerns in the staff report. Two of these included removing a lot at the south to be move consistent with the lots in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No 3 to the south. The other was for the applicant to reconfigure Lots 1-10, Block 1 along the eastern perimeter so the property lines align the lots in the Hightower Subdivision to the east. The applicant submitted plans which show a lot removed from the south. Written Testimony: As of today, staff has received one letter in opposition. Concern expressed is the amount of R-8 zoning that is occurring, and this property would be more appropriate to be zoned for R-2 as is the Birkdale Estates to the west. Staff Recommendation: As the plat meets all requirements of the UDC and is consistent with the density designation of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommended approval of the requested annexation, zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in the staff report. Planning Commission The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on January 2, 2022. At the public hearing, the Commission moved to deny the subject annexation and rezoning request. Concerns expressed included preferring it be annexed as R-4 rather than R-8, whether barely meeting the minimums is “premier” and whether there could be more useable and integrated open space. The applicant has submitted revised plans since the time of the Planning Commission meeting. Changes include 40 lots rather than 40, and a more detailed landscape plan including a perimeter trail. The open space exhibit shows useable open space has decreased from 14.6% to 14%, but it does appear the updated plan shows more centralized, useable and integrated open space. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0083, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0083, as presented during the hearing on February 15, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2021-0075 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance) 77 E IDIAN'-'---- JAMu AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Item#3. C� fIEN DLAN HO PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: February 15, 2022 Topic: Public Hearing for Friendship Subdivision (H-2021-0083) by Mike Homan, Located Near the Southeast Corner of N. Meridian Rd. and E. Chinden Blvd. A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.058 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 41 building lots and 7 common lots. Information Resources: Click Here for Application Materials Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing Page 20 PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : February 15 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : Friendship Subdivision ( H - 2021 - 0083 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name )b rQU 1V3 26e7 MtM ao 6; 9V 3 ;s'q �-' 1 pasgc�vv'/ s DAKKL:rLL, & AL � G� lYllG� ;p�raW S3by6 4 &U0[ 6 5` 4 7 aU , Se4����� 7 C, 1 � � c `� �✓ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Item#3. STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a A H O HEARING 2/15/2022 Legend DATE: Prajec!LacaTian TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach --- 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: AZ,PP -H-2021-0083 Friendship Subdivision a . LOCATION: 6168 N. Elk Ranch Ln, located near the southeast corner of N. Meridian Rd and E E. Chinden Blvd. EI �m r��Trrrrx I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation of 10.06 acres of land with the R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat to allow 41 building lots and 7 common lots. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Acreage 10.06 Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential 8-12 du/acre Existing Land Use(s) 1 single family residence Proposed Land Use(s) Single Family Residential Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 41 building lots,7 open space lots Phasing Plan(#of phases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units(type 41 of units) Density(gross&net) 4.1 du/ac gross Open Space(acres,total 1.09 ac qualified open space(10.8%) [%]/buffer/qualified) Amenities One amenity is required,applicant is proposing tot lot, picnic table and benches. Physical Features(waterways, A Settlers Irrigation canal bisects the property at a 45- hazards,flood plain,hillside) degree angle;this is being relocated and piped. Neighborhood meeting date;#of August 6,2021 —5 attendees attendees: Page 1 Page 21 Item#3. Description Details History(previous approvals) This property was proposed for annexation,zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15-013,PP 15-017).This was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern. B. Community Metrics Description Details Ada County Highway District Report Pending,preliminary comments submitted • Staff report(yes/no) Yes Access(Arterial/Collectors/State N.Elk Ranch Rd is a private road which provides access Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) from W. Chinden Rd to the subject property. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Subdivision will stub to three local streets—E.Lockhart St. Access to the west,E. Tallinn St to the east,and N. Senita Hills to the south.A fourth stub is provided to the church property at the north. Existing Road Network E.Lockhard St.,N. Senita Hills Ave.and E. Tallinn St. N.Elk Ln to E.Chinden is a private road. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ This is an internal subdivision surrounded by local roads so Buffers no buffers are required. There are 5 ft.wide sidewalks shown along all internal streets. Proposed Road Improvements Applicant will be required to construct all local streets to ACHD templates with 33 ft.travel lanes and 47 ft.right of way. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 1.8 miles to Fire Station 5 • Fire Response Time <5 minutes • Resource Reliability >80% • Risk Identification 2,resources are 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 • Comments • Flow is committed • No sewer services may cross infiltration trenches • Must provide to-and-through to the property to the north. • Sewer to the north must end in a manhole and preferably be in the Right of Way.If it is not in the Right of Way it must have a 14 foot wide access road that is built per City standards. • Sewer mains must at a minimum have 3 foot of cover above the pipe.This is not met with Manhole number 11 and Manhole number 12. Water • Distance to Water Services Directly Adjacent — Page 2 Page 22 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 S W- S' — all t. yll IIIIIII :� mm pZ■■ ■■ ram■_= u ni _ IIIIIII =Z mini �■� � r �.y F . ■ 1lIIIII�_.un - - •••■1•• III III IN - ■I■I - ■■I■ III IIIIII 1� — IIII■I■: on oiMEN l ' •IIIIIII■■ II HIM :�■ ■IIII■ IIII ■� : IIIIII ;_, -- ` -� Y".:4:.-��'�.'rJ Ili p ■ �� t R�"` - �. e mu•uo ■ - G 11111r nill,u'- r- � *�. � Illllll � _ ■ '�?Cww2'= ', �= ■ . IIIIIII —Z Mini r nnnl ,,;,, r n��/I�1: I �•ya s� •ml■• u uu li L ■I■I - on III IIIIII �� � ■u1 ■ - ■■ �■■1 IIIIII � � - .� �■ � r : : . .■ ■�-■ ■r��lNllllNllii . ■,' ■II� II IN IIIIII IIIII :i i■ a: 1 IN 11111111 _ ■ ■■ IIIIII ■1 �� -- �■.� ■ ■1�-■ -■ ■ WII ■■1 ■IIIu IIII ■■ IIIIII ■■■ : I„■1■ ■uI ■ �• WII■ ■■■ IIIIIII IIIII IIIII ■ ■■■ ■■■_ ■■II IIIIIII■II ■ ■■ 7■■ ■■■NIILII IIIN MINIM MINIM ■■■ II■II� I■II�I SH Ilia- = ■ �= • �■ 11�� �■ ■■ Z ■ ■i■■ - ■ -_■ MININ -•.1r� C� �■■■ ■ �� �0■: IIIN ■ Item#3. III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant Representative: Kaili Worth, Centurion/B&A Engineers—5505 W. Franklin Rd, Boise, ID, 83705 B. Owner: Thomas Buck Trust—6168 N. Elk Ranch Ln,Meridian, ID 83646 IV. NOTICING Planning&Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 12/21/2021 1/30/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 300 feet 12/15/2021 1/31/2022 Nextdoor posting 12/16/2021 1/31/2022 Sign Posting 12/20/2021 1/21/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Annexation: The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property and is within the Area of City Impact Boundary. To ensure the site develops as proposed by the applicant, staff is recommending a development agreement as part of the annexation approval. B. Zoning The applicant proposes to annex this property with the R-8 zoning district.As mentioned in the dimensional standards below,the plat meets all requirements of the R-8 zoning district and the lot sizes as proposed are consistent with the density designations of the future land use map,but staff does have concerns with the transition to the south and the alignment of lots to the east and is further explained in the Comprehensive Plan Policy section below. 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. The annexation area is near existing public services and is surrounded on three sides by the City limits. The proposed land use of single family residential is consistent with the recommended uses in the FLUM designation. The proposed project has a gross density of 4.1 du/ac, being on the low end of the allowed density range listed above. 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. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in Section LK.A. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to Page 4 Page 24 Item#3. the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): • 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 proposed traditional single-family detached homes will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the City; however, there is no variety in housing types proposed within the development. The Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west(R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east(R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south, with an existing church on RUT zoned property in the County directly north. Given the property is completely surrounded by single-family detached, single family detached with comparable lot sizes is appropriate for the subject property. Staff does have concerns regarding whether there is an appropriate transition in lots sizes to the properties in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south as is discussed below. • 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 S ft. wide attached sidewalks on both sides of roads internal to the subdivision. The pathways master plan does not indicate any pathways crossing the site. There are several micro pathways providing access to the qualified open space as well as connecting to an existing micro pathway at the Birkdale Estates Subdivision to the west. Qualified open space and amenities are discussed below. • "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D) As mentioned above, S ft. wide attached sidewalks are provided along all internal roadways and a pathway connection is provided to the existing pathway at the Birkdale Estates Subdivision at the west. "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 provided from N. Senita Hills Ave., and the applicant will be required to extend services to the north. • Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction. (2.02.02F) As mentioned, the Birkdale Estates Subdivision is to the west(R-2), the Hightower Subdivision is to the east(R-8) and the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision (R-4) is to south, with an existing church zoned RUT to the north. The lots at the southern perimeter of the property are proposed at sizes between 5,000— 7,000 sq.ft. and widths of between 50-70 ft. This is denser than the adjacent lots of approximately 10,000 sq.ft. and 90'feet in width in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the south, and this would result in several of the existing properties abutting more than one lot(and one residence) along the rear property lines. Staff recommends one of the lots shown as Lots 1- Page 5 Page 25 Item#3. 4 of Block 2 be eliminated and the remaining 3 lots be sized and oriented to be consistent with Lots 1-3,Block 35 of the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision No 3 to the south. The 5,200 sq.ft. +/- lots along the eastern perimeter are very comparable in size to the lots in the Hightower Subdivision to the east, although staff believes the side lot lines could align better with the adjacent properties for more cohesive fence lines and easier differentiation of property ownership.As a condition of approval, staff recommends Lots 1-10,Block I along the eastern perimeter be configured so their property lines align with Lots 4-11,Block 10 in the Hightower Subdivision to the east. This development proposes architecture consisting of one and two-story homes with pitched roofs, stone bases fishscale accents and/or lap siding with gabled roofs and dormers, which is consistent with the architecture in surrounding subdivisions. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is one existing single-family residence which will be retained on Lot 9 of Block 3. As a condition of annexation,this house should be required to connect to City water and sewer service and obtain a new address since the access to N. Elk Ranch Ln. will be terminated. F. Proposed Use Analysis: Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principally permitted use in the R-8 zoning districts in UDC Table 11-2A-2. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The preliminary plat and fixture 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. However, it should be noted that this property was proposed for annexation, zoning to R-8 and plat for 48 lots as the Bull Ranch Subdivision in 2015 (AZ 15-013, PP 15-017). It was subsequently denied by the Council with density being cited as a primary concern and that R-4 or R-2 was preferable to more R-8 zoned property. 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. There are no common driveways proposed with this subdivision. H. Access (UDC 11-3A-3): This subdivision proposes to connect to three existing local streets which already stub at the property—E. Lockhard St.to the west,E. Tallin St. to the east, and N. Santa St.to the south. The plat also provides a stub street to the church property at the north in case some or all of this property redevelops in the fixture. The street sections provided with the plat reflect templates of 33 ft. of travel lane(curb to curb), curb,gutter, 5 ft. wide sidewalks,and a 47 ft. right-of-way. N. Elk Ranch Ln.,a private road,provides access from the subject property to E. Chinden Blvd. UDC 11-H-4 states when a property has an existing access from a State Highway and an applicant proposes a change or increase in intensity of use,the owner shall develop or otherwise Page 6 Page 26 Item#3. acquire access to a street other than the state highway. The use of the existing approach shall cease and the approach shall be abandoned and removed. As a condition of approval, staff recommends the applicant vacate all interest in the N.Elk Ranch Ln. private street,as the property already has three existing access points from local roads. ACHD has noted a traffic study is not required with this subdivision and has not offered any other comments. 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 detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Future development should comply with these standards. J. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8): The pathways master plan does not indicate any pathway connections across or along the property. The landscape plan reflects micro-pathways comprised of concrete within Common Lots 1 and 17,Block 1,Lot 8,Block 3 and Lot 1 Block 4. There is also a pathway connection to an existing micro-pathway in the Birkdale Estates Subdivision to the west. All internal streets contain 5 ft.wide attached sidewalks which is consistent with the three local streets stubbing to the property. K. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. L. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): UDC 11-2A-6 does not require landscape buffers along local streets,which are all the streets bordering and within the subject property. An open space exhibit was submitted as will be discussed below. The landscape plan indicates there are existing trees that are to be removed or relocated,but does not indicate whether they meet the preservations requirements of UDC 11-3B-10 or whether mitigation is required. Staff recommends that prior to City Council,the applicant contact the City Arborist and update the landscape plan accordingly. M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G): This application was submitted prior to the increased qualified open space requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 and therefore this development is required to provide 10%of qualified open space. An open space exhibit was submitted which reflects 14%of qualified open space is provided. This includes a 40,761 sq. ft. landscaped park with playground and pathway at the western side of the property(Lot 8, Block 3), 18,000 square foot(55' x 350' _/-) greenspace with pathway through the middle of the site(Lots 1,Block 1 and 4), and 6,400 sq. ft.pathway common lots south of E Lockhart St and at the northwest corner of the property(Lot 8, Block 4 and Lot 10,Block 5). N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G): Based on the area of the proposed plat(10 acres),under the previous regulations one amenity is required. The proposed landscape plan depicts a playground,benches,tables and additional walking paths. Prior to City Council,the applicant shall revise the landscape plan to indicate specific details of the amenities. Page 7 Page 27 Item#3. O. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The plat shows the North Slough is bisecting the property at a 45-degree angle north to south being relocated and piped in accordance with UDC 11-3A-6. According to an exhibit provided by the applicant(please refer to Section VI.)this ditch is being reconfigured toward the northwest corner of the property. This reconfiguration effort should be coordinated with the irrigation district.Also,per UDC 11-3A-6 requires irrigation easements wider than ten(10)feet to be included in a common lot that is a minimum of twenty(20)feet wide and outside of a fenced area. P. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): The applicant has not provided any details in regard to fencing. Any fencing shall 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 obtained from N. Senita Hills Ave. at the south and developer will be required to extend services to the north. R. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant has submitted elevations of the single-family homes for this project(see Section VI.F below). The single-family homes are depicted as one and two-story structures with attached garages, and a variety of architectural elements and finish materials including gabled roofs,fishscale accents, covered porches, dormers, stone wainscoting, and lap siding. The submitted sample elevations appear to meet design requirements for single-family homes and are consistent with the architecture of existing surrounding residences. VI. DECISION A. Staff: As the plat meets all requirements of the UDC and is consistent with the density designation of the Comprehensive Plan, Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation,zoning and preliminary plat with the conditions noted in Section IV. per the Findings in Section VIII. B. The Meridian Planning& Zoning Commission heard this item on January 6,2022. At the public hearing.the Commission moved to deny the subject annexation and rezoning 1. Summary of the Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Joe Canning.,-Mike Homan b. In opposition: Several neighbors attending remotely expressed concerns with n it . C. Commenting: Joe Canning,Mike Homan d. Written testimony: One letter in opposition has been received from Mark Clever e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach f. Other Staff commenting on application: None Page 8 Page 28 Item#3. 2. public testimony: a. Density.why it was being proposed for R-8 versus R-4. 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Commissioners discussed what amenities were beinprovided. b Whether a project meeting the"minimums"was premier. C. Amount and location of open space. and whether more functional and useable open space could be provided. d. Annexing the fro a '_, as R-8 versus R-4. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. As the Commission recommended denial, all staffs conditions of approval have been stricken. Page 9 Page 29 Item#3. VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Rezoning Exhibit(date: 9/30/2021) 4k19 & A Engineers, Inc. C90SUl kin g Englnaers & Land Surveyors 5505 West FYankl+n Rd. Boise, 3D 03705 Telephone 2{78-341 J; 113 F3131Mi3e 208.342.5792 established in 1921 Friendship Subdivision Ooundiary Description 30 September 2021 Lot 2 of Block 1 of Blythe Estates Subdivision, as shown on the elicial plat thereof on 51e in the office of the Ada County. Idaho, Recorder, being the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 30, Tcwnshlp 4 North, Range f East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Eyeing more particularly described as follows: Camrnenang at Vie northwest comer of said Section 30: thence N89'45'12"E, 2.420.71 feat along the northerly boundary of said Section 30 to the north quarter comer of said Section 30. thence S00,06'46"W, 664.69 feet along the easterly boundary of northwest quarter of said Section 30 to the northeast corner of said Lot 2, which is the Point of Beginning: Thence continwng SO4`05'46'VV, 664.69 feat along the easterly baurdary of said Lot 2 to the southeast corner of said Lot 2; Thence S89043'32'W, 658.96 feet along the southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the southwest comer of said Lot 2; Thence N00005'51'E, 664.85 feet aiorg the westerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the northwest comer of said Lot 2; Thence NS9a4+4'22'E, 659.14 feet atong the northerly boundary of said Lot 2 to the Point of Beginning. Comprising 10.058 Acres, more or less. Subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way of record or apparent. 4116 'a Proud to be Serving Page 10 Page 30 Item#3. AF Cur N 114 Cor S&C 30 Sec 30 W 2420.71' S 894451 ,Sec .30 263 397 N 690442 "E 65914' s� 49"43'32"W 656. ' 41 0 wono Sago 3 subdivision , C No Page 11 Page 31 Item#3. B. Preliminary Plat(date: '2"�2T 1Qj/2022� u:9T ERIC gg � vo —ate• M1 — — '� • ¢�I ILK — —n i .....— U .. — —# - _ L F INI3'SIYn N,�•—n I�, A'oW`.1 ^ �b•S wxi,`aT � 5. 7bF S,Cg Wl`b�8'F wa9ft X••]646� bQp'3 • 'a1S M�a+YCM 7L6' f-0V �96 pAy i�J I Imo'' s[a�SnY vw7 LIFT sd'•a5it ,g �w —tsafi l.oeihnt f 1V'Y �ir5sv�r ��n s a a e— .ra— — —�— —"�b�„�w �—� • - I am - siiR R • � �,.�� I I , ." If T i s,a,a'u• ,a,u � snra'ur Asa' t i avu'a¢'F avers• � �ruatx ,mar r ev4rx't ioaaa' . _ fff w Qa $ ' a � A1� rm• [ �Mq'itY iooaa p N 1 i1 d,! i,i7sW'� "wM ti g m seorMin Sum — j i --- j so IVN a F III 1 Page 12 Page 32 Item#3. C. Landscape Plan(date: ""�21 1/31/2022) T, 7 r a L 4 6 l�4 4 5 i +' . r �5 t � a I t + i � ilk t , WWII'FL,1T]f1•JILaL a4]IY LlL hwt{YyJ�l,b Page 13 Page 33 Item#3. D. Canal Relocation Plan(date: December 17,2021) i . re . D 0 iQ G T O D & _�• r�4 r. � +l i i� Tl .. i r El— R D- -'Aft-wow PW I J 4 ? a ( ( 0 I.. i 1. n LorJ Ciaxa3tes��nt 5e�dt2arin T�67e Lam U:rGuwlslkns Page 14 Page 34 Item#3. E. Common Open Space Exhibit(date: 12,121,12021 1/31/2022) - QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE (1 1-3G-3.B.1 A) - QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE (11-3G-3.B.1.E) �J lfVll IJ LJ 6iV#J L�U iJ 14#.+ S/1J�Vs w/ i ac+aa -�� I Q G Q TJ �e�.eetnr�amr h 3 � I +1 0 � 5 (' (D �l O p O 7 wdd� fa:=T.vin mMm ti/ V C 1 D >, I -- 1 --_ .1 +.1 Page 15 Page 35 � -� � r.F �� I � �� �_ ;f i 'i .' -- - Nu�1'I� .s � - � �. �� .. y - � . ��. �, � `�, ;� :� �_ ,_. ty� � 1� .^ ••��1 A I II F _ ��• x. _ ��� _ .fir +' ,'o." __. '1 � r� 9 V _ ��t_ ��,.�_. r 4 ' -- �!a'�,'f5.n .W, �` t .j ��' Item#3. VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A PLANNING NNTNG DlNgC'!ON Meridian,1 A Developmefft Agreement(PA) is required as a provision of apmexation of this pr-opei4y, the adoption,owner-(s) at the time of amexation or-diname developer. Guffefftly, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Appliewit to the Plaffaing Division prior-to eofumeneemefft of the PA. The PA shall be signed by the pr-opei4y owner-and r-etumed to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Gotmeil gr-anfing the annexation. The DA shall, .,t m .,to the following . a. L'.,tefe development of this site shall be generally e :stept with the .ol:m in ,y plat, o!a-n 1s.ape.. a .a ,l ptu al building ing elevations for-the single family dwelli ffgs ifieluded i C'ee fi,n 3,11 a-a the provisions .fta �o l her-ein. b. Prior-to City Engineer-signatwe on a fiaa4 plat,the e*isting home shall be e. Pr-ier-te signatefe on the final plat,the e�Eisting home will be r-equir-ed to va the o isti ffg aeeess t AT !`1,inde,, Bivd via AT Riles Dane T and take . thr-ough the pfoposed Friendship Subdivision via the proposed E. LeekhaA iff aesewith UPC 11 314 4. > > is approved with the following b. One of the lots shovffi as Lots 1 4 of Bloek 2 shall be eliminated and the r-emaining 3 le be sized a-ad oriented to be eonsistent with Lets 1 3,Bleek 35 ef the Sapar-o Gaff-Yen e. Lets 1 10,Bleek 1 along the eastem perimeter-shall be eanfigur-ed so the pr-opei4y lines align with Lets n 11,T2loek 10 i the Hightower-Subd yisi,., t the east d. The plat notes hall inelude that Cefumeftbetl eek 1, Lot of BloekTbet 9 of the sWadivisien 1.ef eevffiefs asseeiatien in aeeordlt,. rTGr 3G-3-C 3. Pr-iE)r-to City Couneil,the Landseape Plan dated September-24, 2021 ineluded in Seeiien , dated 919#2 shall be revised as f lbws-. a. All pathways shall be 4ndseaped in aeeefd with UDG 11 3B 12 OR appliea-fit shall allow the r-equir-ed trees to be planted within theif easement. b. To be eensistent with the pfeliminafy plat in that ifrigation easements wider-than ten(10) feet be included in a common lot that is a mininium of twenty(20) feet wide and outsid of a f reed Page 17 Page 37 Item#3. e. Details of the pfoposed amenities shall be ineluded on the!a-ndseape pla-m. d. The plan shall note all e*istiog trees eligible for-pfesefvation andlef the City Ar-bor-ist's reeo elida4ienfe t}ga4ie e ed by T DG 11 3B 10 . , • r DG 1 1 3B c tt, i t mG 1 1 1� vz�r��-�-cki� ziiiki�3�e1}c'H�C� efe9 3e crrnrvvczT > > • t".,,afds as set fet4h i UDC 11 3 n 7 n 7 11 3 n aa-ad11 3B 1 r W. Gemply with A bulk,tise, and developmen4 standards of the R 8 zoning distfiet listed in UPC Table 11 7 A 6 driveways,12. The development shali eomply with A subdivision design a-ad impr-ovement sta-Rdafds as set easefRefits,bloeks, stfeet bttff-er-s, and mailbox placement. 11 3C 6 f single family detached dwellings based o the number o4'bedfooms per „:t e ., fifi 1 pla4: "eeora with UPC 11 6B 7, the proposed subdivision.The new address will be deter-mined at the time the final B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SiTl~ SpEciFic CONDITIONS: 3. Sewer-to the nefth mast end in a ma-ahele and preferably be in the Right of Way. if it is not ifl. the Right of Way it must have a 14 fbot wide aeeess read tha4 is biiilt pef City standaMs. 4. Sewer-mains mus!4 a fniniffmfn have 3 foot of eo3ver-above the-pipe. This is not met with Page 18 Page 38 Item#3. these r-eeowimenda4ions.- GENER A r CONDITIONS (markedApplieafft shall eoor-dinme wa4er-and sewer-main size and r-outingwith the Publie WE)Fks provide set=viee outside of a publie right of way. MiniffiUm eaver-ever-sewer-Mains is thfee feet, if eover-fFem top of pi-pe to sub gr-ade is less dian dffee feet than altemate matefials shaI4 be used in eenfet:manee of City of Meridian Public Works Depaftments Standar- 2. Per-Nler-idian City Code (NICC),the applieant shall be r-espensible to insta4l sewer-and wa mains to a-ad thfough this development. Applieant may be eligible fer-a r-eimbtifseme 3. The appliewit shall provide easement(s) fer-all publie watefAewer-mains otAside of publie right ef way(inelude a4l watef serviees and hydr-af4s). The easement widths shall be 20 feet wide for-a single utility, or-30 feet wide for-two. The easements shall not be de atted vi-Au fbi:ms. The easement shall be gr-aphieally depieted on the plat for-fefer-enee puTeses. S-Hbmit prepared by an Mahe Lieensed Pr-ofessional Land Surveyor-,w-hieh ffms!inelude the afea of the easement (m -ke EXHIBIT B) F f:fe iew Both exhibits must be sealed, a and d to.l 1..,., Pf:ofes:sional Land C"=yeyei. DO NOT D1~'(`ORD. Add a fiete-to the plat f4er-eneingtmv plan appr-evaL seiffee of orate CG9-1 28.G). The appheant should be required tee any existing available, single point eonneetion to the eulinafy water-system shall be r-e"ir-ed. if a single point eenneetion is titilized,the developef will be fespensibie for-the payment of assessments fe theeommon easpr- to prior-to fveeiving development..la . .,1 5. All existing stfuettifes that are r-eqttifed to be removed shall be pr-ier-to signattife oft the fi plat by the City Engineer, Any stmetefes that are allowed to remain sha4l be stiblieet te evalua,tion and possible r-eassigpmefft of street addressing to be i .,. — MCC. ef:ossing or-laying adjaeent and eentiguous!a the afea being subdivided shall be addr-essea -per-UPC 11 3A 6. In pe4ofming sueh wedi,the applieapA shall eemply with 1daho Code 42 7. Aft),wells that will fie!eentinue to be used must be-pr-oper-ly abandoned aeear-ding to ld- Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the idaho Department of Wate 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 eentinue to be used, a provide r-eeor-d of their-abandonment. Page 19 Page 39 Item#3. 8. Any existing septie systems within this pfejeet shall be femoved from sevviee pef Gi Ordinance Section 9 1 4 and 9 4 8. Gentaet GepAr-al Distriet Health for-abandefffnent 9. Stfeet signs afe to be in plaee, sa-nitafy sewef a-ad water-system shall be appfeved an aetiva4ed,read base appfoved by the Ada GotH#y Highway Distfiet and the Final Plat for-this subdivision shall be o prior- o 0 =eftc g, ' adse-apifig, amenities, eicpriof:to signature on the fifial plat W. All improvements related te ptiblie life, safety and health shall be eempleted prior-to oeeupa*ey of the sir-uetuf:es. Where appf:oved by the City Engineer-, a*&�N%ef:may post inspection fees, as deteffnined during the plan review. to the issumee of a plan approval letter, with the Amefiea-ms with Disabilities Aet a-ad the Fair-l4eiising Aet-. 15. Developer-shall eeor-difiate mailbox loe4ions with the Mer-idia-a Post Off4ee--. building pad . . — ,ineer-ed baekfill,wher-e footing would si!a4ep fill fnater-ial. 17. The design efigineer-shall be r-e"ir-ed te eet4ify that the street eentefline elevatiens afe se minimufn of 3 feet above the highest established pea-k gr-oundwa4er-elev4ion. This is to enstife thM the bottom elev4ion of the or-awl spaees of homes is 4 least 1 feet above. drainage f4eility within this pr-ej eet t44 do not fall tiodet:the jufisdietion of an iffigatio installed in aeeer-da-nee with the appfeved design pla-as. This eeftifieatien will be r-e"ir-e per-the City ef Meridian Au4eCAD standards. These feeor-d drawings ffmst be r-eeeived a pr-ejeet. 20. A stfeet li&plan will need to be ineluded in the eivil eoastFuetion plans. Stfeet ligk plan Page 20 Page 40 Item#3. eepy f the sr.,mod -ds n be f,,,tea � 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 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.meridiancily.oEglWebLinkIDocView.gApx?id=242560&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC hty D. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243210&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC ky E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=243227&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC iv Page 21 Page 41 Item#3. IX. FINDINGS A. ANNEXATION AND/OR REZONE (UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds annexation of the subject site with an R-8 zoning designation is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan MDR FLUM designationfor this property. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Commission finds the lot sizes and layout proposed will be consistent with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that 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; Commission finds that the proposed zoning map amendment would be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Commission recommends the Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city The proposed annexation meets the medium density designation of the Future Land Use Map and the applicable provisions of the Unified Development Code. However, Commission believes R-4 zoning is more appropriate and that more functional open space should be provided. Therefore, the Commission finds the application is not in the best interest of the City. B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(UDC 11-6B-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) Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies with the conditions of approval in Section VII. Page 22 Page 42 Item#3. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to accommodate the proposed development. 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital improvement program; Commission 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; Commission 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 Commission finds the proposed development will 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) There are no significant natural, scenic or historic features on the property. Page 23 Page 43 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll 7/tem 77 E IDIAN'-'---- JAMu AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1969: An Ordinance (H-2021-0066— Red Aspen) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Lying in the NW % of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Ada County, Idaho, and Being More Particularly Described in Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City Of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 2.99 Acres of Land from RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of this Ordinance Shall Be Filed With the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Page 58 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-016420 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 02/16/2022 09:16 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1969 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (H-2021-0066—RED ASPEN) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN THE NW 1/4 OF SECTION 24,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE I WEST, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTEDTHE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 2.99 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO C-G (GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY C , AND THE IDAHOSTATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING ; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"are within the corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit:Aspen Grove Holdings, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from RUT to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Red Aspen(H 2O21-0066) Page 1 of 3 SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be, and the same is hereby,dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 15th day of February 2022 APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 15th day of February , 2022. ATTEST: MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 15th day of February ,2022,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Red Aspen(H 2O21-0066) Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT A A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps TEALEY'S LAND 12594 W.Explorer Drive,Suite 150 •Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEYING (208)385-0636 a] Fax(208)385-D596 Project. No.:4855 Date:July 30,2021 DESCRIPTION FOR ANNEXATION PARCEL-ASPEN GROVE HOLDINGS,LLC A parcel of land lying in the NW 114 of Section 24,T.3N.,R-1 W.,B.M-,Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the Northwest comer of said Section 24, thence along the North boundary of said Section 24 South 89°07'25"East 327.10 feet to a point on the extended West boundary of Record of Survey No 0277, filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under Instrument No. 112056125; thence along said extended West boundary and along the West boundary of said Record of Survey No.9227 South 00°41'26 West 397.51 feet to the Southwest corner of said Record of Survey No.9227,marked by a 518"iron pin;thence North 89'33'34"West 327.10 feet to a point on the West boundary of said NW 114 of Section 24;thence along said West boundary North 00°41'26"East 400.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, Said parcel contains 2.99 acres,more or less. t 347 d A. Red Aspen H-2021-0066 WVWWT1WR.P.MQes —O .tl -Jtl EXHIBIT B 14 13 WEST OVERLAND ROAD(PUBLIC R/W VARIES) 89*07'25' E 327A0Y 110L—E S5 7 4Ir __* 24 ---------------------------- ------ ---------7---------------------- ----------- /V 53 IL 01 *1 of 3 < La ------------------------------------------------- 4x �D I N 7 0 2.99 ACRES -2 T N 89r:33 74-7—W ANNEXA-FION EXHtr3i7- FoR !J ASPEN QROVE 1-40L-PfNQ.5, LLC k LANb A PORTION OF THE NW 1/4, SECTION 24, T.3N., RAW, B.M,, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 29124 34 4? �> TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING 12594 W.EXPLORER DRIVE.SUITE (SO 208-385-0636 BOISE,ID. 8:37r3 DATE!7/9C/21 PRGXCT�4865 Red Aspen H-2021-0066 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY: William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho,hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public. 1 William L. M. Nary, City Attorney i i SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1969 An Ordinance (H-2021-0066 —Red Aspen) for annexation of a parcel of land lying in the NW 1/4 of Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Ada County, Idaho and being more particularly described in the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 2.99 acres of land from RUT to C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)Zoning District in the Meridian City Code.;providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor,the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue,Meridian,Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary. [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.] ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Red Aspen(H 2O21-0066) Page 4 of 3