2022-02-22 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Mayor Robert E. Simison
ABSENT
Councilman Luke Cavener
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
PROCLAMATIONS \[Action Item\]
1. Black History Month
RESOLUTIONS \[Action Item\]
2. Resolution No. 22-2315: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City
of Meridian, Appointing Patrick Grace to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission; and Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095) by Goldstream, Located
at 3330 E. Victory Rd. Approved
A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-
124424) to update the conceptual development plan to include a daycare
facility instead of a retail use and removal of the 3-story office building in
favor of a smaller retail/office building.
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
4. Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd., in the Southeast Corner of N.
Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. Approved
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-
C (2.1 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 single-family building lots, 1
multi-family residential lot, 1 commercial lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres
of land.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for an 18-unit multi-family project.
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
Voting Nay: Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault
DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\]
5. Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the Amount
of $5,000.00 for Central District Health Partnership for Success Mini Grant
Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
6. Parks and Recreation Department: Meridian Parks and Recreation Master Plan
Update Findings Summary
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
7. Ordinance No. 22-1970: An Ordinance (Woodcrest Townhomes H-2021-0015 -
Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest ¼ of the
Southeast ¼ of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho, and Also Being a Portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision, as
Shown in Book 87 of Plats on Pages 9881 through 9883, Records of Ada County,
Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 2.10
Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District to R-15 (Medium-High
Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that
Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and
Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the
Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
8. Ordinance No. 22-1971: An Ordinance (Apex East Subdivision - H-2021-0086
Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a
Portion of the Southwest ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 5, Township 2 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining
the Land Use Zoning Classification of 32.21 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low
Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning
District in the Meridian City Code; Providing That Copies of this Ordinance Shall be
Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State
Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the
Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an
Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 9:16 pm
Item#2.
Meridian City Council February 22, 2022.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday,
February 22, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad
Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Members Absent: Luke Cavener.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Jeff Brown, Joe Bongiorno and Dean
Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
_X_ Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will call the meeting to order. For the record it is Tuesday, February
22, 2022, at 6:01 p.m. We will begin this evening's 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, which will be delivered by Pastor
Drake --Troy Drake this evening. If you would all, please, join us in the invocation or take
this as a moment silence and reflection. Pastor.
Drake: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. Would you pray with me. Lord God,
was just reminded in Psalm 4 that it says there are many who say who will show us any
good and that's a little short sighted, God, as you know, that there is plenty of good. We
thank you for this great country that we have, that we have this -- despite all of its faults,
Lord, we have freedom in our country and -- and we can pursue life and liberty here.
Lord, we thank you for our state and this great city that we live in and -- and, God, I just
pray for our first responders here tonight, the people who keep us safe, the police officers
and firefighters and paramedics, Lord, we pray that not only do they help us, but you
would keep them out of harm's way tonight and -- and, Lord, it's cold and so we are
thinking about those who are homeless and who need things. Lord, here we are tonight
Page 25
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 2- —
and we -- we have food in our stomachs and a warm place and -- and people who love
us and we just -- our heart breaks for those who don't have those things, so we just
prayed, God, that they would find their place to a church or -- or a shelter or a friend or a
relative or someone who could provide safety and help for them and, of course, last, but
not least, Lord, pray for this Council meeting tonight, the business that they will cover,
that you would give these servants for us wisdom and they would be able to, you know,
accomplish what you set before them and we just appreciate them, God, and pray that
you would impart your grace upon them and we pray all these things in your name, Lord,
amen. Thank you.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Thank you. Next item up is the adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We don't have any changes tonight for the agenda, so I move approval of the
-- of the adoption of the agenda as published.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the agenda as published. Is there
any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have
it and the agenda is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
PROCLAMATIONS [Action Item]
1. Black History Month
Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move on to Item 1 this evening, which is a
proclamation for Black History Month. Councilman Bernt, would you like to join me at the
podium for this.
Bernt: Sure.
Simison: And we will invite President Taylor from the NAACP to join us at the podium as
Page 26
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 3— —
well. So, we are here tonight to do a proclamation for Black History Month and I asked
Council President Bernt to join me down here, because this is really about the relationship
that we have been building together with President Taylor, members of the NAACP and
others in the community of -- whether it's the Hispanic chamber or others, following the
actions from a couple of years ago and so it's really borne of a friendship, a partnership,
a relationship, one that's overdue for a coffee, as President Taylor reminded me earlier,
from that standpoint. But during the proclamation --we did our first one last year for Black
History Month and we are happy to do it again. So, with that we will go ahead and read
the proclamation. Whereas during Black History Month we honor and celebrate the many
achievements and contributions made by African Americans to our economic, cultural,
spiritual and political development and whereas Black History Month grew out of the
establishment in 1926 of Negro History Week by Carter G. Woodson and the Association
for the Study of African American Life and History and whereas the 2022 national theme
for the observance is Black Health and Wellness, which considers activities, rituals, and
initiatives that black communities have done to be well and whereas the observance of
Black History Month encourages our community to understand and acknowledge the lives
of all of its African American citizens and live up to our democratic ideals and whereas we
are able to live better lives and have a brighter future thanks to the contributions that have
been made of African Americans in our community, state, and nation. Therefore, I, Mayor
Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim February 22nd as Black History Month in the City of
Meridian and encourage the residents of our community and communities across the
country to learn more about and celebrate the diverse heritage and culture of African
Americans and continue our efforts to create a world that is more just, peaceful, and
prosperous for all. Dated this 22nd day of February 2022. With that, President Taylor,
invite you to say any words and, then, we will do some pictures after that.
Taylor: Thank you, Mayor and this -- and this deliberative body of the city for your
recognition. Some of you may not know, but I was here a few years ago to receive this
proclamation and at that time I spoke to the fact that Meridian was the first city, to my
knowledge, in the state of Idaho, to acknowledge or help Black History Month in this city.
In my religious efforts I deal a lot on faith. So, I think it took a lot of faith for the Mayor
and this deliberative body to step out and become the first to recognize Black History
Month in this great state of Idaho, even though Idaho as a state recognizes it. I would
like to report to you tonight that as I speak there is another city in Idaho that decided to
step out in faith with you and that is the city of Caldwell. It's amazing that we look at what
happened a few years ago as simply being a simple recognition to the African American
community. It was a great step. It was an ambitious step and I'm sure a step that was
not viewed by all, but all came together to make it happen and you did it again this year
and somewhere along the line someone else in Idaho got a message and felt that why
don't we do the same and I am honored -- truly honored of my friendship with the Mayor
and Treg here -- even though he gets me into all kind of trouble. But then I hear the Mayor
say he gets everybody into trouble that he surrounds -- that you would come again and
ask me to be here and as I close out one, I leave you with this thought in mind. What if
-- what if the African American contribution had been recognized and celebrated during
those years that it happened, then, we would not have to have a month to celebrate
African American history, because it would have been American history. In fact, that is
Page 27
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 4- —
what it is. American history. And we wouldn't have to study Critical Race Theory, things
that seem to divide the country while we, in the City of Meridian, are trying to bring the
community together. So, what if -- and, again, I want to thank you, Mayor, thank you,
Treg, for bringing this to your deliberate body and I can assure you the African American
Community in Meridian and all over Idaho thanks you for that step of faith. Thank you.
Bernt: Sorry, Mayor, I have a cough, but, you know, I -- it's a privilege to stand before you
today and, honestly, I would -- I would call it from a great leader in -- in our -- in our US
History, John Lewis, he -- I think he called it good trouble.
Taylor: Yeah.
Bernt: That's what -- that's what you are talking about; right?
Taylor: That's right. That's right.
Bernt: Look, all -- all kidding aside, you know, President Taylor is just not a true leader in
the African American community, he is a true leader in Meridian and the friendship that
we have been able to develop over the last couple years has been awesome and I really
truly appreciate you and the others who we meet at -- yep. Absolutely. And -- and it's --
you guys -- it's just -- it's been an absolute pleasure and I thank you from the bottom of
my heart for all that you do, for, you know, the -- the -- to talk about all the
accomplishments of the African American community in our city.
Taylor: Thank you.
Bernt: Thank you.
RESOLUTIONS [Action Item]
2. Resolution No. 22-2315: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City
Council of the City of Meridian, Appointing Patrick Grace to Seat 6 of
the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission; and Providing an
Effective Date
Simison: Thank you, Council. With that we will move on to Item No. 2 this evening, which
is Resolution No. 22-2315. This is appointing Patrick Grace to Seat 6 of the Meridian
Planning and Zoning Commission. As I mentioned when we did the previous
appointments to -- the other commissions, including Planning and Zoning, I had teased
that I would be bringing Patrick's name before you to replace Bill Cassinelli on the
commission, who I attended his last meeting last week and he -- he provided his notice.
But when we were going through with Commissioner Seal we felt that Patrick would give
a good rounding out of the committee with the loss of Ronda, with Bill Cassinelli, both
from, you know-- fit --fit with the commission, location where you lived, knowledge of the
city, involvement in his local HOA as Paramount and in that area. Being an attorney I
think -- you know, Councilman Borton can agree or disagree, but I think it brings a -- a
Page 28
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 5— —
nice skill set to Planning and Zoning that can help them with their processes and forming
those decisions. But it was really the answer -- I don't want to give away my questions
that I ask for future applicants, because I don't want people tailoring their answers picking
up on what I say, but, needless to say, the comments that he made about negotiation
skills, views on personal property rights versus community rights, how he approaches
issues and challenges that he faces that I think he will -- he will just bring a great addition
to the P&Z, so they can effectively engage and communicate back and forth as necessary
with our community as applications come forward. So, he is in the room this evening, but
he doesn't get to speak until after he has accepted the job -- or you have agreed to give
him the job, unless you have any questions for him. So, with that I would put this before
you for your consideration.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move we approve Resolution No. 22-2315, appointing Patrick Grace to Seat
6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission.
Strader: Second.
Bernt: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Resolution No. 22-2315. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the resolution is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Patrick, would you like to come forward and make any comments?
Grace: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I just wanted to
say thank you all very much for the opportunity to serve. I have lived in Meridian for about
16 years now and it's a great community and over the last couple of years or so I have
been thinking about ways I can give back and apply for a few positions on some
commissions and this one came up and I was pleased to talk to the Mayor about that and,
hopefully, bring some of my skill set and experience to bear and, yeah, for the good of the
-- of the community. So, I appreciate it very much. I'm looking forward to giving back.
Thank you.
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095) by
Goldstream, Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd.
A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst.
Page 29
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 6 of 55
#2019-124424) to update the conceptual development plan to
include a daycare facility instead of a retail use and removal of the 3-
story office building in favor of a smaller retail/office building.
Simison: Thank you, Patrick. With that, Council, we will move on to our public hearings
for this evening. First up is Item No. 3, a public hearing for Inglewood Commercial, H-
2021-0095. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Commission -- Council. Sorry. Got me
on the Commission now. I'm filling in for Sonya tonight. She had an obligation she could
not get out of, so I'm covering this project for her, so be a little nice on this one. You can
bash me on the next one. This is for Inglewood Commercial. It is for a development
agreement modification. The site consists of approximately nine acres of land, located at
the northeast corner of Eagle and Victory Roads. It's zoned C-C and R-15, with the C-C
zoning being adjacent to Eagle Road. It is designated as mixed use community on the
future land use designation. The applicant proposes to modify the existing DA that is
currently in effect with the property, simply to update the concept plan approved for the
overall development. The existing plan depicts a mix of uses, including a residential care
facility with single family attached homes for independent living on the east portion of the
site in the R-15 zoning district, with an office pad and three retail commercial pads along
Eagle Road on the west half of the site -- about the western third. No changes to the
retirement community or the two retail commercial buildings at the southwest corner --
southwest corner of the site are proposed, except to enlarge the northern building pad
and include office as a potential use. In fact, the senior living facility minimally -- I'm not
entirely sure about the attached homes, but minimally the senior living facility is already
under construction. The very southwest corner of the site is planned to develop with a
drive-through restaurant use, more than likely a coffee shop, with indoor and outdoor
seating. Three story office building that is proposed to be removed, because there is not
adequate space for the building. There is a serious in the middle of the roadway and
through the building, which is depicted on the plan. A daycare is proposed in place of the
northern retail pad. The applicant's narrative states that walkways are planned from the
daycare to the senior living as part of the plan for the daycares for the children to go and
visit some of the seniors as well. In the existing development -- no. Sorry. The proposed
development plan includes a mix of residential and commercial users, demonstrates
compliance with the mixed use community designation in the comp plan for this site. The
proposed uses would provide employment opportunities and services for those living
nearby. I didn't also mention that the office pad shown on the existing concept plan would
not be able to be parked per our standards, which is another reason why they are
proposing to remove it. It was a little ambitious in the original development plan. Existing
DA will ensure supportive and proportionate -- and proportional public and/or quasi-public
spaces, including plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, et cetera that will be
provided within the mixed use and -- and/or the commercial component of the site. Staff
does recommend approval of this. There was only one piece of written testimony, which
was from the applicant representative and they are in agreement with the staff report.
And I will stand for any questions.
Page 30
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page , — —
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant here?
Is there anything you would like to add at this time? Please come forward. State your
name and address for the record. You are recognized for 15 minutes.
Petersen: Good evening, Mayor and City Council Members. I'm Jim Petersen. Address
6609 Old Mill Circle, Salt Lake City, Utah. So, when we purchased this property -- it's
been a few years ago now -- our main motive was to build and develop a continuum of
care, kind of an age-in-place concept senior living. Like a lot of in-fills we had quite a few
challenges with this, but I think that as a mixed use site it's shaping up really well. So,
just a little bit -- don't know if this works at all. No. Okay. So, if you look at the existing
plan, we put the senior facility in the middle, put the cottage homes -- basically twin homes
to the east to buffer between the eastern neighborhood. So, all that part of the site is
under construction and will be opening in a couple months and it's strong great demand,
so we are -- we are leasing about twice as fast as our schedule was. So, that's all -- all
stays the same and there is no changes to that. Honestly, we didn't put a lot of thought
into the commercial part. We knew we had to do commercial along Eagle and the original
development agreement -- agreement -- I think we were, yes, definitely a little too
ambitious with the three story office building and three more office pads. There is quite a
few easements here, too. We have the McDonald's now going through the property. We
have an easement directly in from the -- from the -- the Main Street off of Eagle. So, it
will come straight through -- actually goes through the middle of that building. Yes, there
is an easement there. Fifteen foot easement on the north border and, then, there will be
another easement to connect the parking lot or what we plan on developing in case the
property to the north gets developed commercial the city wanted to have an ability to -- to
connect those commercial parcels, which completely makes sense. So, what we have
so far -- so, to fit all this in and meet our parking, our 25 foot setbacks all the way around,
our open space -- yeah, it wasn't even -- even close. So, what we are proposing to do is
to get rid of the three story office building. If you remember I was here a little while -- a
few months ago and we got approval for the corner coffee shop Starbucks use and so
that stays the same. The pad right to the north of it, that's small, I don't know what to use
will be there yet. Hopefully -- I don't know. Bank. Retail. And, then, the northern part --
we have that under contract for a daycare and that's -- that's another change in the
development agreement. So, two things in the development agreement that we need to
modify. Get rid of the three story building and it doesn't spell out the use daycare in our
-- in our current DA, it's retail, professional, restaurant. But it doesn't spell out daycare.
So, that gives us our mixed use and, yeah, we have connecting paths throughout the --
throughout the whole development and -- yeah. Open for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you very much. I don't -- Mr. Clerk,
do we have anyone signed up in advance on this?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do not.
Simison: Okay. Is there any -- anybody in the audience that would like to provide
testimony on this item or anybody online that would like to provide testimony? If you are
online use the raise-your-hand feature. If you are in the audience and would like to
Page 31
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 8 of 05
provide testimony, go ahead and come up to the podium at this time. Seeing no one
online or in the audience, would you like to make any additional final comments? Okay.
Then, Council, we will turn it over to you for questions, comments, or actions.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Quick question for Joe. He had mentioned that the -- the concept plan -- we
show daycare, but it's a retail office facility of some sort, so that's -- it's not required to be
daycare in this DA?
Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, my understanding is it's not that specific, which is fine.
It's an allowed use in the C-C -- well, I should say conditional use in the C-C zoning
district, which I believe they have already submitted for that and they are just waiting for
this DA mod to be -- move forward in order to change the concept plan overall. Not
necessarily the use proposed.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault?
Perreault: Yes.
Simison: Okay.
Perreault: Thank you. I have a question for the applicant, please.
Simison: Okay. He's coming forward.
Perreault: Thank you. So, all in all I don't think I have any concerns regarding the two
proposed changes to the development agreement, but I'm just curious what the
integration will be like for pedestrian activity for the subdivision that's to the east. That's
a pretty signature subdivision there in Sutherland Farms, so how will this kind of integrate
into the surrounding residential there on the east side? I don't see any walkways that are
coming over or any information about that.
Petersen: Yeah. So, we don't have the ability to, I don't believe, have a walkway from
the development directly to the neighborhood to the east, with the exception of the
sidewalk that we will be putting in along Victory Road. So, for people in that subdivision
to the east to get to our development you would have to go along the sidewalk on Victory
Road. That's the only connection that we are planning at this point.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Page 32
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 9- —
Perreault: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Council -- yes, Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. Can you take us through the circulation with the daycare. The
entrance that's there along Eagle Road on the south side of the daycare, is that a right-
in, right-out and how will that traffic flow?
Petersen: Yes. Off of Eagle Road that is a right-in, right-out only.
Perreault: And so will individuals come in and then -- oh, they will come in that way to --
too pick up from a daycare and, then, exit out sidestreet then?
Petersen: So, they can exit onto Eagle and make a right or they could draw through the
parking lot and connect onto Titanium and that's a full access.
Perreault: Okay. So, there isn't concern about them flowing through near the -- the senior
living facility --
Petersen: No.
Perreault: -- evidently or --
Petersen: No. That's why we have the access -- originally we had the access to the north
of the facility and, you know, years ago before we did the development of the facility we
moved it to the south kind of for that purpose and the other thing that the city has really
paid attention to is -- you will see Titanium will be a through street. So, right now it's just
dead ending to the north of our property and also the parking lot we are going dead end
into the property to the northwest, because it's only a matter of time until that gets
developed, which traffic -- got to give more option for traffic to flow that way.
Perreault: Thank you.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council Woman Perreault did ask a lot of my questions,
but could -- I see here where there is like a covered parking -- it says parking garage. But
I was just hoping -- could you walk me through the pedestrian connectivity? The existing
concept plan called out some crosswalks, but is there going to be a -- maybe walk me
through the pedestrian plan.
Petersen: Yeah. I wish that was on the side. I'm just noticing that that's not on this plan.
There is -- so, where you see that long parking garage, that's what it is is a garage. They
are separated and there is a walkway through there and, then, there is a walkway to the
north -- along the north property lot and -- or I shouldn't say the line, but, yes, along there
and, then, there is walking to the south also. There is -- there is connections there. So,
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 10 of 55
there is quite a few connections through there around the site.
Strader: And, Mr. Mayor, thank you. I appreciate you answering those questions. And I
appreciate -- of course, it could change, but appreciate that there is a daycare located
here and that's a huge need right now in our community.
Petersen: Yeah. That's what I hear. I mean I know they have done the studies and when
we did the senior living sites it's amazing demand for both and they work well together. I
mean side note is is where my kids go to school in Salt Lake is right beside a senior place
and they connect a lot. Like they go over there and, you know, preschool and stuff, do --
sing for them and do events and it -- it's a positive thing for -- for both. Yeah.
Simison: Joe, did you have something you wanted to add?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to add a little bit to the connectivity and the -- or
should say the plan connectivity. Not just along Victory, but as the applicant noted,
Titanium will wind up being moved north and connect all the way through to the north, but
also to Publisher there. These were already existing back fences, so you can't have
pedestrian connectivity through private property there, so there will be another pedestrian
vehicular connection should this property or these properties be developed in the future,
which my understanding is there has been a few pre-application meetings on this site
already. So, there is something maybe coming down the pipeline to help with the overall
connectivity of pedestrians, as well as vehicular.
Simison: Thank you, Joe.
Dodson: You are welcome.
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm happy to kick us off and move that we close the public hearing.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed no? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 11 of 55
Strader: Happy to make a motion on this. I think it -- that the changes are maybe more
realistic than was originally envisioned, but it feels like it's a good fit for this part of our
community. So, I would move that after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony that we approve File No. H-2021-0095 as presented in the staff report for
today's hearing date.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2021-0095. Is there any
discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you. Have a good
evening.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG
Group Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd., in the
Southeast Corner of N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with a
request for CC (2.1 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 single-family building
lots, 1 multi-family residential lot, 1 commercial lot, and 2 common
lots on 8.8 acres of land.
C. Request:A Conditional Use Permit for an 18-unit multi-family project.
Simison: Next item up is a public hearing for Lennon Pointe Community, H-2021-0071.
We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The next project before you for Lennon Pointe
Community requests annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and conditional use permit.
They also submitted for private street application, which is an administrative approval and
the director has offered approval of that private street. The site consists of 8.8 acres of
land, currently zoned RUT. It's located at the southeast corner of Linder and Ustick. Does
not have any application history with the city currently other than this. And the future land
use designation on the site is also mixed use community, which allows residential uses
with a density -- gross density of six to 15 units per acre. The request for annexation is
for 10.4 acres of land, two acres of C-C, and 8.3 acres of R-15. The additional acreage
accounts for the -- well, require acreage to go to the center line of the road. The
preliminary plat consists of 44 building lots, 43 single family residential, and one multi-
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page —of 55
family residential lot and one commercial lot and two common lots on the 8.8 acres of
land in the C-C and R-15 zoning districts. The conditional use permit before you tonight
is for a multi-family development that consists of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the
R-15 zoning district. They requested R-15. Again, the applicant has received approval
in a portion of the project. The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning in all
directions around it. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by arterial streets.
Development of the surrounding areas are ongoing with detached single family to the east
and south in Creason Creek Subdivision. Multiple office buildings are being constructed
to the north across Ustick Road within -- within the C-C zoning district. The C-C zoning
district to the west contains an ambulance service on the west side of Linder Road. In
addition to the existing land uses around the property, the subject site contains two major
waterways, which you can see more clearly on the map on the right aerial. This big one
here, as well as this one. This is the Kellogg Drain and this is the lateral, but I can't
remember what happened to the other map. Because of the two waterways almost the
entire property is within a floodplain. The applicant is proposing to pipe the drain and
reroute it to make more area of the site usable, as well as provide open space and
pathways in the southwest corner of the site and along the west boundary. The proposed
land uses are attached single family townhomes, multi-family, and commercial. These
land uses are consistent with those outlined in the mixed use community future land use
designation, both in its definition and the contemplated uses within its purpose statement,
especially when they are properly integrated internally, as well as with the surrounding
uses -- surrounding areas. Overall staff does find the proposed site design offers
appropriate integration. Specifically the applicant has proposed their multi-family
residential along Ustick and the commercial buildings on the hard corner of Ustick and
Linder, which places the most intense uses closest to the arterials, which is generally
Planning 101. Therefore, the single family uses are proposed in the remaining area of
this site, which makes up approximately 70 percent of the site. The applicant is proposing
the single family portion of this site is all two story, except for the five unit townhomes
along Linder, which would be these right here. In addition to the site design and proposed
uses, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the mixed use
community designate. Again, six to 15. Based on the 8.8 acres, the proposed project is
approximately 7.3 units per acre. If you take out the commercial area it bumps it up to a
little over eight that the gross density allow. Overall staff finds that the project is consistent
with the comp plan, as well as the future land use designation. Staff did recommend that
the units along the east boundary, which is shown on this map, that they be frontloaded.
They were originally proposed as alley loaded utilizing the public street as an alley, rather
than the front street. So, there used to be a walkway here. They removed that as was
recommended by staff and these are just going to be backyards abutting backyards. So,
it should be more private than a walkway and people trying to enter their front doors. The
following site data is also relevant when reviewing the preliminary plat overall. The
residential uses are allowed uses with an R-15 zoning district and future commercial uses
will be analyzed when those future applications are submitted. Again, they are requesting
C-C zoning, which is not the general commercial. A few more restrictions in that zone.
All dimensional standards are met with the proposed preliminary plat. The commercial
and the multi-family meets all the dimensional standards, as well as all of these building
lots within the single family area of the site. The -- in terms of the multi-family specific
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page —of 55
use standards, each multi-family unit is proposed as a single story unit within two
buildings. It appears there are nine buildings in each unit. So, three, three and three. It's
a three story building. The multi-units have been -- the multi-family units have been
revised. So, the -- the amount of private open space has not been confirmed, but the
previous one had more than what was required of the 80 square feet and in the future
certificate of zoning compliance staff will ensure that those --that minimum 80 square feet
is met. For the 18 units at least two amenities from two categories in code are required.
The applicant has proposed a shared plaza -- really, two at this point. One here and one
here. And public art, which is in this shared plaza here. Therefore exceeding the
minimum code requirements. Overall for the plat a minimum of ten percent qualified open
space is required. This is from the old code, because it was submitted prior to the recent
update. Based on the proposed plat of 8.75 acres a minimum of .88 acres of qualified
open space should be provided. According to the applicant's revised open space exhibit,
approximately 1 .7 acres of qualified open space is proposed, which is approximately 19
and a half percent. Almost twice the minimum amount. The majority of this open space
consists of a large open space in the southwest corner of the site. The central meeting
and half of the arterial street buffers, which are allowed to count per code. Again, this
area vastly exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Staff finds that this proposal open
space is adequate in both its amount, as well as location. Also based on area of the plat
a minimum of one qualified amenity is required to be provided. The applicant proposed
three qualified amenities. A ten foot multi-use pathway, a children's play structure, and a
fenced dog park. This is one of the changes that was also made at the Commission
hearing -- between the Commission hearings. Move the dog park here. They are going
to connect a multi-use pathway in this location as well and they extended it all the way up
along the west boundary when they are not required to and all of the pedestrian
connections through here is also important. The proposed amenities, therefore, exceed
the minimum UDC standards. The applicant has proposed, as I noted, pedestrian
facilities throughout the entire site with attached sidewalks, micropaths, and the multi-use
pathway. All these facilities connect and integrate throughout the site and offer more than
adequate pedestrian circulation. All proposed sidewalks and pathways meet UDC
requirements as well. The project exceeds the off-street parking requirements per the
submitted plans. Future building permits for the single family will verify compliance of off-
street parking as each building permit comes in. Guest parking has been proposed along
the private street segment of the project as well. The applicant has a better exhibit than
I do to show that. Access to the site is from the adjacent arterials, as well as the existing
stub streets to the property. Linder Road there is an access proposed -- there is an
existing access to remain. A 25 foot wide driveway connection, which is here. It aligns
with the access on the west side. It is a temporary full access per ACHD, because the
access on the west side for the ambulance service is a full access. So, my understanding
is that if they limit the access to one side, they will limit to both and they don't intend to
limit the ambulance service. The access to Ustick is the same, but it will be -- it is already
going to be restricted as a right-in, right-out only. The other access points to the site are
from existing public street connections. West Pebblestone along the north, I believe, and,
then, North Zion Park Avenue from the south. So, that this segment of the project is the
public street and that also meets our ACHD requirements of 33 feet wide within 47 feet of
right of way, with five foot attached sidewalks and that a private street portion of the site
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page —of 55
is off of this public road, comes through here and here. This could be not necessarily a
private street, but a multi-family commercial drive out here, as well as off of Linder and
another drive aisle here to connect -- to help any cut-through traffic. Instead of having to
go through the commercial end of the residential, they can come through here. That was
another change made by the applicant. The applicant is proposing three detached single
family homes that are in the very southeast corner of the site and near the previous area
of the dog park. These are accessed off of the common driveway -- at least two of them
are, but the other one accesses off of the public road. This also complies with the UDC
standards. Since the Commission hearing there have been no changes, because there
was -- the project was continued from one hearing to another and all those changes were
made between those two hearings. The Commission recommended approval to the
Council on this. At those hearings there was a lot of discussion about the proposed multi-
family units adjacent to the existing family -- the single family homes to the east. The
proposed height disparity across the property in general with just two stories being
consistent and the property to the east being a mix of two and one story. There was some
general desire to construct the property with detached single family homes only. There
is concerns with the general increase of traffic in the vicinity with additional homes and/or
units. Furthermore, they discussed the location of the dog park. The kind of commercial
that is proposed -- or I should say anticipated in the corner, as well as the viability of the
commercial with no direct access. There is general agreement that the proposed changes
to the site plan are a benefit to the project and help with integration, as well as conformity
to the Comprehensive Plan. There is still concern with the proposed attachment units
along the east boundary, but they did not -- the Commission did not make any
recommendations to change that. Since the Commission hearing there have been
additional letters from a member of the public noting the same issue that the Commission
discussed, as well as reiterating traffic concerns and a desire to keep this area single
family, rather than mixed use. I will stand for any questions at this point.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, questions for staff?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. Joe, I'm struggling with seeing this as mixed use community
versus mixed use neighborhood. I feel like it has a lot more of the mixed use
neighborhood identity. So, can you help me understand how you went through analyzing
that as staff? I just -- to me mixed use community is a lot more heavier use than what's
being proposed and it's larger commercial buildings may be more representative of the
area of commercial than residential. So, I just -- I'm not seeing this as matching what we
have on our Comprehensive Plan.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, that's a great question. It's -- largely what it comes
down to is just the size of the property and the hindrance of the irrigation facilities. When
you have 8.8 acres and the larger is not even going to be able to be touched, we don't
anticipate them meeting the three uses on 8.8 acres anyways. That's usually generally
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page —of 55
considered a little bit small to try to meet all three uses, but they have. They have
exceeded that, including the commercial. Now, in addition we -- may appreciate that they
put it along the arterials, rather than adjacent to the residential. You would be surprised
of the plans that we have had submitted on this site -- this is at least the third applicant
that I have discussed this site with. Granted, this applicant actually moved forward with
something and it is the better of the three. It is not -- it is not always cut and dry when it
comes to looking at the mixed use designations. I do agree this is probably more in
alignment with mixed use neighborhood than mixed use commercial and it -- especially
because of the site constraints. I could definitely understand the desire for more
commercial here, but as with anything, when you put commercial neighbors usually hate
that, whether it's good for the community or not and that's unfortunate, but it generally is
what happens. The Commission did discuss that maybe even flipping the multi-family
and the commercial or adding more commercial along Ustick. That probably would
increase some cut-through traffic further to the east, because the access within Creason
Creek -- I can't remember the street name -- probably be better access for those utilizing
the commercial. I hope that answers your question.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council, any questions for -- Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Sorry. It does answer my question, Joe. I understand the limitations with the
side -- of the site. I just -- I'm assuming that if they don't put the multi-family in and keep
that as a retail or commercial, then, there is concerns about meeting the three different
types of uses. Is -- is that something that's -- that -- I mean is that a hard and fast thing
that the applicant has to have the three uses over the -- the type of use in terms of how
we analyze it? I mean I just -- it's -- I'm just trying to understand like how we can best
integrate this into this corner, because it's a really unique corner, how it's going to develop
out. The area in the northwest from the corners had lots of issues. It's four acres. There
is issues with getting anything built there, because of the geography. So, I think this whole
corner is really critical for us to look at as a whole and I just had a lot of concerns about
getting this one right.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, those are great points. I completely understand. If
I could wave a wand I would include more commercial as well in all of these mixed use
parcels. So, I do understand that. The three uses are not necessarily multi-family, single
family, different types of residential and, then, commercial. Within the comp plan we
largely look at residential as one use, not multiple types of uses. They could be multiple
types of residential uses. A residential use is residential. Where they meet the three uses
-- and, again, it's not a hard and fast requirement on a site this small. It's a recommended
portion -- recommended comment -- or requirement I should say -- a recommended
requirement--that doesn't make sense, but-- it's a recommendation within the comp plan
to have those three uses, but when it's a site this small we usually do not make that a
hard and fast rule. If Council wants more commercial, because we have lost commercial
in other areas of this corner and further to the east, that's understandable. That's
something that staff has mentioned in all of the pre-apps with the applicants. That's why
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 16 of 55
we pushed them to maintain a commercial component of the site. Most people would
have preferred not to do commercial at all on the site, so I will leave that up to the Council
to make that determination.
Perreault: Thank you.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. What is -- maybe a question for the applicant if we don't have the
answer, but I guess I'm just curious, what is the distance from that sort of northeast corner
from the northernmost building there to the single family and do you feel like that's an
appropriate buffer? It just feels like a really large building to have next to single family
residential.
Dodson: Are you referring directly to the east along the east boundary?
Strader: Yes. I'm referring to the northeastern most corner of the site.
Dodson: Great question. That came up at the Commission hearing as well. Both of
them. It was somewhat short. I believe it was originally like 26 feet now because they
took out the two -- or they took out a whole section of units along the east boundary. It's
now a minimum of 44 feet between the fence -- to the property line and the east side of
that building.
Strader: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Joe, is page 39 of the staff report depicted as changed or is that the original --
Dodson: More than likely the site plan within -- if you are talking site plan, then, it should
have been changed, yes.
Borton: It's just an illustration of the 3D image on page 39.
Dodson: Similar to this I hope?
Borton: That's all right.
Dodson: Perhaps this?
Borton: Yep.
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 17—55
Dodson: That one? Yes, that's been updated. Correct.
Borton: Okay.
Dodson: Yeah, this would have been closer with another building. Probably where the
Progress ends right here, because they did have a walkway here still and now they took
that unit out, reduced it from four stories to three stories. Granted the very peak of roof
is still at the maximum 40 foot height limit within the R-15, but, then, it slopes away and,
then, pushed it further out, add some more open space and greens -- greens -- wow.
Trees.
Borton: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: It's been a heck of a February.
Borton: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. Joe, in your staff report it says there is temporary full access on
Linder. What does that mean and can that access be taken away?
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault --
Perreault: The full access.
Dodson: Yes. Yes, ma'am. That's -- I tried to explain that briefly. It's a full access right
now, because from -- my understanding from ACHD is they don't want to limit the access
on the west side of Linder for the ambulance service that's out there, so -- but, yes,ACHD
can remove that and make it right-in and right-out. Maybe that happened. I do not have
any idea when or if that could, but it can happen, yes.
Simison: Council, additional questions for Joe? Then I will ask the applicant to, please,
come forward.
Wheeler: Mr. Mayor and Council Members, Andrew Wheeler. 2923 North Arthur Circle,
Boise, Idaho. 83703. With DG Group Architecture. And, yeah, I appreciate your time
this evening in looking at this project. It's been a long road, about two years and multiple
design concepts and we have been working on it for about two years, multiple design
concepts, and have worked really closely with staff. Joe has been fantastic throughout
all this, as you can tell from his report, very detailed and, you know, we have been working
on it for a while. So, to start off, you know, in looking at the City of Meridian goals and
vision, you know, for the future mixed use community zone, one of the main purposes is
to allocate areas where community serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 18 of 55
into the urban fabric and as noted in the staff comments, the site proposes as a
transitional density from the existing single family to the main arterial roads on the
perimeter and this definitely supports the goals of the City of Meridian in bringing more
housing, which we desperately need and finding that balance, which we can talk more
about of the -- on the commercial use. But I mean they are certainly concerned in the
marketplace of providing too much commercial and you also need enough residential to
support the commercial. So, trying to find that-- that balance on all those issues. So, we
can jump into the presentation for Lennon Pointe Community. To start off I will step back
to the existing conditions. Looking at an aerial map of the site in the southeast corner of
Ustick and Linder, you can see, when you zoom out a little bit, the connectivity of the local
street network, so there are multiple exit points onto Linder and Ustick. So, we are not
funneling everybody through West Pebblestone to one exit on Ustick or one exit onto
Linder. In looking at some of the challenges on the site, this is a survey that we initially
received multiple challenges. So, the arterial streets, difficult to get access in and out.
We have single family on the east and the south end and, then, the Kellogg Drain, which
runs through the middle of the site, which is severely limiting any development potential
and, then, the floodway, which is in the bottom left corner, and, then, a lot of -- about
three-quarters of the rest of the site is in the floodplain. So, that whole lower southwest
corner is untouchable, more or less, for any development. Here is an existing photo
looking on Linder looking north of the existing curb cut, which we are proposing to utilize.
This is the connection from the Creason Lateral to the -- let me step back to here also.
That's the Creason Lateral on the southwest corner and, then, you also have the Five
Mile Drain that goes roughly parallel with Linder. So, there is a lot happening in that
southwest corner. This is an image of that Creason Lateral. So, this is looking south,
southeast. This is the Five Mile Drain culvert looking west. Northwest. Again, the single
family in the distance. This is looking southeast. This is North Zion, the existing road,
and the existing single family. You can see the eastern single family to the right. This is
how the road currently dead ends into the property. Again, see those single family of
mostly two story on the east side. Here is that neighborhood that is on the -- through
West Pebblestone and North Zion. And this is the West Pebblestone Road that dead
ends into the property on the east end. Here is the existing single family, which would be
adjacent to that plaza that was shown moments ago and you can see the height
differentiation there where the site is actually lower than the existing single family, which
we will get into a little more and, then, this is looking at -- standing on Ustick looking west
at that single family. So, as Joe mentioned, mixed use community, proposing three
different sites of the commercial on the northwest and, then, next mixed -- or the multi-
family on the northeast and single family in the majority of the site. A lot of the -- the
constraints that we were working with, one is access. So, we were --we had to use utilize
the existing curb cuts along Ustick and Linder to meet ACHD requirements. Another
requirement of ACHD, as Joe mentioned, was the public road. So, they wanted us to
connect West Pebblestone and North Zion, so that was a requirement that we needed to
meet, which we do in this. And the overall spirit of the project, you know, was how can
we have front porches, how can we have eyes on the street, how can we, you know, have
a community that isn't -- it's little car centric as we can make it, have a building that faces
the patios and decks face off of Linder, not garages, and, you know, make it an overall
benefit and positive impact on the community. The red dash that kind of goes on the
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 19 of 55
south border and, then, up to the northwest, that's the purposed easement for the Kellogg
Drain, which intersects with the floodway. So, that's one way we were able to, you know,
utilize the site a little bit better, getting some efficiency by overlapping those two uses,
which we have worked closely with Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District on to accomplish
that. On the commercial building, you know, you can see kind of in the center of the site
is our public plaza and this graphic kind of helps illustrate a little bit better on the pathways
and how those sites are interconnected. Here is that public road, just to illustrate what is
public and what is private, with the majority of the other road being -- all of the other roads
being private and so this just shows more clearly that pathway plan, the dog park in the
-- the lower left corner. And here is an open space exhibit to illustrate where open space
is on the site. So, we have fairly distributed open space throughout. It's -- it is the majority
-- the majority is concentrated in that southwest, but we do have, you know, the MEW that
runs through the center, as well as the plaza in the upper right northeast corner and in
this center, the main plaza for the commercial. As Joe mentioned, here is a parking plan
that illustrates where we -- we show parking or where we are providing parking. In the
commercial we are required to provide 24 stalls. We are providing 25. There is a 500
square foot per stall requirement. In the multi-family portion we are required to provide
33 and we are providing 35 and that includes surface parking, covered surface parking,
and three on-street stalls, which is on a private street there. And, then, in our single family
we are required 173 stalls and are providing 197 and in yellow is the guest parking or the
street surface parking, while all other units would have two car garages and two cars in
the driveway. So, ample parking throughout. And a rendered view, which Joe has shown
earlier. So, to kind of quickly go through the building design. The intent is for a bit of a
more modern anesthetic on the commercial and the multi-family to, then, contrast with
the more traditional look of the neighborhood of the single family residential. Materials
would be metal -- metal siding, concrete masonry unit, concrete wainscot and storefront
windows. This is the larger of the commercial buildings on the corner and, then, this
would be a more satellite commercial, which we anticipate, you know, an ice cream parlor,
could be a tap room, could be, you know, any use that's going to activate that plaza and
kind of bring the community together a little bit more. There is a view of on the right of
those two commercial buildings. This is looking south on -- standing above Ustick and,
then, here is a view of that commercial space adjacent to that plaza with that public art
feature, in which we see as a space that will come -- become very activated and, you
know, people will -- businesses will want to setup a location here. The multi-family
building, it was revised to be, as Joe mentioned, nine units per building, three stories per
plat and three stories high, with one -- a single car garage in the middle there, it would be
two, three and one bedrooms, with the middle unit being a one bedroom. In order to help
-- when we brought the height down, you know, to accommodate not only just the general
massing, but the existing single family to the east, we also pitched down the -- the patios
-- patio roof to kind of reduce that height as much as possible and add a little bit more
articulation along Ustick. Here is an exhibit that shows those setbacks a little more clearly.
So, we are 44 feet to the building wall. We do have a stair tower that's roughly eight to
nine feet coming out of that. So, there is a -- you know, we are roughly, you know, 30 --
34 feet, 35 feet away from the property line to this stair tower -- stair tower, which, again,
has no windows, is a small portion of that overall elevation. In looking at the -- the building
heights and the grade heights, the existing single families at a 25/75 grade elevation, our
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 20—55
site pad is a 25/72. So, we are already dropped three feet below the existing single family,
which helps further reduce that scale. Here is that same image you saw moments ago,
the plaza, which is -- you know, provides a nice amenity space, welcoming entry into the
site in a non -- in the -- not the main entrance, but, you know, a satellite pedestrian amenity
for the residents. This is a view looking west, if you are heading down West Pebblestone,
with the multi-family on your right and, then, one of the concerns --this is if you are coming
in off of Ustick and heading into the site, looking west. There was a concern that people
are going to mistakenly go through this drive aisle and try to get to the commercial,
because we originally had it open. So, we -- since our -- our first Planning and Zoning
meeting we have blocked that off with landscape, as well as added signs that say resident
only, you know, no through traffic. That's that entrance. This is looking north of Ustick
coming south. This is Building B, the five unit townhome building, adjacent to -- on the
west end overlooking Linder. Materials on this would be shake siding, board and batten,
wood panel siding, a bit more of a traditional look. Asphalt shingle roofing. Stepping
down to single story garages on the -- the west side or the east side of the building and
there is a view of that. That's that ten foot path that connects that you can see goes up
towards north on Linder and, then, adjacent to the tot lot on the left there is that Building
B. We have one three unit building, which previously was two stories and now is -- or
was three stories, now it's two stories. Similar design concepts similar materials as
Building B and is located to the northeast of the dog park. You can see that in the right-
hand corner there. So, that kind of steps back to get an overall view of the dog park, the
floodway, the Kellogg Drain reroute and this is on the -- standing on the north -- southwest
corner looking northeast. The single family homes -- we wanted to have some variety
and differentiation to not have one home type throughout the whole community. Primarily
they are the same footprint and with the one revision on the garage side and the patio
side being a gable on the patio side in one version and a hip roof on the other and, then,
you flip it to invert that for a variety of -- or variation of aesthetics and so this is looking at
that MEW and kind of what that starts to look like when you put that all together with the
low four foot fence to encourage, you know, neighbor interaction, visibility, and foster that
community that we are trying to create here. And we do have the three single family
detached homes, which are two story, similar traditional style in the southeast corner.
This was the previous park of -- the dog park, which was a positive change and feedback
from Planning and Zoning of moving it to a larger area, so now this can be just an open
space for children to play or any -- any residential use. Similar to Building A in the -- all
the units along the east boundary we have the same three foot drop in grade differential
between what's currently existing and our proposed pads. Here you can see our
setbacks. To the wall we are 18 foot eight and three foot lower and we are about 19 foot
six high to the roof and our second story patios are 22 foot back. So, there is quite a --
we are well above and beyond the required setbacks. Here is a view of that looking west
of those eastern homes. I would also note that one thing that came up in our Planning
and Zoning hearing was the scale of these buildings and you can notice that while we are
providing two lots, the overall building mass is roughly equivalent to what's existing on
the larger single family homes. So, from a massing scale perspective we are aligned to
what's already been -- what's already existing. This is a view looking north. That would
be North Zion coming in, the public street on your right and a view looking east off of
Linder and a view looking south on Ustick. It's been a long design process on this project
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 21 —55
and we have gone through a lot of different iterations and versions and trying to find what's
going to really work with all these constraints. We feel that we have come to a solution
that meets the city's needs for housing, provides a connected mixed use community and
is going to be beneficial overall for the community and the City of Meridian. So, with that
I will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Building A, if we could go back to the graphic that shows it next to the neighbors.
This is probably the area that I have the most heartburn. I read the minutes from Planning
and Zoning and I appreciate the changes that you made. Even at three stories it just
feels like this -- you know, as you quoted from our Comprehensive Plan and we are
supposed to be seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. I'm not sure for me this is the
definition of an appropriate transition. You have a single family home 44 feet away from
a three story building. Did you guys consider some kind of modulation, for example,
perhaps making the part of the building that faces the neighbors a two story building and,
then, even increasing the height the further you get away from the neighbors, is that
something that you guys took a look at? Just help me understand, you know, kind of the
different -- the process you went through with kind of modifying this specific building.
Wheeler: Yeah. Originally the building was a four story building and up to that property
line -- and which we actually that neighbor came to our neighborhood meeting. He was
not -- I mean he wanted us to keep a willow tree there and wanted to make sure that we
were going to have enough landscaping to screen it and -- you know. So, he wasn't very
upset by it at four stories against his property. Then once we got the feedback from
Commission about dropping it, we kept it at four stories for the majority of the building
and dropped -- they were two story units before, so we -- and four high, so we lost the top
two -- or top one and so it would be a two story only. At our first Commission hearing that
was deemed not enough to -- you know, for the overall mass and scale, so we reduced
it. We just omitted it completely, added the pedestrian amenity, and went to the whole
building been three stories. So, we have gone -- yeah. We have -- we have done that
exact process and -- and this is where we have aligned. I would say that, you know, with
a corner and with a site on a hard corner, if you will, I mean I think that there is a -- there
is a level of density and a level -- of density that I think is appropriate for a site in this
location and how do you seamlessly tie into that? I mean I guess that's always the
challenge. But we can certainly look at that as far as stepping that there if needed. In
my opinion I think that a three story building, 44 feet away, does provide -- and not to
mention three foot lower than the existing subgrade -- or the existing surface of the single
family pad. So, it is quite a substantial setback.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow up, I have just got a couple quick ones to knock out.
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 22—55
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you so much. I appreciate that explanation. You know, still at 40 feet I
totally get it that there is a -- there is a different grade, but this is still pretty high next to
single family residential. That's my struggle. So, I just -- the first thing. And, then, the
second thing is in line with Council Woman Perreault, we are losing more and more
commercial in the city relative to residential and that -- that is an overall concern of mine.
For the smaller amount of commercial that you do have, have some ideas being thrown
out there, what stage are you at in terms of that coming to fruition? One thing I always
worry about is approving a mixed use development. Of course, the residential will come,
but when will the commercial come? So, I was hoping you had an update on your timeline
there.
Wheeler: As far as what use is specifically going to happen there? We don't have a
specific user yet, but the intent is that -- we did provide a drive through access on that
larger parcel, the 9,000 square foot commercial building, so whether that be a -- most
likely a bank is what we anticipate could be a use there, which would be a complimentary
use next to the traditional -- or to the neighborhood, but we are very open. We know that
there is going to be a CUP process to get that approved anyways and right now we don't
have an end user in mind, but --
Strader: Okay. I just have one more.
Wheeler: If I could just touch on your point before about the -- the lack of commercial.
There is also that balance of providing enough housing to support that commercial and I
think that there is a lot of hesitancy in the marketplace to build too much commercial. So,
I think from a market factor -- market driving factor, who is going to shop at those
commercial locations and providing parking for those when you can provide a denser
housing type that's going to provide more users per square foot of land.
Strader: Thank you. Yeah. Just to comment on that and everyone's got a different
philosophy, but from my seat, looking at the future of the city, that's a timing question and
we have our whole future to get it right. So, I don't feel -- I don't feel that we need to be
in a rush in terms of -- you know, I want us to move appropriately to have the right
development that we need. I guess just one more -- maybe if you could -- I do actually
want to say -- compliment you. I appreciate the pedestrian oriented development. I can
tell that you guys put a lot of thought into that. You don't have to comment on this, but if
you wouldn't mind commenting a little more on price point. Did this serve a specific need
in terms of more -- kind of affordable -- more affordable or middle of the road housing
here? How does this kind of position within the market?
Wheeler: I don't have any specifics on that, but I would say -- I mean we don't currently
have any affordable funding or, you know, it's not a -- we are not proposing an affordable
housing project, but certainly want to provide housing that's going to be -- provide housing
that -- for two people who can afford it and the end of the day I mean somebody's got to
live in these homes and we are reaching a point now where, you know, at what point does
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
the market say no. So, I don't have a specific answer for that.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I have three or four questions as well, if I might ask those in succession?
Simison: Go for it.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you. Somewhat similar along the lines of Council Woman
Strader. As far as the commercial goes, I know that the commercial -- mostly industry
tracks rooftops and we have a lot of approvals coming into the area and it creates traffic
challenges to spread the commercial out so far from each other and so, therefore, these
mixed use neighborhoods -- mixed use neighborhood areas are just really critical and I
don't have a problem with approving a plan that leaves blank space sitting waiting for
commercial to come after rooftops are finally built. I don't have an issue with that. I would
rather have that space dedicated. I realize the developers don't -- you know, they don't
want that land sitting there and not being utilized, but this is just an opportunity for us to
make sure that we have the appropriate ratios and we are not currently in Meridian in --
in my opinion we are not -- we are not right on ratios yet. So -- so, questions about the
-- the commercial buildings themselves. The -- the mixed use community says that there
is not supposed to be a strip mall type of feel. So, is this going to be like one building that
has three for tenants in it? Individual buildings that are one -- kind of give us an idea of
what you envision that looking like. Is there going to be five businesses in there or two
businesses in there and, you know, how much of that is expected to kind of come from
people or riding their bikes or is there intended to be a lot of traffic coming in from -- you
know, within two or three square miles? That's the first question.
Wheeler: Yeah. I thought you are going to keep going on the other ones. Yeah. So,
appreciate the question. The current square footage on those buildings is 9,000 square
foot in the northwest corner, the larger one, and 3,000 square foot in the lower. More than
likely the lower would be its own user adjacent to that plaza, which I think would provide
a lot of information, you know, with that being a center gathering point and, again, that
could be an ice cream parlor, a burger -- burger place. It could be multiple different uses,
but something a little bit more aligned in that nature. It possibly could go to 1 ,500 square
foot uses, but more than likely I would anticipate a one 3,000 square feet user. For the
9,000 square foot building, we do provide double loaded drive-through on that. We vision
that being either a --you know, two 4,500 square foot users or possibly three 3,000 square
foot users. So, there could be a potential of four to maybe five businesses on that
commercial corner. There is a chance that a larger user would want to use the single
9,000 square feet. It's a little hard to tell right now, though, on what -- what's going to
actually happen there. But as I mentioned with the CUP and revising it, you know, to the
needs of an end user of what that might -- you know, how we need to adapt that based
on -- on those needs, based on the approval than what's -- you know, the constraints that
we would have at that point. So, that is anticipated that there would be some adjustments
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 24—55
that may -- may need to be made.
Perreault: Okay. So -- and understand that. And, then, there was a member of the public
that was talking at the Commission meeting about, you know, whether it would be one
owner, you know, who is -- is this going to be sold off? It's not uncommon for -- for these
developments to have those commercial pieces that are sold off to separate owners. That
being said, how will the associations integrate -- the homeowners association -- are you
going to have a separate business association for those two buildings from an HOA that's
being managed -- so, in terms of ownership are -- are the -- is the multi-family going to be
condominiumized? Is that going to be like its own individual investor and, then, the -- the
five units on the west will have its own ownership and, then, the homes are going to be
sold or rented or help us kind of understand like how many different owners do you have
and how are they integrating with one another when it comes to landscaping management
and private road management and that kind of thing, because it seems like it could get
really split up.
Wheeler: Yeah. Certainly. The --from private road and landscape management, I mean
that would be in a private road agreement between the -- the properties and a cross-
access agreement, as well as the landscape portion of that. They are parceling that as
separate sites right now, so we -- we do not know if the same user or buyer, builder, will
come in and build everything -- one -- one of the buildings, you know, the townhomes and
the multi-family or also the commercial. So, right now it is -- I don't have a direct answer
on who is going to own those or how, but certainly there is mechanisms that we can put
in place to -- to maintain the integrity of the -- the integration of all three of the sites.
Perreault: So, at this point you don't have even like -- you don't have a buyer for -- or a
builder or anything setup to know whether this is going to be four, five, six different owners
on the site and whether it will integrate well with managing the site as a whole. It's just
like the -- you know, usually there is some more space between commercial and
residential where they are not right up next to each other and right -- or have some more
integration with -- with this same ownership -- you know, I'm just -- I'm very concerned
that it's all going to be managed and eventually start to look like -- not like a -- you know,
integrated project anymore, that it will just be managed in a way that will seem really
divided I guess.
Wheeler: And maybe you could help me understand a specific concern of how that
division might take place. You know, it -- from my understanding, you know, if somebody
is using -- operating the commercial space -- and to answer your question on the
townhomes, more than likely those would be for sale, not for rent. So, if you have
homeowners there that, you know, want to utilize the commercial plaza, for instance, and,
you know, be patrons of that business, I don't think that the business would have any
problems with that and so help me understand kind of your specific concerns on what you
see as -- as issues there.
Perreault: Right. So, if I'm a homeowner in that and the commercial or the multi-family
investors are not -- are not maintaining those, it's going to affect my property value. So,
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 25—55
the more owners and investors that you have that are maintaining things at different
quality levels, the more challenging you -- is usually trading the market for value -- for all
the parties.
Wheeler: Specifically to this landscape and trash pickup, that type of --
Perreault: Structure or trash pick up -- anything that would consider, you know, utilizing
a -- you had a significant amount of grass in that greenspace; right? It could be kept very
well and look really beautiful or it could look really terrible. It's -- you know, homeowners
-- homeowners associations that are just individual neighbors, if you have some of-- you
know, the feel -- the HOA that are -- that have the owners and, then, over here on the --
on the west side you have got five townhomes that aren't owners, they are -- they may
have different priorities as to how all this green space is going to be maintained, because
some -- some are invested in different -- in a different way. So, like that park could be
managed very differently if it's being managed by a group of homeowners and it's being
managed by an investment group that owns an apartment complex. But, yeah, they are
all supposed to be utilizing them and it's supposed to add value to each property.
Wheeler: Yeah. And we do plan on having an HOA agreement, you know, on the property
and how that ties in between each -- for the single family, the multi-family and the
commercial is yet to be fully determined, but we are -- we are more than happy to, you
know, coordinate however we need to -- to ensure that that does maintain the best
appearance as possible or as -- as designed.
Perreault: Thank you. I appreciate that. I do have a lot of kids -- I mean as far as like
what the conditions are that the city puts on it, I don't -- I don't know and that would be a
question for staff or for Legal about how we can condition that -- or if we can condition
that from a management standpoint, but that has me pretty -- pretty concerned about just
how that will function as a whole, so -- and, then, the third question I have is regarding
the -- the amenities for the multi-family. So, I realize you guys have -- have geographic
limitations on this with the laterals and that you have done a really fantastic job I think
with the open space and the green space and there is just a lot of things about how you
designed it that I really like, but there is a couple of things that have me concerned and
that is that the multi -- the multi-family to the north, it feels like it's really kind of lacking in
amenities actually. So, maybe I'm just not getting a good vision. And prior to having --
adding in extra space up here in the northeast corner, there -- there was only just the one
lot that's faced with a piece of public art down here in the commercial area and there was
pretty much no amenities for that multi-family up on the north side. So, it -- can you help
me understand like how -- what -- I mean I don't know. I feel like kind of a piece of public
art is not really a good -- a good amenity for -- to -- I mean what does it do, you know?
mean like -- this is multi-family. I feel like there should be something more functional, so
maybe I'm just in missing the vision for it.
Wheeler: Yeah. Thanks for the question. I think that one of the main reasons is we view
this as, you know, mixed use community where we weren't trying to -- intending to put site
amenities at each site for that amenity. You know, the nature of-- and spirit of mixed use
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
being that those multi-family users have adequate walking paths to that plaza and also
through the MEW, to the dog park, to the open space and can integrate into that
community, so -- so, that was going to -- one part of that is that answer. The other is just
being strictly limited by, you know, the site constraints of what we are -- what we were
required to do here with the three different uses with the access points coming in and the
southwest corner of losing a lot of that land. So, between those two you are not wrong,
they--there are very few amenity spaces, other than the --the new plaza in the northeast
and -- but that -- but you are directly adjacent, you know, to the -- the current plaza with
the public art. But there are not -- we don't have a fitness facility or, you know, anything
of that nature in that multi-family. So, yes, there are a few amenities on Site B, but they
are very close and integrated with all the other amenities, which we are providing above
and beyond what we are required.
Perreault: Yeah. Yes, you are. No, I'm not -- I'm just -- I'm wanting to try to see, I guess,
a better balance in the project as a whole and I understand constraints that come with it,
I just think it will be nice to have some green space and picnic space and something that's
-- that's outdoor space and utilize that north side that creates a little more balance for that,
because, obviously, the -- the townhome users will have their own backyards; right? And
-- and, then, they will have this big park, but on the north side there is -- there is not
anywhere to -- that's really dedicated. It doesn't -- it feels like it's kind of an afterthought.
So, just one more quick question for you and -- can you help me understand how the
residential was going to be buffered from the commercial? There is just a little drive --
drive aisle, but like is there going to be -- and, you know, all the renderings that we see
always have these big gorgeous trees in them and when they are planted they are like
four foot tall and have no leaves. So, it takes ten years to make it look like what the
pictures show. So, what kind of -- you know, normally when we have commercial to
residential buffering there is a 25 foot buffer. So, what -- I mean just help me understand
are you going to have like a wall in between the commercial? Is it -- what's that going to
look like to kind of differentiate -- hey, this is a residential area that's private now and this
isn't somewhere that we want people kind of going and driving around from the
commercial.
Wheeler: Yeah. Great question. The smaller 3,000 square foot commercial, the back of
that on the south side, that whole strip is heavily landscaped and I understand the concern
of -- of trees not reaching maturity after some years. You know, we could certainly up
that, you know, from a vertical height perspective of the type of landscape that goes in
there. We weren't intending there to be a wall, again, back to the spirit of mixed use
community, you know, walls that aren't private backyard is -- probably don't fit into that
category and in our understanding. We certainly would look at putting up a wall if that
was something that -- that Council deemed appropriate, but I think a good solution to that
would be to condition the project of having a certain height of landscaping or some type
of-- specify the landscaping or density of landscaping on that south side. I feel like that's
kind of the main area that you are talking about; right? That needs that buffering. So,
yeah, I would answer it that way, that we would want to -- the intent is to add landscaping
there to buffer it, but we can certainly increase that as best we are able.
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page— —55
Perreault: Thank you. That might be a question for staff. I know -- I mean, you know,
they are just going to say what -- what is required by code. I don't know how we as
Council would kind of say what the appropriate amount would be, but I just -- we do have
areas of the city where there is commercial that backs up to residential and we have taken
great care to make sure that there is some sort of sound buffering and, you know, we
don't know what hours that this is going to function at. I mean, you know, an ice cream
parlor might be open until 9:00 p.m. So, we want to take those things into account.
Wheeler: Understood.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you. Great question, Council Woman Perreault, and to be honest staff
kind of saw it a little bit more aligned with the applicant of kind of wanting the integration
and even amenable -- currently it doesn't meet code, because the setback is supposed
to be 25 feet landscaped, not necessarily a drive aisle. So, staff was -- is amenable to
having that reduced per what is shown, because the physical separation will be greater
than the 25 feet -- it looks like it's going to be at least 30 feet in most cases, if not more,
with some landscaping. If Council feels differently that is definitely your purview, you can
include an additional condition of approval that just says denser landscaping and/or meet
that minimum 25 feet. With just landscaping that's probably going to require some other
modifications for the site, but it is what it is. It can be accommodated, yes. But staff did
see it a little bit more as an opportunity for the integration. You know, from a personal
standpoint I lived in an apartment with no green space between the back of a commercial
building and it was really just random people in my apartment complex, that was way
more annoying than the commercial. So, it just -- it can go either way.
Perreault: So, is there any consideration made of moving that 3,000 square foot building
up to the north and, then, just having all parking in that section and adding more --
Wheeler: Yeah. I mean we did look at several different design options. We went through
so many of them I can't remember if it was that specific one. I think we also wanted to --
there is a requirement of 50 percent of the site or a building frontage, you know, being
along -- along the site. What we were attempting to do was to, you know, put the building
on the hard corner for visibility and screen some of the parking from --from view from that
main intersection, but also let users see that there is parking there. So, they know, you
know, what they are going into it or, you know, I think that most users like to know that
they can see where they are going to park before they pull into a -- a development or
entry into someplace. So, it was a balance of those two that we were trying to find and
another driver to that was our drive though. You know, since COVID, you know, it's a big
demand to have a drive-through and it opens up various, you know, different users and a
wider branch of potential users. So, that was also a driver for why that's open, because
that becomes that circulation path for that. And, then, thirdly, having the commercial
adjacent to the public plaza, put the public plaza a little more central or as central as we
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
can make it to help aid in the -- in the use of that commercial space. So, we could certainly
look at that, but those were the reasoning -- the reasons behind how we got here.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very
much.
Wheeler: Thank you.
Simison: We are going to go ahead and take a 15 minute recess and so we will reconvene
at 7:50.
(Recess: 7:34 p.m. to 7:51 p.m.)
Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come back from recess and, Mr. Clerk, we will
move into public testimony. Do we have anyone signed up in advance?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. We have two people signed up in advance. Carissa Sindon.
Simison: When your name is called if you would come forward and state your name and
address for the record and be recognized for three minutes.
Sindon: Hello. I'm Carissa Sindon. 914 North 8th Street in Boise. I have an interest in
this property, because I grew up on it. I'm 43. 1 lived there from the time I was a baby
until I was 20 years old. So, I spent half my life on that property and as you can tell I'm a
native and I support this property because I think it's -- or this development because I
think it's a good development. I like the dog park. We need housing. And the public art
element is also good I think. And as a native you can imagine I have seen it change a lot
here and that especially right now there is a housing crisis and we need housing, so it
can become more affordable for everybody, but I just want to tell you a little bit about the
history of the property and it looked very different when I was a child and I just want to tell
you our perspective and that I know a lot of the neighbors are concerned about the traffic,
losing their views, their quality of life. I have sat in on both public hearings at the P&Z
level, so I know what their concerns are and I just wanted to share that those have been
our concerns for over 20 years. My parents left the property 15 years ago. They have
moved. They would still live there today if they could, but they can't, because it's not the
same property that it was. When I was a child in the '80s that was a two way stop. Two
stop signs. Now there are lights there. I think it's four lanes, at least on one -- I think it's
all the way around. We used to have a barn on the east side of it -- you know, on the
west side. We had a huge barn. I had 4H goats. I was in 4H. It was really a rural lifestyle
for us and the barn is no longer there, so it's really not the same property anymore and
was out there last week and the property -- or are the south -- I remember looking at the
south and the east -- even like three years ago those houses weren't there. So, what was
there before these houses were there? They were our views. They were open farmland.
And I think it's unreasonable to think that this property would not be developed, because
that's what's happening out there and the property is unrecognizable. Like I would get
teary eyed looking even the pictures up there, but I was out there and it's just like that's
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
not our home anymore. So, I think that it does need to be developed and -- yeah. So,
just want to support the development and just give you the perspective of somebody who
grew up there and that it's -- Meridian is a different place now and, yeah, you are going
to lose your views. We lost our views. My dad used to be able to see Squaw Butte to the
north. Can't see it no more. And so, yeah, it was a farm. It's no longer a farm and that's
the end, but thank you for listening to this. Hopefully this will help move the approval that
have gone through the same thing that my family has gone through.
Simison: Thank you, Carissa. Council, questions? Okay.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Jim Petersen.
Simison: Is Mr. Petersen here?
Johnson: There were two other people signed in, but they didn't say they wanted to testify.
Simison: Well, if there is anybody here that would like to provide testimony, please, come
forward at this time to do so and if there is anybody -- do we have anybody online --
Johnson: We do not.
Simison: We don't have anybody online, so just anybody here if you -- state your name
and address for the record.
Shanaberger: Good evening, Council Members. My name is Matt Shanaberger. I live at
3072 Northwest 13th Street in Creason Creek. Appreciate you all having this meeting
tonight and allowing me to speak. So, we have lived in Creason Creek for about three
and a half years. Our house was the first house on 13th Street that was fully constructed
and move-in-able. It's my wife, 1, and our five year old son. I have lived in Meridian for
ten years now. The first six and a half years I lived in Red Feather, which is just north of
Kleiner Park. When I first moved in to that house Kleiner and The Village weren't built
yet. About two years in that's when all that went up and we saw the traffic through our
neighborhood go up quite a bit. I realized that Kleiner and The Village are quite bigger
than this proposal, but what I really worry about is the commercial aspect with it being
integrated into the residential. I could see it being fully developed as commercial and
being blocked off from the rest of the neighborhood and only having access from the two
points on Ustick and Linder, but with that road that goes east to west just south of Ustick
-- I understand they have put in some scenery that would stop traffic theoretically from
entering that, but I have seen human nature, I have seen it when people see the shortest
path to get there and they are turning left from Ustick onto 13th Street to get into there,
they are very likely going to go -- go right through. So, while it is unfortunate that residents
often complain about commercial being in residential, I think there is a way to do that
properly without integrating it into the residential. Ultimately I would love to see it be
single detached family homes. I'm fine with it being townhomes. I just really worry about
the commercial aspect of it. Thank you all for your time.
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Is there anybody else that would like to
provide testimony on this item? Come forward. State your name and address for the
record and be recognized for three minutes.
Bitler: Hello. My name is Caryn Bitler. I reside at 3055 Northwest 13th Street in the
Creason Creek Subdivision on the eastern side of the proposed Lennon Pointe
Community. My concerns and suggestions are as follows: Instead of having townhomes
for the eastern side of the development, we suggest single family detached or patio
homes, which Commissioners Cassinelli and Yearsley suggested on the December 2nd
meeting. Therefore, this would alleviate density and I would like you to commit to ten to
12 foot mature trees, thereby, these foliage will upgrade existing fences, it would reduce
noise and also protect our privacy. Mixed use will increase traffic, more congestion,
pollution and crime. We suggest that you limit the residential portion to detached family
single homes and patio homes for the entire development, thereby increasing our home
values. Initially the builder purchased the entire 80 acres and it's been revealed that the
developer decided to sell the commercial portion, thereby, bringing to our attention their
lack of confidence to fulfill the commercial portion of their initial contract with the City of
Meridian and, thus, showing us their ineptness to find suitable commercial businesses
and abandoning their commitment. This leads to the question will it stay vacant? Will it
be a mixed use? Will it be changed to residential? Will it be single family detached homes
that would add value to the area? The mixed use community is on the northeast corner
of Linder and Ustick. It's being built, as well as several townhomes being built presently
on Ustick, which is less than a mile away. The proposed Lennon Pointe Community is
being built in a flood zone, as evidenced by the map provided by Jason Korn from the
city's Public Works Department. All homes built on farmland already have a high water
table, even though geotech gave their authorization to build, Creason Creek had geotech
authorization to build and on -- we are not in a floodplain. It's evidenced in that map and
still we had flooding in our crawl spaces. Our neighbor had to remedy this and it cost
them several thousand dollars and these neighbors are to the north of us and had worse
flooding. Just because geotech did approve the go ahead should not make it truly a go
ahead. Coupled with the proposed development being in a flood zone and an extreme
flood zone can make it architecturally worse to build there ultimately. Also, the proposed
pipe -- the proposal to pipe the Kellogg Drain doesn't seem to be effective, since water
has to go somewhere. Leaving it undisturbed can be the best course of action. It's my
understanding that there is a current Meridian historical council in place. Unfortunately,
there are no regulations or codes how to treat the historical locations as -- as 1515 Ustick,
the barn, and the Creason Creek Lateral and there is things in the Idaho historical sites
inventory, which was prepared by the Meridian historical tag and they do stuff in Boise,
but they don't anything here. We have it set up, but nothing is done. So, what I am
asking, in summary, is for your consideration to re-think building the Lennon Pointe on
existing farmland in various flood zones, while manipulating existing drains, as well as
consideration for the historical preservation of the Creason Creek northwest lateral. If
you feel the need to proceed, please, consider the existing homes to the east and build
single-family and detached or patio homes with large mature trees that won't uproot our
existing fences. We ask you to take the best course of action in order to have the least
impact in our community, the generation, and those that follow. Thank you.
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 31 —55
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Is there anybody else that would
like to provide testimony on this -- on this item? Then I will ask the applicant to come
forward to close out this public hearing.
Wheeler: So, I will start with -- I will get to the concerns and the testimony in a moment.
To touch on the HOA and that conversation, you know, in talking with our client, who is
the builder on the project, the intent there would be to build those townhomes and, then,
sell them individually, as well as build and hold the multi-family all under one HOA and
having the commercial under that HOA and, then, a sub HOA for the commercial and the
multi-family, since they would be -- the multi-family in the townhome HOA would be two
different, you know, verbiage to accommodate those. So, that would preserve the integrity
of the landscape and the cleanliness of the site. So, I wanted to touch on that. Also to
address the pavers on the south side and the screening -- or providing pavers on that
south road would be one mitigation measure that we intend to do. We do need to provide
some on-site storm drain mitigation anyway, so that would help to, you know, beautify that
space a little bit better, as well as providing denser landscape and the -- and, then, on
Building A, with the intensity of that facing the existing single family, that -- that is a whole
side of the home. Joe, do I have that presentation up? And I will pull up that photo really
quick here, but there -- I don't even know if there are any windows on that side and it's
the side yard of a house, so it's not as if that's their front living room that's facing -- yeah.
So, you can see here I don't believe there are any windows that are even above that fence
on that home there. So, it is a side yard and so it's very little intrusion. Now to touch on
the -- the testimonial issues, in looking at commercial and blocking off West Yellowstone
-- or West Pebblestone, that was actually our original plan. You know, when I was laying
this out, you know, why would we want to encourage traffic to flow from our site into the
adjacent single family. ACHD came back and made it a requirement that we connect
North Zion and West Pebblestone. So, that's the driving factor there. We also had the
same concern about too much commercial in wanting to not go from the single family to
a commercial use, but a single family to a multi, to a commercial, and having that be a
more smooth transition throughout. As far as the single family detached homes along the
east, as -- as I mentioned previously, we are roughly the same scale, even though we are
two lots, we are two smaller lots in an R-15 zoning of, you know, a little over 2,000 square
foot lots. So, from a massing perspective we are not a massive intrusion. That's very
different in like kind to what's existing -- existing on the eastern homes. We do show trees
on the landscape plan and we can certainly add more if -- if that -- they are a little difficult
to see here, but you can certainly see on the east there several trees. If we positioned at
those patio decks for the level two to provide as best screening as we could -- again, back
to the HOA comment that could be incorporated there to ensure that those are maintained
and in proper order. The flood zone -- we are confident that we are not -- we don't have
concerns over building this project with the -- in the floodplain. It will be lifted to one foot
above the base flood elevation and, you know, certainly we are doing our homework to
make sure that we don't build something that is going to be an issue in the -- in the future.
So, we are confident that that's not going to be an issue. The Kellogg Drain and the
piping, that was sized and we spent a significant amount of time to -- to make sure and
get that right of sizing it appropriately to accommodate what was already there, as well
as oversizing it to make sure we can handle any of the water shed that comes through
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
there and it's going to be cleaner. I mean right now it's open air, anything can go in there
and -- but by piping it underground that's going to provide a cleaner way for that water to
to pass downstream to the Five Mile Creek and we are path -- we are wrapping it to its
current discharge point, so we are not interrupting how it discharges into the Five Mile
Drain. And as far as the Creason Creek is concerned and, you know, keeping that clean,
it's difficult to see on this --this image, but we do show a fence, the -- so, Nampa-Meridian
Irrigation District wants us to fence that off. We are doing that by just extending the dog
fence across, so it will -- it will seem more integrated and that solves both of those issues
that we worked out with them. So, that's how we are addressing that issue and their
liability concerns. So, as you can see there has been -- there is a lot of moving parts on
this project. There are no simple clean cut answers. We have done our best attempt to
design something that -- that we can stand behind, that we think the community would
enjoy, that the City of Meridian would -- would benefit from and, you know, we would like
to see more communities like this get built, even though I think one of the reasons they
don't is because it's difficult to do a higher level design to go through two years of design
and -- and deal with several constraints. Again, this site sat there for a long time. I know
other people that had it under contract and, then, they let it go and it was because they
just didn't want to tackle the issues and, ultimately, we showed up and we asked the
landowner, hey, we will take a look at this and take a run at it and so that's how we got to
this point here today. So, it was kind of taking a risk to solve a problem that wasn't being
solved and that will bring more housing and -- and a good community for the City of
Meridian. So, stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Andrew.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Wheeler, just a question. As you develop this and -- and work through
designs and whatnot, was there any thought of where the multi-family is of putting
townhomes in there and, then, moving multi-family to where the townhome is currently
located?
Wheeler: Yeah. We -- we actually went through several different -- or first it started as a
three-story walk-up plan, which we got rejected real quick. Ultimately, it was -- as I think
Joe mentioned, you know, putting the highest density uses along the -- the arterial streets
and that -- that kind of just became the driver at that point, you know, to -- to try to get it
away as far as possible from the -- the townhomes -- or the existing townhomes on the
east and -- and, then, as having to route that public road in and trying to -- how do we
delineate the -- you know, the different uses and the different sites, it's sort of -- the Tetris
of it started kind of wanted to -- to go in this direction. But we -- we definitely looked at a
lot of different uses of where to put the multi-family. And, then, that's -- to kind of -- you
know, the Building B, while it's a single-family townhome, that's the one on the west
towards Linder, it has a multi-family feeling, you know, a scale and so even though it is a
townhome it kind of -- and, again, it's on that arterial street and -- and that more higher
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 33—55
density use.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: So, if multi-family -- if this goes through and multi-family remains there, would
you be willing to do some enhanced landscaping, maybe a little taller trees to buffer from
that multi-family to the house to the east?
Wheeler: Certainly. Yeah. You know, I think that the plaza became -- we kind of settled
on providing an additional amenity there when we lost those units. We could -- we are
very flexible on what to look at there. I mean if we want to reduce that plaza a little bit or
maybe it becomes a smaller seating area and it is more of a landscaped area, rather than
a hardscape plaza and right now it's, you know, third landscape, two-thirds plaza. Maybe
that flip-flops and -- yeah, we are certainly open to figuring something out there.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I was just thinking just taller trees, you know, that kind of give more screening.
And -- and to that effect, for the rest of the single family homes there on the east border,
I noticed you talked about the elevation and how those are a little bit lower than -- than
the homes that are already existing and, then, I noticed in your -- your -- your drawings
the fence was on your side, which had a six foot fence, but from their property that's only
going to be a four foot fence, three foot fence, and I -- I didn't -- I thought you mentioned
something. Do they have fencing in their yards currently right now?
Wheeler: They do. Yeah. And more than likely we would build -- build our own fence.
That detail has yet to be determined there. You can see here their vinyl fence on that
side and you can see on the left there, that's also a vinyl fence and so that's on the high
side of that three foot. So, from a line of sight, right, I mean that's even going to help
them more by having that up there to -- yeah, I can see your point of concern. But us not
being in control of the maintenance of that fence or -- you know. So, we could build our
own or, you know, have theirs. Either way.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, just a --
Simison- Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: On that thought -- yeah, I thought -- I didn't know if you were going to build a
new fence and just put it on yours and tear theirs down, but if they have their fence and
it's at six foot, then, that takes care of that issue, so --
Wheeler: Yeah.
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 34 of 55
Simison: Since we have an odd number of Council Members and I'm not going to factor
in tonight's equation one way or the other, I at least want to make a comment. You know,
I was on the -- part of the group that went through the comp plan and -- and looked at
these issues. Looking at the -- the development before us, I got to ask the question, do
we -- is our comp plan right for this corner? You know, the access issues, the limitations
that are there -- a similar conversation came up in another application where we --we are
routing commercial by residential. Maybe that's a personal pet peeve, you know, in some
regards where that can become the only de facto way, but is this commercial -- is this
corner zoned appropriately with the access issues that are there, the connections to
adjacent residential and regardless of whether or not there is a policy at ACHD that says
that that should remain a full access on Linder, I think we know good well that it's not
going to function that way, even if it is allowed to be left that way. It's going -- the safety
aspects I think will someday over -- make it not that way, even if it's allowed to remain
open. So, I don't want to ask you to speak against your--your--your client's self-interest,
but if you had your design -- your desire would you be doing a mixed-use commercial on
this eight acres with all the challenges that you have or would you prefer to do something
residential only in this area?
Wheeler: I don't know if residential only would be the right choice. I mean a hard corner
on two arterial streets like that and pushing residential up to it. I think it is appropriate to
have a higher density that filters down to a lower density. Now, how -- however far that
distance happens or-- or short -- I know I personally wouldn't want to live in a -- in a -- up
on that corner, you know, in -- as a townhome or any use like that. You know, we initially
had higher density in general from apartments and that type of concept, which, again, the
city shot down pretty quick, not wanting more apartments. The kind of apartment fatigue
was the exact words that were used. So, I do think it's appropriate to have a higher
density use on that corner and the adjacent corner and, then, you -- I mean it's a tough
question, because you got to transition, too, you know, so how do you have the density,
but, then, not have a single family home on the corner to go to one extreme and then --
you know, I don't have a direct answer. I think if it was a different day, different world,
different site I mean maybe I could, you know, spend more time to think about it, but --
and I have spent two years thinking on this site, so I have a hard time maybe detaching
my mind from -- from that.
Simison: And I understand that. You were asked to design to a certain level because our
code says you have to do certain things and I guess what I'm -- the question I'm trying to
get around to is just because our code says it, does that mean that we are making the
right assumptions for this property and I -- I -- again, in my mind I'm sitting here just like
going through my-- my head about other hard corners that are two major arterials, where
we have commercial -- where we only have residential, you know, Franklin and Linder,
again, you have got an issue with a -- a drain or whatever you want to call it there. You
go to Cloverdale and Overland, again, you have got a canal issue, which is cutting off
those corners, which is making the access and it's pushing it back. So, I'm just asking
the question. Just because our comp plan says it's right, does that mean this
development is right or the comp plan is wrong and it should look differently and I think
that -- that's just something I'm throwing out there, because from my -- from where I sit I
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 35—55
-- I say access to this area with the commercial, with the roads, I go to -- I personally
question it with what we are being -- how we are being asked to access this location with
commercial on one that is because it's across from another facility it shouldn't have that
access fully and, then, we would be, essentially, putting the right-in, right-outs only in this
facility and is that appropriate for any commercial. I don't know.
Wheeler: Yeah. And I would say that, you know, a higher density residential use would
be my first preference if -- if the commercial were to go away. You know, versus a
townhome -- extension of the townhomes or something of that -- that nature.
Simison: Council, any further questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. We recently have had conversations with applicants who have
come and said that, you know, properties have been sitting for a while and I'm assuming
this location it's mostly been a floodplain issue more than a desirability issue for
commercial space, but we have had a few areas in the -- in this -- on Ustick between Ten
Mile and Linder where there has been commercial in the comp plan for many many years
and nothing has gotten built there and out of, I assume, lack of demand. So, have you
-- I don't know what your team has done as far as generating interest in the commercial,
but is there concern that you won't be able to fill that commercial space, because of traffic
flow or desirability or -- and I just -- I -- I'm so blown away as fast as we are growing that
that would be a question that we have to ask, but if, you know, the patterns have really
changed how people shop and where and when and -- and whatnot with COVID, so
maybe -- you know, maybe we are looking at how -- we need to look at how things are
done differently.
Wheeler: Yeah. Thanks for the question. I think that -- it kind of goes back to when we
were having the discussion on multi-family versus commercial on that corner and how
much commercial is too much commercial and enough multi-family to support the
commercial. You know, that was a concern of will we build too much commercial if we do
a commercial along that whole strip where the multi-family site is now and, you know,
mitigating that concern by the -- the lower square footage of the two different 12,000
square foot total, but in two different buildings, which are really two different uses. I mean
you have the small, you know, mom and pop shop commercial, I will call it, against the
hard -- the hardscape, you know, plaza, which is a much different commercial user than
the -- the larger one. So, we have a bit of diversity in the marketplace and that larger one
with the drive-through with the ability to, you know, break it up into two or three different
commercial properties, you know, I think through those measures we have mitigated our
concern on being able to build that commercial space.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay.
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 36 of 55
Wheeler: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you very much.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: We are going to do some discussion before closing the public hearing. I will give
you my thoughts on -- on the application. So, I start with the comp plan. I respect the
process we went through to -- to gather the input, to create it, and, then, the discipline
and adherence to it, understanding it's not anything more than a very useful guide, it's not
a mandatory directive, but I think the mixed-use community application remains sound at
this, even though it has made it maybe more challenging to try to find something that can
be successful in this location. So, with the mixed use community in -- in prep for the
hearing and in hearing what we did in tonight's presentation and public input, that blend
of the C-C and the R-15 zoning remains appropriate in my mind. I think the -- the way
that the applicant has tried to address both and incorporate both into this fits what mixed
use community tries to encourage. I share some of the concerns of Council Members
that the commercial might take some time. I would probably respond to that, at least from
my perspective, that I'm patient. I think in time the commercial will be there. I think it will
be last and -- and I would discourage a rezone application from anybody who tries for that
corner, because as we try to look at what is the best long-term solution there are short-
term bumps along the road where a portion of a project might not develop as fast as
others. But I do -- I believe that that commercial component is important and will be
successful a long time -- long term. So, for those reasons I thought that the application
as presented was appropriate. I appreciate the adjustments made and it is a very
challenging parcel to make work for anybody, as history has shown. I thought the open
space and the pedestrian connectivity was also something that will make this very
successful and a very popular project. So, again, I guess the only concern I had was --
maybe not a concern, but an acknowledgement is that the commercial will take some
time. I trust that integration between the property to the east and this has been
addressed. I appreciate Councilman Hoaglun's comments with regards to landscaping.
Those details matter and the applicant's commitment to that helps ease that concern
somewhat. So, for those reasons I'm supportive of the applications as presented. I didn't
see any outstanding issues that remained unaddressed. Just appreciate the creative
solution on a difficult parcel.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Thank you.
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I did just want to comment real quick, because it kind of come up along the east
boundary and landscaping. Those are going to be single family lots and if Council goes
the route of what some of the residents have asked about including landscaping along
that boundary, if it's not in a common lot it's incredibly difficult for staff to maintain that and
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 3, —55
to enforce it. So, we have really just tried not to do that, because we had this in Poiema,
I believe, the same thing of how do you enforce trees on private property. As soon as the
owner comes in they can cut it down and we have no idea and that's what it is. So, I just
wanted to reiterate that issue, if that is something that Council had previously been
thinking about.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Joe, I -- when I mentioned the enhanced landscaping was only for
the multi-family --
Dodson: The plaza.
Hoaglun: -- that was in the plaza. That was the only location I was --
Dodson: Right.
Hoaglun: -- interested in doing -- nowhere else along that, because, yeah, obviously,
that's very difficult to do, so -- and Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I will just --just weigh in here. It's one of those things when you get the packet
and you open it up and see what's before you and I -- I was like you, a little bit surprised
that there is commercial here. How in the world is that going to work. The access to me
is just difficult, but, then, I think Councilman Borton raised an important point about we --
we follow the process. This is what we have here. We have to be patient with it, give it
time, make it work -- I think the applicant did a very good job in designing the site with the
constraints they had to work with and, then, making sure that modifications were made.
They heard from the residents -- you know, not everyone's happy, you never get a
hundred percent, but making changes, losing that unit off the end to provide more space,
doing some things that I think through the walkability and -- and making it a desirable
space, a place where people want to live and have a community and that's very important
as we -- as we grow. As pointed out, this is not the same Meridian we grew up in, so --
but having that sense of community in that area that you live and -- and -- and, hopefully,
there will be some -- some commercial down the road and -- and have it in that place, but
it -- I think it will be difficult, just because of the access points for -- for commercial. But
-- but to stay true to what we have and has been laid out and our goals, you know, people
-- the times when developers come before us and they want to change the density and
change the comp plan and people just scream and now we have it and what it's supposed
to be and now they want to change it again. It's just -- it's just interesting for us to go
through this process weekly to -- to see the different -- different back and forth and --
depending on what's -- what's being proposed, so I think overall it was -- it was well
designed. So, I appreciate the work that went into it.
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I -- the commercial is important to me. I'm glad to see there is commercial here.
I think it's actually -- to me it's more neighborhood scaled commercial. It's not like a huge
looming, you know, Walmart or something. I mean this, hopefully, the way it could evolve
would be some uses that are complementary to the neighborhood and I like the
integration. I appreciate the pedestrian oriented design. At first when I looked at this I
really didn't think I would be supportive, but I appreciate all the changes that the applicant
made after the Planning and Zoning meeting and I think the process has really worked in
terms of improving this. I'm not loving the transition in the northeast corner against a
single family home, but I think the enhanced landscaping will help and it doesn't look like
that neighbor is directly looking out, you know, off the side of their house there, so I think
I can live with it. I wouldn't want to turn down a project over that detail. Overall I'm
supportive of it. I would echo the same comment, though, I -- at least I would be very --
very surprised if I would ever support a rezone of that commercial piece, just to put that
out there as well. I think we need to wait and let that happen. However long it takes. It
may take a while, but it will come and, hopefully, the right tenants that fit there will come
as well. Yeah. I think overall I'm supportive of it. Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. Really want to --to say thank you to the applicant for -- for sticking
out all this time trying to figure this out. This is a really tough piece, the geography and
the canals and it is -- it's a tough go. We have seen other properties like this sit for a
really long time that are -- that are great usable spaces in our city because folks don't
want to take them on and so we appreciate you going to all the hard work to try to figure
this out and to listen to the public and to continue to keep working on a project until there
is something that is really beneficial to Meridian. We know the incredible amount of work
that it takes to get to here and, then, risk, you know, potentially not receiving approval.
So, I am -- I -- I think the changes that were made from the Planning and Zoning
Commission until now are excellent. Thank you so much for making all those
considerations. It's pretty significant to lose an entire floor off of two buildings and to
restructure everything that way. My -- my only outlying concern is just that there would
be a better transition between the commercial and the residential on the south side of that
commercial building and I don't know how we -- and perhaps that's a question for Joe.
don't know how we actually add that into a requirement as far as -- I mean it's very random
to just say, hey, we want -- we want taller trees there. Like how do we -- how do we
condition that? I'm not necessarily saying that we need 25 feet of landscaping considering
the combination of the road and the landscaping that's there will be over 30 feet, but can
you help us figure out how to -- to condition that appropriately?
Dodson: Council -- or Mr. Mayor?
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you. Council Woman Perreault, thank you. There is -- there is probably
a number of ways. I -- I think a general, you know, additional day provision, just -- just
state something to -- to the effect that the required buffer between the C-C and the R-15
zoning district should be at least X amount of feet with vegetation that touches at maturity.
That we have a lot of that language in code already and we have utilized that kind of a
provision previously. That in alignment with the drive aisle that's kind of proposed there
from a planning perspective I think offers a sufficient buffer between and -- and, further,
the -- the placement of that commercial building being where it is was partially driven by
staff as well. We specifically told the applicant that, hey, we wanted that, frankly, a
neighborhood serving use a little closer, so that people could walk. You know, you want
to activate that plaza. You want to have a kid's birthday there while you are hanging out
and getting ice cream, hopefully, or whatever. A burger and a beer and hang out.
Whatever it might be. That's what the focus was there. So, I don't want to push it so far
away or create such a barrier that it just completely walls it off and I know that's not your
intention either, but, you know, noise, as well and just to -- again, you can also limit the
hours of operation. Code does say because it's adjacent to residential it's going to be
6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. So, it can't be 24 hours. If you want to limit it further that could
be another avenue to, quote, unquote, buffer the uses that would go there. At least you
could -- you could maybe make it specific to the -- the second site, you know, the -- the
-- the building pad closest to the residential and limit the hours on that building alone. You
do have flexibility in that DA provision.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor walked away. So, yes, I would like to -- I would like to limit that at
least to 9.00 p.m. I think is appropriate for that area. But as far as the -- what I had in
mind is it's just really densely landscaped -- more dense landscaping behind that building,
whether it's more trees and trees -- trees of maturity at the time of planting, not like trees
of maturity ten years from now. So, is there a way for us to condition that the trees need
to be mature at the time of planting, like the height of the building and, then, you know,
maybe -- maybe double the amount that would normally go in there or something to that
effect? I just -- I -- I don't want to -- I don't want it to be separated completely, but I also
want to respect the fact that, you know, the backside of commercial buildings can get kind
of ugly and I don't want that to be a value issue for the folks that live there.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, those are great points and you -- you can -- again,
we have some of that language in code, thankfully, already to have the vegetation that
touches. You can say at planting, instead of maturity, a hundred percent and because
the building -- to your very last point, because it faces residential, that has to meet pretty
much all of our design standards for commercial. They don't get out of anything. So, it
will not be an ugly building. They will have to do wall modulation, multiple field materials,
multiple roof variations, all of that. It can't just be a box and it certainly won't be an ugly
color.
Perreault: Thank you.
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 40—55
Dodson: Absolutely. I would just note -- sorry, Mr. Mayor. If Council agrees on 9:00 p.m.,
that's fine, I -- maybe that point might be up for discussion. I don't know if 9:00 -- it seems
a little early, but I come from California, so, you know, 11 :00 p.m. seems early most times,
so, it -- it's frustrating when things close at 8:00 and 9:00 around here sometimes if you
want to eat late, but it can happen.
Simison: So, Council, I'm going to make another pitch observation for your consideration
that would require the applicant to come forward, but I'm really concerned about the left-
hand out onto Linder. That goes through a left -- it's two lanes, plus a left-hand turn lane
that you have to drive through the back end of it in order to make that turning movement
and but for across the street it wouldn't be allowed under the guidelines. As we go into
what type of commercial makes sense, we talk about the neighborhood feel of this. Are
left-hand turn movements out of that are what we want to have? And I -- I'm -- again, I'm
going through the city, I'm looking at our areas, I'm looking at our problem spots and, you
know, those type of situations -- if we are setting up for the long-term success, do we want
to set up the -- set up the expectations now for what that success should look like, instead
of having a conversation in ten years, 15 years when there are too much traffic, because
when Linder Road overpass goes in that becomes more of a thoroughfare -- a north-
south, it's going to eventually be impacting something at some point in time and do we
want commercial to know what the likely limitations are? As we said, that can change. Is
it a limitation where -- that we would be willing to consider at this point in time, so we don't
have unsafe turning movements out of that long term.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I think I'm picking up what you are laying down. That makes sense to me.
don't -- can we, as a Council, specify a right-out and specify that there is not a left turn?
I feel like -- are we overstepping our role or do we have that ability?
Dodson: I'm sure Mr. Nary will comment as well, but I -- I don't know that we can dictate
what goes in the median. But on-site, as we did with Gramercy, making the curb in the
entrance or whatever to very much discourage people turning left, I have seen that and I
think we would have that power to condition that as a DA provision or condition of
approval.
Simison: And the developer has an opportunity to sign or not sign if that was a condition,
if that was the case, but I think at least warrants the question is whether -- whatever
success looks like long term, if ACHD starts -- in five years says, sorry, go away, what do
we want this to be long term. I think that's really the question, the expectations. But the
ramifications of that-- you are pushing more commercial traffic out through the residential
side of the neighborhood potentially to go left. It may. May not. But just, again, looking
at what the traffic implications are in this area that that access is a big issue in my opinion
long term. Mr. Nary.
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 41 of 55
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Joe is sounding just like an attorney. Yeah.
He's correct, yeah, definitely we don't have a way to limit the access onto the road -- onto
-- in Linder, but we can limit the access from the site out to the public right of way. The
challenge is sometimes is how it gets constructed, how it gets used, how it gets enforced.
It would appear likely, because of the current use on the west side of the roadway, they
are unlikely to ever put candles to prevent the emergency services from being --
accessing onto Linder. So, there is unlikely to ever be any other impediment to turning
into this site from going southbound on Linder. But definitely we can fashion in the
development agreement restrictions on the access out of the property. So, we can put
that in there.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: There is -- there is several other areas of our city that have this concern and I
-- I personally don't think that it's going to be any worse than any of the others. So,
currently turn out of my neighborhood onto Ten Mile and it's like running the gauntlet every
day. It's much much more dangerous than this is going to be and it's just directly south
of a commercial building. So, I just -- I don't -- there is a lot of these -- and I don't know
that we can regulate all of them and this reminds me of when you are coming out of the
--just to the north of here at the Winco exit, you are turning out of Winco and you turn left
across this commercial and, then, there is a fire station right there and the fire station you know, that's not going to be ever blocked off, because of the fire station, but that that doesn't feel like an unsafe place to turn left and I kind of see this playing out as a
similar feel to how that is all set up. So, I'm not in favor of that condition myself.
Simison: I think the difference here is that we have had some experiences even on Eagle
Road recently where we have areas where the -- when the traffic gets backed up people
start making turning movements that they can't see and this does have cueing back to an
area and there is no -- not a center turn area where you are supposed to move into -- I
mean you are not even really supposed to move into the center turn area to access the
area, but you got to drive through a left-hand turn lane going the opposite direction to a
certain extent to even turn into the next lane. Those are the types of things where you
are almost going against traffic to make this turning action based on my look at the map.
I mean even maybe if you don't want to do it, ask ACHD to move the turn lane closer to
the intersection and not have the queuing lane so far back. But those are -- those are the
issues and -- and they do exist all over the place. Locust Grove coming out in those areas
right there by the -- just south of the Maverick there is a road there that turns over into
two lanes and into a left-hand turn lane, eventually that's going to be a problem. Today
not necessarily, but I'm just trying to look at long-term, not necessarily what's there today.
Eventually the area you are talking about is also going to be a problem.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
Borton: So, if one of the conditions that's contemplated is that access onto Linder Road
be designed on-site to ensure right-in, right-out only is what you are --
Simison: That would be my question. My contemplation to the applicant.
Borton: The applicant has been stoic without gesture, so that requires us to get your input
if that is reasonable to consider, if it's fatally flawed from your perspective. How would
you respond?
Wheeler: Yeah. Council -- Council Members, I think it will make it more difficult, you
know, to make that commercial area more attractive, of course. Is it a no go? I -- it's hard
to say, you know. But we would prefer it not to be and, then, to be able to turn left on
there, I think that, you know, with the adjacent emergency use across the street that does
limit at least any further congestion from another use, you know, intersection type of
situation or a high traffic -- you know, if it was a Winco exiting and we are also exiting or
something to that effect. So, I think there is a little bit of an alleviation there in the impacts
of that left turn. I would recommend that we don't limit it to the right-in and that we go
with a left turn south onto Linder.
Simison: Maybe one more thing. It also allows left-hand turn movements off of Linder
into the project under the -- under the current if -- yeah. Maybe not. That's -- I think you
could, but I'm -- without designing it -- but it's going to -- it's going to create a problem. It
-- it -- it will in some regards create some real challenges. People stop on Linder to try --
because there is no left-hand turn lane to turn into this property at that location, because,
again, there is a left-hand lane that goes -- extends to the end beyond where the turning
movements begin. So, whether we do something here or ACHD does something on their
end to alleviate that so there is a cueing space, left-hand turn movements in and out at
this location will be a problem long term or short term when it starts getting built. But I will
-- that's an impact on those guys over there, so -- if Christy was here from ACHD I would
ask her and I thought that she was going to be on the call, but no one from ACHD is with
us that I can tell.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. I live out there and use that Linder Road quite frequently. That is a very
long lane. They plan to head for -- for that queuing, which really don't have that stacking
in rush hour periods. I -- I would think for the short term they could -- they could shorten
that to make a center turn lane for access in and out temporarily, but there will be that
point in time where it's -- it's not going to work, even if -- with the center turn lane. But it
is possible to do that at this point in time from my experience of living there. So -- you
know. So, there -- there is a short-term solution. But, eventually, it -- it will not be a
solution.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Page 66
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 43—55
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I'm going to attempt to make a motion, hoping that I have gathered everything
that we are trying to incorporate here. So, I move that we approve --
Simison: Council Woman Perreault, the public hearing is still open, so --
Perreault: Oh. I thought we had closed it. I move that we close the public hearing.
Strader: 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: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. I move that we approve the application for Lennon Pointe
Community, H-2021-0071 , for the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and
conditional use permit, with the following modifications: To add mature landscaping in the
northeast corner between the Building A, which is the apartment complex, and to create
more of a green space there and less -- less hardscape and, then, I would add that we
would add plants that are maturity at -- excuse me -- that -- landscaping that's mature at
planting between the commercial building on the -- the south side of the commercial area
and the residential to the south. I believe that that's everything that we -- there was an
outlier. If there is anything else, please, let me know.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Can we wait for a second?
Borton: I will second for discussion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Sorry. I -- in no way do I want to belabor this. Trust me.
But the -- I was thinking about the buffer thing between the C-C and the R-15 again.
Because that's probably going to come in very late, I think the DA provision should
probably include a timing of that buffer being installed with the residential, so it has time
to mature as well and not at the time of the commercial building being built, because that's
usually when it goes in. So, I don't know if Council Woman Perreault and the Council
agree with that and want to make that modification. Or I could be completely out of my
mind.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Page 67
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 44—55
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I like that idea. I know that that's probably kind of unconventional, because
the applicant usually doesn't start doing the landscaping piece until that -- you know, that
commercial area goes in. I would be -- I guess the conversation could be, you know, we
did -- we didn't mention putting mature landscaping on the south side in the berms -- or,
excuse me, in the -- in the MEWs that are between the sidewalk and the -- the north side
of the first home and that could be an area where they add more mature landscaping to
buffer that -- I -- I would be in favor of-- of adding that landscaping prior to the commercial
building being built. But I don't know if -- I don't know what's typical. Is that -- is that a
condition that's happened before, Joe?
Dodson: I have a good memory, but I don't know if it's that good with this. I wouldn't say
that that's typical, but -- well, we usually require the street buffers regardless of what's
adjacent to it. So, I guess that's -- that's -- that could be precedent there. I know that
could be a bad word, but that could give us some basis there. But because of the
discussion that we have had I -- and what Council has had, I believe it makes sense to
include that there, rather than wait for the commercial. But I guess at the same time if the
commercial isn't there, the --the issue isn't there. So, I can see it both ways. I just wanted
to throw that out in case Council wanted to give those trees time to mature.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Joe, what is -- what is considered maturity at planting? Like is there a height
-- what's considered a mature tree? I mean it just totally depends on what they put in;
right? So, maturity of planting could be anything -- I don't know -- like how technical do
we get on this? I -- I think that, you know, they are likely not going to implement any of
the parking infrastructure or the curbing or anything that will require landscaping in that
area around the 3,000 square foot building until that building's ready to be built; correct?
Dodson: More than likely, yes.
Perreault: Without just the space -- so, that what -- they are not going to bring in
landscaping and add the curbing in and -- and everything just to have some trees there
to buffer something that doesn't exist yet, so it sounds -- I think -- I think it just needs to
stay with the trees -- when that's developed the trees are mature, instead of being, you
know, a one foot shrub, so -- however that needs to be worded in the DA.
Dodson: Perfect. I got it. Sorry to convolute that.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Page 68
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page—of 55
Strader: Just for discussion. So, I wouldn't be able to support the motion, because I am
now convinced that we need a right-in, right-out off of Linder and I'm really concerned that
if we are letting people make the left-hand turn we are just kicking the can down the road.
So, I feel -- you know, Mayor Simison won me over actually with that argument. I think
that's a true issue. I actually think limiting it to right-in, right-out will make it more likely
that when we do get the commercial users that there will be more neighborhood scale
users, so I think that fits with what is intended here. So, I -- I would not support the current
motion without that condition.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Personally I think that's going to cause issues getting commercial users to
come in. I -- I think that's going to delay I -- think it's going to create a desirability problem
and I don't -- I don't love that element either. They are just so many -- there is so many
other-- I'm not saying that--that we want it to be a dangerous area, but this --this location
to me is not even remotely the most dangerous left turn that could can be made. I mean
I -- I --there is so many dangerous left turns that exist right now that I -- I just don't--there
is a center turn lane right now on Linder Road and there is going to be stacking on the
right turn lane heading north, but I -- I actually drive that exact same scenario multiple
times a day and I get--and there is a --you know, when you are entering into a subdivision
and they put a big square white box in front of the entrance, right, so that you can see
this is an entrance to a residential area. That protects people from turning left from -- if
-- if somebody is turning south and they get in the left-turn lane to turn in there, they are
going to have a protected box that says don't park in this space, somebody is turning in
here, because it's residential. There is -- there is features that are put on the road to
protect that. So, I -- and there is already a left turn lane that exists there on Linder. It's
four lanes already with left turn. I don't -- I'm not -- I guess I'm not understanding the
problem.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Call for the question.
Simison: The question has been called. Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, nay; Cavener, absent; Bernt, nay; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, nay; Strader,
nay.
Simison: Motion fails. One aye. Four nays.
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. FOUR NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
Page 69
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 46 of 55
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I will -- I will give it a shot. So, I hope -- maybe for discussion. I don't know how
much discussion. After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
approve File No. H-2021-0071 as presented in the staff report for today's hearing date
with the following modifications: Behind the commercial a requirement that at the time
the commercial is completed that there be mature planting that touches at maturity, that
there be mature planting in the northwest corner of the site next to Building A. Mature
trees. Excuse me. And with the condition that the access off of Linder Road be
constructed in a way to encourage right-in, right-out only. I apologize. I mean the
northeast corner.
Borton: Second.
Simison: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I just want to say that I -- I am in support of this project and just -- with just the
one element of not being in agreement with the restricting the left turn and so I will -- I will
vote no on that motion, but I just want to make it clear to the applicant that I am in favor
of this project, with the exception of that one element.
Simison: Any further discussion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just as -- as part of that motion, Mr. Nary, is that the obligation to design the
Linder Road access to be right-in, right-out on the property, is that a DA condition or does
that need to be specified?
Nary: Yes, sir. That's what I took it to be.
Borton: Okay. All right. Thanks.
Simison: Seeing no further discussion, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, nay; Perreault, nay; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Page 70
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 47—55
Simison: Three ayes. Two nays. And the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Thank you very much and best of luck, Joe, getting all that squared away.
Dodson: I got it.
DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item]
5. Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in
the Amount of$5,000.00 for Central District Health Partnership for
Success Mini Grant
Simison: Next item up is Item 5, which is under Department/Commission Reports, the
Police Department fiscal year 2022 net zero budget amendment in the amount of 5,000
dollars. Turn this over to Lieutenant Brown.
Brown: Mr. Mayor and City Council Members, I request that -- or request your approval
for a partnership for a partnership for success mini grant that was awarded by the Central
District Health to provide drug-free school zone signs to all 58 West Ada School District
campuses. These signs are to replace the previous signs with updated verbiage at West
Ada School District's request. The administration requests the addition of the word vape,
because there have been multiple occasions where parents have been asked to stop
vaping on campus and that language is not currently on those signs. With that I will stand
for any questions. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Lieutenant Brown? Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Will these signs be placed only at right-in, right-out locations?
Brown: I don't know where the designations will be placed, Councilman, but they will be
frequent throughout the campuses.
Bernt: Got Jerry Seinfeld in the house.
Simison: Without any further comic relief, is there a motion?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Page 71
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
Bernt: I move that we approve fiscal year 2022 net zero budget amendment in the amount
of 5,000 dollars for Central District Health partnership for success mini grant that was just
presented to us by Lieutenant Brown.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call
the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
6. Parks and Recreation Department: Meridian Parks and Recreation
Master Plan Update Findings Summary
Simison: Council, we are good to continue going? All right. Then, with that we will move
onto Item 6, which is the Parks and Recreation Department. The Meridian Parks and
Recreation master plan update finding summary and turn this over to Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is meant to be just a
brief update and status report for you. As you know we are working on the master plan
update. Art Thatcher was before you this fall when we were kicking off the -- the project.
He kind of laid out the -- the sequence of events that would be happening. We rolled
straight into a major public involvement activity, along with a variety of stakeholder focus
groups and interviews with each of you and our Parks and Rec commissioners and others.
So, I believe you are familiar with that. We have also had the survey out and Art --Art is
coming back this week to do a big presentation tomorrow night and he is going to give
you more of those details, so I'm going to turn it over to Art. But I just wanted to introduce
Art and just say that tonight is our commitment to come before you with regular touch
points throughout this process to keep you informed of -- of where we are and what the
next steps are. So, with that I'm going to turn this over to Art Thatcher.
Thatcher: Thank you, Steve. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for allowing
me a few minutes to come and meet with you. I -- I could put the 68 slide show for
tomorrow up and we could go through that -- sorry. I am here tonight to give you an
update on the -- on the master plan and so we are in the -- the findings and visioning
stage. This is kind of the -- the four stages of the master plan. So, we are -- we are back
to do the -- the findings, to go over the results of the survey, to kind of touch base again
on the -- on our public engagement, look at those recurring themes and, then, begin to
develop recommendations and actions for the master plan. And so as you can see all of
those that are in kind of the --the orange are those different tasks that we have completed.
We are down kind of in the community center feasibility, the cost recovery, and the findings
Page 72
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page——55
presentation stages. We are here this week to do the -- the findings presentation and so
as you remember we were here in November and -- and did our public engagement. We
held six focus groups for 39 participants. We interviewed ten elected officials,
stakeholders. We did a swap -- workshop with the staff and did interviews with the staff.
We also did a briefing to -- to the Commission and, then, toured all the parks and facilities
and, then, held an open forum and we had 18 people attend that in a -- both in -- in person
and virtually. And so we really did asked about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,
what new programs, facilities you would like to see and so just kind of a recap from the
focus groups, the strengths of the department, the staff, the leadership, that they are
approachable, the diversity of offerings, location of your parks and they are well planned,
they are -- they are bikeable, they are for everyone and, then, your partnerships were
some of those -- those top things that -- strengths that were identified by -- by the focus
group participants. We also asked about areas of improvement and parking was the --
the one that came up the most, along with communication, and I can tell you that with all
the communities that I work with around the country, those areas of improvement,
communication and parking are always in the top three and -- and so it's -- it's not
unreasonable to see those. The need for more athletic fields, diamond -- specifically
diamond fields for youth and, then, a greater need for more open space and -- and more
park space were some of those other areas for improvement. So, we asked about
priorities of everything that we talked about, what would this -- what would your priorities
be for the focus groups and so connectivity was the number one. An indoor facility.
Rectangle fields to support demand. Land acquisition. And, then, managing growth were
those top five that came out of the -- of the focus groups for those priorities. So, from
there we -- we took that information and we took the -- the information that we got from
our leadership interviews and we developed a -- a survey and so we did our needs
assessment survey. We mailed that to 3,500 homes, 3,444 of them were delivered and
so we got a return of 3,200 of the invitation surveys and, then, another 378 of the open
links. So, a total return of 690 and giving us that five percent plus or minus margin of
error and so we asked about needs for future facilities. One of the things about --
Greenplay did the 2015 master plan. We also did the survey and the same survey firm
did both, so we were able to do some comparisons and so we asked about future needs.
You can see that a community recreation center was the top need in -- in 2021 . An indoor
aquatic facility came in second. Afield house gymnasium space. A performing arts center
and the ice rink were the -- were the top out of the -- out of a list of ten facilities that we
-- that we asked about priorities and you can see in 2015 those were the same top five
and -- and, really, just the indoor aquatic facility and the community center kind of flipped
from -- from 2015 to 2021 . So, that same need is there within the community. We also
asked about outdoor facilities. Future needs. Again, kind of looking at that comparison.
Parks and pathways, improvements to park amenities, shade structures, playgrounds,
lights on athletic fields, again, were those top five. You can see they were very similar to
the 2015 and -- and what was -- what kind of dropped in from -- from 15 to 21 was the
public art in parks and exercise stations along trails and lost a little bit of traction, but,
really, only about two-tenths of a percent. So, we also asked about communication,
because communication was one of the things that -- that came out of the -- out of the
needs assessment -- out of the focus groups and, again, we asked about what are the
best ways that -- that we can reach you and so e-mails from the city, social media, the
Page 73
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 50—55
activity guide and -- and the website -- the city's website were those really top four and
we see that very much within -- again around the country, that there is really a -- kind of
a mixed method. There is not one method that -- that does the best. We do see that the
activity guides finish in that top ten percent or so on -- in these, because what people like
is they like to get them, they go through it and they can circle what they want to do, but,
then, they want to turn around and they want to be able to register online for their
programs and do those things. So, these are -- these are very -- very common methods.
So, we look at those recurring themes and so trails, pathways, connectivity, the need for
a community center, improved park amenities, improving the park amenities, maintaining
what you currently have, making sure that you are taking care of your current facilities,
your current amenities before you start to build a lot of new. Shade structures in parks.
Land acquisition. Keeping up with your rapid growth. Lighted athletic fields. Space for
performing arts and an indoor aquatics facility. Really those --those are recurring themes
that we -- that we came through all of those data points. And so Dave Petersen, who is
with me, does our inventory and our level of service analysis and so he went and visited
all the parks, looked at all the amenities and -- and these were some of the -- kind of his
observations from the inventory site visits. The parks are very consistent across the
board. They are very well maintained. They are very high standard. Impressively your
restrooms are probably the cleanest of any system that we -- that we use. So, it speaks
well to your maintenance. They are -- you know, most of the parks do have public art and
that it's very well received. Additional bike repair stations have been added and your turf
conditions are in excellent shape and there seems to be a really high priority to plant trees
in many of the parks and so we -- we are taking all that information and, again, we will be
doing a presentation to the public tomorrow, getting their feedback, getting them to
validate the things that we have heard. We have got a lot more of the -- kind of the survey
results that we will go over with them -- Dave will go over a lot of the heat maps for
walkability and accessibility to recreation facilities during that and then -- and then -- and,
then, on Thursday we will be working with the staff to really look at -- we -- we do this
visioning workshop where we --we look at the recurring themes and, then, the data points
where we saw them and, then, begin to develop kind of high level recommendations to
meet those and, then, as a project team we will begin to look at those recommendations
and actions to meet those, like we did in the -- in the previous master plan. In addition to
the master planning process on March 30th we have an open house and a public meeting
with the next step for the community center feasibility study and, then, in -- in April we will
be doing the public workshops and the sorting for -- for the cost recovery portion of this
project and so, again, our next step is this draft recommendations beginning to really kind
of hone in on the recommendations and actions for the master plan. So, I'm happy to
answer any questions. I know it's been a long night for you.
Simison: Thank you, Art. Council, questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you very much, Art. Could you go back to the slides to talk about the
Page 74
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 51 —55
priorities. I just want to get some understanding of a couple of those.
Thatcher: The survey priorities or the --
Perreault: Keep going. One more. There you go. So, when it says areas of
improvement, communication, does that mean communication between the city and the
public or communication -- I'm not like --
Thatcher: Yes.
Perreault: Can you help me quantify that?
Thatcher: Sure. It's the -- the public knowing about what -- what programs are going on,
communication with the public, information being given out. Your marketing. Your
communication. Those -- those are the things that -- that they were talking about.
Perreault: Can you share what the -- what they thought was lacking, because I mean it's
published in like so many different ways.
Thatcher: Yes. Yes, ma'am, it is. And -- and as I said, it -- it's common across the country
and I mean you can -- you can invest millions of dollars into -- into marketing and -- and
citizens will tell you, well, I didn't know about that. I didn't hear about that. I -- and -- and
you have put it in all the social media areas. You can even walk to their door and put a
flyer in their hand and the next day they will tell you they didn't know about it. It's not
uncommon and it's not something that we get upset about, but I mean it is -- I -- I know
Shelley was --was very taken aback when --when she saw this is that the second highest
kind of area of improvement.
Perreault: Can you go to the next slide? I just have one more question on the next slide.
So, the -- the land acquisition that -- that means like the city looking for additional
purchase opportunities for more parks.
Thatcher: Yes, ma'am.
Perreault: Or for fields or -- is that what that means?
Thatcher: Yes. Yes. It's continuing to -- to acquire land as development, so staying
ahead of the development, so that you are not losing ground on your provision of parks
for -- for the community.
Perreault: And, then, what does inclusiveness mean, third from the bottom?
Thatcher: Yes. Being inclusive, making sure that you are programming for everyone,
both ethnically, age wise, sports wise, making sure that there is a balance between active
and passive recreation. Those are the -- kind of that inclusivity piece.
Page 75
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 52—55
Perreault: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Art, if you could advance just a couple of slides. I had a question about
something where they are showing the three point -- in 2015 versus the 2021 survey and
I found it interesting, the field house gymnasium space from the 2015 survey to the 2021
survey, because the city acquired HomeCourt and that was a -- a big move and I just
found it interesting that -- and it could be because with more growth, more people, and
there is not enough room. So, that's just kind of interesting where we did make an
acquisition and improve it and, yet, there is still more need than those expressed before.
Thatcher: And some of that may also be a part of the communication piece where the --
the community that -- that saw that as a private facility is really not aware that -- that you
have taken it over and it's now a public facility and, then, it's open to the public and it goes
to that marketing, that communication piece.
Simison: So, did I just hear you blame Shelley again? Sorry, Shelley.
Thatcher: She's going to come get me in the morning I can tell.
Simison: Council, any additional questions before you all tune in tomorrow night? Thank
you, Art.
Thatcher: Thank you all very much. Have a good evening.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
7. Ordinance No. 22-1970: An Ordinance (Woodcrest Townhomes H-
2021-0015 - Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the
Southwest '/4 of the Southeast '/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North,
Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Also Being a
Portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision, as Shown in Book 87
of Plats on Pages 9881 through 9883, Records of Ada County, Idaho;
Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of
2.10 Acres of Land from L-O (Limited Office) Zoning District to R-15
(Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City
Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance Shall be Filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State
Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and providing for a summary
of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading rules and
providing an effective date
Simison: You, too. Council, that moves us on to Item 7 this evening, which is Ordinance
Page 76
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 53—55
No. 22-1970. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. An ordinance related to Woodcrest Townhomes, H-
2021-0015, for rezone -- for rezone of a parcel of land located in the Southwest '/4 of the
Southeast '/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county,
Idaho, and also being a portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of, Mallane Subdivision, as shown in
Book 87 of Plats on Pages 9881 through 9883, Records of Ada county, Idaho; establishing
and determining the land use zoning classification of 2.10 acres of land from L-O (Limited
Office) Zoning District to R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District in the
Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as
required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there
anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Ralph says no. Then do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1970, with a suspension of rules.
Hoaglun: Second in the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1970 under
suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; 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?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there is one more.
8. Ordinance No. 22-1971: An Ordinance (Apex East Subdivision - H-
2021-0086 Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of
Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the Southwest '/4 of the Northeast
1/4 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada
County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning
Classification of 32.21 Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density
Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)
Page 77
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 54—55
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: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. The ordinance -- next item up is No. 8, which is
Ordinance No. 22-1971. Ask the Clerk to read the ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Apex East Subdivision, H-
2021-0086 rezone -- for rezone of a parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 2
and a portion of the Southwest '/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2 North,
Range 1 East, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho; establishing and determining the land
use zoning classification of 32.21 acres of land from R-4 (Medium Low Density
Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the
Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as
required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver
of the reading rules; and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there
anybody that would like it right in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1971 with the suspension of rules.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1971 under
suspension of the rules. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Or do I have a motion to
adjourn?
Page 78
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 22,2022
Page 55—55
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn.
Simison: Have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay?
The ayes have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:16 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
3 / 8 / 2022
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 79
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
I
i
I
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN-IN SHEET
Date: February 22, 2022
3
3
Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and
provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of
the Public Forum:
• DO NOT:
o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning
and Zoning or City Council
o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters
• DO
o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first
o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic
is deemed inappropriate for this forum)
Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Black History Month
Page 4
Item#1.
E IDN:-- -
IHO
L
the office of the -Mayor
PROC .CAAA. rjojv
WHEREAS, During Black History Month, we honor and celebrate the many achievements
and contributions made by African Americans to our economic, cultural,
spiritual, and political development; and,
WHEREAS, Black History Month grew out of the establishment, in 1926, of Negro
History Week by Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of
African American Life and History; and,
WHEREAS, the 2022 national theme for the observance is "Black Health &Wellness"
which considers activities, rituals and initiatives that Black communities have
done to be well; and,
WHEREAS, the observance of Black History Month encourages our community to
understand and acknowledge the lives of all of its African American citizens
and live up to our democratic ideals; and,
WHEREAS, we are all able to live better lives and have a brighter future thanks to the
contributions that have been made of African Americans in our community,
state and nation.
THEREFORE, I, Mayor Robert E. Simison, hereby proclaim February 2022 as
BCack History Month
in the City of Meridian and encourage the residents of our community, and communities across the
country, to learn more about and celebrate the diverse heritage and culture of African Americans,
and continue our efforts to create a world that ' ore just, peaceful, and prosperous for all.
Dated this 22 d day of February, 2022 L
Robert E. imis n, Mayor
Brad Hoaglun, City Council President
Joe Borton, City Council Vice-President
Treg Bernt, City Council
Luke Cavener, City Council
Jessica Perrault, City Council
Liz Strader, City Council
Page 5
;a r
M Y
AL
uMo NaacwH
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Resolution No. 22-2315: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of
the City of Meridian, Appointing Patrick Grace to Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning & Zoning
Commission; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 6
Item#2.
CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. 22-2315
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERRAULT, STRADER
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN,APPOINTING PATRICK GRACE TO SEAT 6 OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING
& ZONING COMMISSION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Meridian City Code 2-1-1 establishes the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission, its members and terms of their appointments; and
WHEREAS, Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems the appointment of Patrick Grace
to Seat 6 of the Planning&Zoning Commission to be in the best interest of the Meridian Planning and
Zoning Commission and of the City of Meridian.
NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO:
Section 1. That pursuant to Meridian City Code § 2-1-1, Patrick Grace is hereby appointed to
Seat 6 of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, with a term to expire January 31, 2023.
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 22"d day of February,2022.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 22nd day of February, 2022.
APPROVED:
Mayor Robert E. Simison
ATTEST:
By:
Chris Johnson, City Clerk
RE-APPOINTMENT OF PATRICK GRACE—MERIDIAN PLANNING&ZONING COMMISSION
Page 7
E IDIAN.;---
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Page 4
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #3: Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095)
Application(s):
Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists consist of approximately 9 acres of land, located at the northeast
corner of S. Eagle Rd. & E. Victory Rd., zoned C-C & R-15.
History: This property was annexed in 2019 with a Development Agreement.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use – Community (MU-C)
Summary of Request: The Applicant proposes to modify the existing DA in effect for this property to update the conceptual
development plan approved for the overall development.
The existing plan depicts a mix of uses including a residential care facility with single-family attached homes for independent living on
the eastern portion of the site and an office pad and (3) retail/commercial 3 pads along S. Eagle Rd. on the western portion of the site.
No changes to the retirement community or the two retail/commercial building pads at the southwest corner of the site are proposed,
except to enlarge the northern building pad and include office as a possible use. The pad at the southwest corner of the site is planned
to develop with a drive-through restaurant (i.e. coffee shop) with indoor & outdoor seating. The 3-story office building is proposed to be
removed as there is not adequate space for the building and there is a sewer easement in the middle of the roadway & through where
the building is depicted; and a daycare is proposed in place of the northern retail pad. The Applicant’s narrative states that walkways
are planned from the daycare to the senior living as part of the plan is for children to visit the seniors.
The proposed development plan, which includes a mix of residential and commercial (retail/office/restaurant/daycare) uses,
demonstrates compliance with the MU-C FLUM designation in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. The proposed uses will provide
employment opportunities and services for those living nearby.
The existing DA provisions will ensure supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces, including but not limited to parks,
plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, etc. is provided within the mixed use/commercial portion of the development.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Written Testimony: Clint Tolman, Applicant’s Representative – In agreement w/staff report
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0095, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of February 22, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0095, as presented during the
hearing on February 22, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0095 to the hearing date of _______ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #4: Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit; Private Street application was also submitted but is an
administrative approval.
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.8 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at the SEC of Linder 7
Ustick.
History: N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-use Community (MU-C, 6-15 du/ac)
Summary of Request: Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts;
Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 residential building lots (43 single-family residential and 1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial
building lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts; Conditional Use Permit for a multi-
family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18 acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district. Note: The Applicant has also
received private street approval in a portion of the project; this application is reviewed and approved by the Director so Commission
action is not required.
The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning in all directions. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by arterial
streets, Ustick and Linder Roads, respectively. Development of the surrounding areas are ongoing with detached single-family to the
east and south in Creason Creek Subdivision and multiple office buildings being constructed to the north across Ustick Road. C-C
zoning and an ambulance service exist to the west across Linder Road. In addition to the existing land uses around the property, the
subject site contains two major waterways and a large area of floodplain that traverse a large segment of the southern half of the site,
the Creason Lateral and the Kellogg Drain. The Applicant is proposing to pipe the Kellogg Drain and reroute it to make more area of
the site usable as well as provide open space and pathways in the southwest corner of the site and along the west boundary.
The proposed land uses are attached single-family, townhomes, multi-family residential, and commercial. These land uses are
consistent with those outlined in the MU-C future land use designation definition and contemplated uses when properly integrated
internally and with surrounding areas. Overall, Staff finds the proposed site design offers appropriate integration. Specifically, the
Applicant has proposed their multi-family residential product along Ustick and the commercial buildings at the hard corner of the Ustick
and Linder intersection which places the most intense uses closest to the arterials. Therefore, the single-family uses are proposed on
the remaining area of the site that makes up approximately 70% of the site area. The Applicant is proposing the single-family portion of
the site as all two-story except for the 5-unit townhomes along Linder.
In addition to site design and proposed uses, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within the MU-C future
land use designation (6-15 du/ac). The proposed project as shown is approximately 7.35 du/ac, being at the low end of the gross
density allowed. Overall, Staff finds the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the future land use designation of
Mixed-Use Community.
Staff recommended the units along the east boundary to be front-loaded instead of utilizing the public street as an alley. Applicant
made these revisions prior to the second Commission hearing. The following site data is relevant when reviewing the requested
preliminary plat:
Proposed residential uses are allowed uses within requested R-15 zoning district. Future commercial uses will be analyzed
when future applications are submitted for this area.
Dimensional standards:
o Commercial lot meets dimensional standards.
o Multi-family meets all dimensional standards.
o Single-family area of the site meets dimensional standards.
Multi-family Specific Use Standards - Each multi-family unit is proposed as a single-story unit (two buildings, 9 in each
building).
o The multi-family units have been revised so the amount of private open space has not been confirmed. Future CZC
application will ensure this standard has been met.
o 18 units = at least 2 amenities from two categories—the Applicant is proposing a shared plaza and public art from
Quality of Life and Open Space categories to satisfy this requirement.
A minimum of 10% qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required for the single-family
portion of the site. Based on the proposed plat of 8.75 acres, a minimum of 0.88 acres of qualified common open space
should be provided to satisfy this requirement. According to the Applicant’s revised open space exhibit, approximately 1.7
acres of qualified open space is proposed (approx. 19.5%). The majority of the qualified open space consists of the large open
space area in the southwest corner of the site, the large central mew, and half of the required arterial street buffers. This area
exceeds the minimum UDC requirements. Staff finds the proposed open space is adequate in its amount and placement to
satisfy all code requirements.
Based on the area of the proposed plat (8.75 acres), a minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided.
Applicant proposed three (3) qualified amenities (correction to staff report that states 2)—a 10-foot multi-use pathway
segment, a children’s play structure, and a fenced dog park area. The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC
standards.
Applicant is proposing pedestrian facilities throughout the entire site that include attached sidewalks, micro-paths, and a multi-
use pathway segment. All of these facilities connect and integrate the site offering more than adequate pedestrian circulation.
All proposed sidewalks/pathways meet UDC standards.
Project meets all off-street parking requirements per submitted plans. Future building permits for single-family will verify
compliance with off-street parking standards based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Guest parking has been proposed
along the private street segment of the project as well.
Access from the adjacent arterials (N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road) is proposed via one 25-foot wide driveway connection
to each arterial street.
o The driveway to Ustick Road will be restricted to right-in/right-out, per ACHD, and passes through the multi-family
portion of the project where it connects to the parking drive aisle for the multi-family units and then connects to the
proposed private street.
o The driveway access to Linder Road is a temporary full access and is located approximately 360 feet south of the
Linder/Ustick intersection. ACHD has approved both of these arterial access points through review of driveway
analyses made by the Applicant’s traffic engineer. No Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was required because less than 100
residential units are proposed.
o The other public access points to the site are proposed via extending a public local street through the site. N. Zion
Park Avenue is being extended from the south property boundary and W. Pebblestone Drive is being extended from
the east property boundary in the northeast corner of the site and is shown to connect for a completion of the public
road system in this development.
o Applicant is proposing a private street through a portion of the residential area (west half). According to the submitted
plans, the Applicant is proposing this private street to be at least 26 feet wide and be within a 30-foot easement on
the plat. The proposed private street and local street are functioning as alleys for a majority of the proposed
residential units as the main entrance to each home is located opposite of the garage access. Complies with UDC
standards.
o Applicant is proposing three (3) detached homes in the southeast corner of the site. These lots take access from a
common drive off of the local street extension, N. Zion Park Avenue. The proposal for the number of units and
access complies with code requirements.
Changes since 12/2 hearing: See Staff Memo to Commission dated 1/14/2022 –
- Commission continued the project for the following reasons: create a better solution to the transition between the proposed
multi-family building and the neighborhood to the east; modify the attached units on the east side of the site to be front-loaded;
revise the plat to match any changes to the overall conceptual site plan.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Andrew Wheeler, Applicant Representative; Patrick Reams, Owner Representative; Carissa Sindon, descendant of
the Owners.
ii. In opposition: Caryn Bitler, neighbor; Pamela Stinette, neighbor; Olena Santana, neighbor; Shelby Shanaberger, neighbor; John
Bitler, neighbor; Pamela Stinnett, neighbor;
iii. Commenting: Andrew Wheeler; Caryn Bitler; Pamela Stinette; Olena Santana; Shelby Shanaberger; John Bitler; Patrick Reams;
Carissa Sindon; Pamela Stinnett.
iv. Written testimony: Caryn and John Bitler (13 pieces of testimony); Helen and Eder Santana
v. Key Issue(s):
Concern over proposal to include multi-family dwellings;
Concern with height disparity across property to existing homes in Creason Creek and a loss of privacy;
General desire to construct the property with detached single-family homes only;
Concerns with general increase of traffic in the vicinity with additional homes/units;
Desire to relay how difficult the site is to develop with two major irrigation facilities bisecting the property and has floodzone
throughout the entire property;
Appreciation of proposed design considering history of property and difficulty of developing this.
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
Location of proposed multi-family in relation to existing single-family to the east and the proposed commercial—could the
commercial and multi-family be switched;
Height of the multi-family being 4-story and at the maximum 40’ mark; general desire for this to be reduced as it does not
match anything along the Ustick corridor;
How will the garages for the multi-family be utilized for parking instead of storage;
Location of the Dog Park in relation to the other open space and existing homes to the east—could it be moved;
What kind of commercial is the target for the proposed pad sites;
Staff’s recommended (and agreed to by Applicant) changes for the homes along the east boundary to be front-loaded to have
abutting backyards along the east boundary;
Concern with viability of Commercial with no direct access due to proximity to the hard corner of Linder and Ustick;
General agreement that the proposed changes to the site plan and multi-family are a benefit to the project;
Still concern with proposed attached units along east boundary instead of detached single-family;
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Commission recommended changes to the staff report consistent with Staff’s
memo prior to the January 20th meeting.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Caryn & John Bitler – 5 more letters were submitted since the Commission hearing
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2021-0071, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of February 22, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2021-0071, as presented during the
hearing on February 22, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0071 to the hearing date of _________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
h2
City Council MeetingFebruary 22, 2022
Slide 1
h2 Agenda Item Numbers/Order:
hoodc, 12/19/2006
Existing Concept PlanProposed Concept Plan
ZONINGAERIAL
Revised family -Multi
Building Elevations & Renderings
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095) by Goldstream,
Located at 3330 E. Victory Rd.
A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-124424) to
update the conceptual development plan to include a daycare facility instead of a retail use and
removal of the 3-story office building in favor of a smaller retail/office building.
Page 8
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: 2/22/2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 3
PROJECT NAME: Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark x if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1 i
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#3.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: February 22, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Inglewood Commercial (H-2021-0095) by Goldstream, Located
at 3330 E.Victory Rd.
A. Request: Modification to the Existing Development Agreement (Inst. #2019-
124424) to update the conceptual development plan to include a daycare
facility instead of a retail use and removal of the 3-story office building in
favor of a smaller retail/office building.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 9
Item#3.
STAFF REPORT C�I
w IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING 2/22/22 I -. -
DATE: a-a , RIFa bK
TO: Mayor&City Council `QM" "5`
--
FROAM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner ate;€
208-884-5533 r W06N alpprA,3 tl
SUBJECT: H-2021-00957
-L_
Inglewood Commercial T
lCrWRD
LOCATION: 3330 E.Victory Rd., in the SW 1/4 of 4 . r-r t#In I.1,y st
Section 21,T.3N.,R.1 E. - {
w �
S.ShLY C`i K y7 .
q SS 7
•.R-L�CI
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Modification to the existing Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-124424)to update the conceptual
development plan to include a daycare facility instead of a retail use and removal of the 3-story office
building in favor of a smaller retail/office building.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Applicant:
Clint Tolman, Gold Stream— 197 W.4860 S.,Murray,UT 84107
B. Owner:
James Petersen— 197 W. 4860 S., Murray, UT 84107
C. Representative:
Emily Muller,Gold Stream— 197 W. 4860 S.,Murray,UT 84107
III. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper 2/6/2022
Notification mailed to property
owners within 300 feet 2/3/2022
Page 1
Page 10
Item#3.
Applicant posted public hearing
notice on site 2/11/2022
Nextdoor posting 2/3/2022
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant proposes to modify the existing Development Agreement(DA) (H-2019-0099, Inst.
#2019-124424)in effect for this property to update the conceptual development plan approved for the
overall development.
The existing conceptual development plan depicts a mix of uses including a 3-story
nursing/residential care facility with independent living, assisted living and memory care in the center
of the development with single-family attached homes for independent living to the east; a 12,300
square foot(s.f.) 3-story office is depicted on the west side of the senior living facility; and
retail/commercial uses are depicted on the 3 pads along S. Eagle Rd. (see plan in Section VI.A).
No changes to the retirement community or the two retail/commercial building pads at the southwest
corner of the site are proposed, except to enlarge the northern building pad and include office as a
possible use.The pad at the southwest corner of the site is planned to develop with a drive-through
restaurant(i.e. coffee shop)with indoor and outdoor seating. The 3-story office building is proposed
to be removed as there is not adequate space for the building and there is a sewer easement in the
middle of the roadway and through where the building is depicted; and a daycare is proposed in place
of the northern retail pad(see plan in Section VLB). The Applicant's narrative states that walkways
are planned from the daycare to the senior living as part of the plan is for children to visit the seniors.
The proposed development plan,which includes a mix of residential and commercial
(retail/office/restaurant/daycare)uses, demonstrates compliance with the Mixed Use—Community
(MU-C)Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation in the Comprehensive Plan for this site. The
proposed uses will provide employment opportunities and services for those living nearby.
The existing DA provisions will ensure supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public
spaces, including but not limited to parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, etc. is
provided within the mixed use/commercial portion of the development.
V. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA as proposed.
Page 2
Page 11
�!I III la—�■■ ��`:', °i��, � I
-
il
. _� _ � _ girl `I��� �■��Illie'-�rA�lll!' . IIy' . .
IYIYIiiilY
With- a
I��1 Ilsal� ■ ■ ���
too
� it ■r;.�:. �, :. - � � ' I3 1�Y�Mg�
VWA
�� Ile
����" `� - — •� .. .� 'ICI
`" " F�d37�.0. r
ti ..
Item#3.
B. Proposed Conceptual Development Plan
PUBLIC
CONNECTION
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i w
Pu�aa�.o DAYCARE
z
a ¢
v6 ZONE:R-13 '
m SENIOR LIVING 8 a
C. FACILITY S I v0
¢ w
O w
� z
RETAILI a
OFFICE U B A A B
PAD a
� Y �
N
w a r
a r
U �
N
B A A B
RETAIL(
RESTAURANT
PAD
L7 LMnt INGLEWOODI P CE SUBDMSION
RE
Page 5
Page 14
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd., in the Southeast Corner of N. Linder Rd. and
W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C (2.1 acres) and
R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 single-family building lots, 1 multi-family
residential lot, 1 commercial lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for an 18-unit multi-family project.
Page 15
Item#4.
E IDIAN
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: February 22, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071) by DG Group
Architecture, PLLC, Located at 1515 W. Ustick Rd., in the Southeast Corner of N.
Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C
(2.1 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 42 single-family building lots, 1
multi-family residential lot, 1 commercial lot, and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres
of land.
C. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for an 18-unit multi-family project.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 16
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: 2/22/2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA: 4
PROJECT NAME: Lennon Pointe Community (H-2021-0071)
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
L r
C � NO
!'I G �� g3�
2 Re �601 a 14 t�,,-rr c, O4K eb-, Sic 0T py1d 1
3 4.V�6' Slti�.�,,�n�5� 3��z A1W 1-0\ S+
111�> g a
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Item#4.
STAFF REPORT E T*,-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O
HEARING 2/22/2022
DATE: Legend IP 0
City
Project Location
TO: Mayor& Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner ---
208-884-5533
d._
SUBJECT: H-2021-0071
Lennon Pointe Community � �
_ m 1.
�®
LOCATION: The site is located at 1515 W.Ustick H--iFFFrFE-
TR
Road,in the southeast corner of N.
Linder Road and W.Ustick Road in the
NW'/4 of the NW '/4 of Section 1,
Township 3N.,Range 1 W.
ME
„ .
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
• Annexation of 10.41 acres of land with a request for C-C(2.01 acres) and R-15 (8.3 acres)zoning
districts;
• Preliminary Plat consisting of 44 43 residential building lots(43 42 single-family residential and
1 multi-family residential), 1 commercial building lot,and 2 common lots on 8.8 acres of land in
the proposed C-C and R-15 zoning districts;
• Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of a total of 18 units on 1.18
acres in the proposed R-15 zoning district,by DG Group Architecture,PLLC.
Note: The Applicant is also applying for private streets in a portion of the project. This
application is reviewed and approved by the Director, Commission action is not required.
Analysis of the private street design is provided below in section V.
11. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 10.41 (R-15—8.3 acres;C-C—2.01 acres)
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community
Existing Land Use(s) County residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Residential(townhomes,single-family attached,single-family detached,
and multi-family)and Commercial
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 47 total lots—43 residential lots; 1 multi-family residential lot; 1
commercial;and 2 common lot.
Phasing Plan(#of phases) No phasing plan was submitted
Page 1
Page 17
Item#4.
Description Details
Number of Residential Units 61 residential units—4 detached single-family lots,30 single-family
(type of units) attached lots,9 townhome lots,and 18 multi-family units.
Density Gross—7.35 du/ac.;Net— 18.55 du/ac.
Open Space(acres,total 1.64 acres of qualified open space(18.7%)—large open space area in
[%]/buffer/qualified) the southwest corner of the site,the large central mew,and half of the
required arterial street buffers
Amenities 2 qualifying amenities for UDC 11-3G-3—segment of 10-foot multi-use
pathway and tot-lot(non-qualifying dog-park area is also proposed).
2 qualifying amenities for the multi-family residential(UDC 11-4-3-27)
—shared plaza and public art feature.
Physical Features(waterways, Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral traverse the southern portion of the
hazards,flood plain,hillside) site.Floodplain exists over a majority of the site. See Public Works
comments for further requirements,Section VIILB.
Neighborhood meeting date September 7,2021
History(previous approvals) N/A
B. Community Metrics
Description Details
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access to the adjacent arterials(Ustick and Linder)is proposed via one driveway
(Arterial/Collectors/State connection to each.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Private Street access is proposed to the internal local street being extended through the
Proposed) site.
Traffic Level of Service Ten Mile Road—Better than"E"(1.474/1,540 VPH)
Pine Avenue(existing section only)—Better than"D"(182/425 VPH)
Stub Two local stub streets exist to the east and south property boundaries—Applicant is
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross proposing to extend each street and intersect them within the site.
Access Applicant is proposing a private street through the west half of the development that
connects to the extended local street.
Access to the commercial property at the northwest corner of the site is proposed via
drive aisle connections to the proposed private street and the multi-family drive aisle.
Access to the multi-family units is proposed via a typical drive aisle.
Existing Road Network Internal road network is not existing.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing arterial sidewalks;The required landscape buffers will be installed with this
Buffers project.
Proposed Road Improvements None proposed or required with this application.Below are anticipated improvements to
adjacent roadways:
Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP):
• Linder Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry
Lane in the future with the design year of 2025.
• Ustick Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten
Mile Road in 2025.
• Linder Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 3-lanes from Ustick Road to Cherry Lane
between 2036 and 2040.
• Ustick Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from Linder Road to Ten Mile Road
between 2021 and 2025.
Page 2
Page 18
Item#4.
Description Details
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#2
• Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes.
• Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%.
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 4—commercial with hazards(multi-family waterway)
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and turnarounds;Fire has
signed off on Private Street layout.
Addressing for project is very important for emergency responses;Applicant shall work
with City Addressing Agent and the Fire Official to have lighted maps wherever
necessary.
Police Service
• Distance to Station Approximately 4.2 miles from Meridian Police Department
• Response Time Approximate 4-minute response time to an emergency.
• Call Data Between 10/1/2019-9/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 4,584
calls for service within the reporting district(M731)of the proposed development.The
crime count on the calls for service was 442. See attached documents for details.
Between 10/1/2019-9/31/2021,the Meridian Police Department responded to 62
crashes within a mile of the proposed development. See attached documents for details.
• Additional Concerns None
West Ada School District
Approved prelim Approved MF
plat parcels per units per Miles
Enrollment Ca aci attendance area attendance area D—to5ch-11
River Val ley Elementary 453 700 433 560 4.8
Meridian Middle School 1097 1000 800 1798 2.2
Meridian High School 1769 2075 3728 2300 2.0
School of Choice Options
Chief Joseph School-Arts 498 700 N/A NIA 3.7
Barbara Morgan-STEM 412 500 N/A NIA 1.0
Water
• Project Consistent with No—See attached water markup in Exhibit VII.F and conditions in Section VIII.B for
Master Plan required revisions.
• Comments • A water main connection will be required to Ustick Road.
• Current design does not follow the utility corridor.Water mains should be located
north and east of roadway centerline.
• A water main connection will be required to the existing stubs in North Zion Park
Avenue and West Pebblestone Drive.
• The proposed main west of Building B should be eliminated.
• Complete the water loop by extending the water main in the private road between
Building B and Building D1 to the northeast.
• Minimize water main length near the commercial lot at the northwest corner of the
development.Bring the water main only as far as needed to provide a hydrant for the
buildings' fire protection.Extend service lines from the main to serve the two retails
buildings.
• Water mains should not cross through landscaping or sidewalks.
Wastewater
• Project Consistent with No—Development needs to tie into sewer at W.Pebblestone Dr.and not in W.Ustick.
Master Plan
Page 3
Page 19
Item#4.
Description Details
• Comments • Services should not cross other residential lots.The services in the southeast corner do
this and need to be adjusted.
•Sewer needs to tie into the cleanout in W.Pebblestone Dr.The cleanout is
supposed to be temporary until this parcel developed.The City does not want the
clean out there permanently.
•There is a manhole located in a landscaping area(located at the NE corner nearest
Pebblestone Dr).Reconfigure so this manhole is in the ROW.
•20'Utility easement for sewer and 30'utility easement for sewer and water needed.
•Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle
walls,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement.
•Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches.
COMPASS—Communities in 72
Motion 2040 2.0 Review
Housing w/in 1 mile 5,240
Jobs w/in 1 mile 970
• Ratio 0.2—indicates an employment need(ratio between 1-1.5 is considered healthy ratio).
Nearest Bus Stop 3.1 miles
Nearest Public School 0.5 miles
Nearest Public Park 0.25 miles—Approximately11/4 mile north of Tully Park(18.3 acres in size).
Nearest Grocery Store 1.6 miles
Recommendations See agency comment section for link to full file.
Pagc 4
Page 20
1 1 1
�Il
• • - • • • 1 �m anlrjrl nn■II■ � • - • • • � -
L��rlyj
IIIII _ �i IIII =— � away 7 L � Imo`
• • �IIIIII�` IIII�� -. 4 �:: ' °'
■■■■■f ■fff■■■■■I■1ISTIC - ,- - -
'' r
rum ■f■ a■fn _ C �G, �'.
-� ■i■;:■ I � —III L:d111111111111x111� t - Yl _ -,I
�■ - • i w --__ no
-_IIh IIIIII Illllnln �� ',CI '
_—
■■ ■fff■■� IIP�-w-_- � ��� 1_I CII
iif■ No■ ■iiii■���u■n �I— \ ,J w k
�..rZ .:: ■ �.. �. ', � ,yam; r, � -
♦ ■�� IIII ■ ����nfn� ,,: ray �� � i 'P��a
�� -�n .■■nfn■
m u■ m room r■■nnn � -
-�... r.....
■n
- • - • , - - • - • I _
� r IN
J
�rl nnr111■ Iiln nnlr.11 nnllll■
Irurr unl Illll IIIII � �Ir+m unl IIIII IIIII-�r. � Llnlnirr�' lux l � f�iir! luxln Q:
■_:_ IIIII un IIIIIIIIIIII nm ml 'IIIII.II1.111111,
' • -• •• IIIIIII=C:1.
■ �■■■■ n _x�Illl 11i1► _IIIIIII==Y►1 ::�=IIII 1111
► ram. '71■- nm=_ _ -n■=
ROOMI=nlln9ulil= u
US7ICK= , miif mno■i■ri � K —
■■.r�r r■■N■■■■I■1 ,IIIII! IIIII i�I r - i�a/r1 _�iix�
,r�. *...■..� ,��is� IIIIIII_ ,r�. *.....■. �.r�r — _IIIIIII_=
� �.■■■■■ ■■■■n
■■■ '�, o. .Ill/�■ —p `-
■■■■f■^ �� I;._--=1111111111111111111111 J�ww■ ■ --�_ �� —rnlllllll � ■■ ��■w■■��`,�tir,��i r �—_�I1111111111 IIIIIIIIII— `
son
�� ii�f1r�■�■�ii __ww riE =_ _ ■■ �ii Z _ww w-—w w___
■■■■ �■■� ■■■■■■■■■■ — -a-_� �� ■■� ■■_ ■■■■■■■■■■ —--w�
■■■■■■■■■■■ ---- oil :iiiiIfI P-� ■■■moons
■■■ f ■ Z f■■■■■d1�--�1�■ �r�yam�+■1;�:r_ ::
■ ■■■■�- 1:iiii■M ■ _ ■�■lr 7gl�e z...
MENNEN
■■■■■■■■ ■■
♦ � ■-- - I ■I r.■■■■■■_ � ■.- IIII .■■■■■■_
w � _ ri:nm: :�•=�n_ riinm:
r■■f ■�fa r■=-_ ■w■■■■■■ �■ �■� ■=w= ■w■■■■■■
jii ME u■ n� r■min I . r■■nnm m■n ■n n. noon I . ■,�fnno
■■■ ■n■■ffff■ff■f r■■■■■■■ 6 _ �■■■■■ ■ iN■■■■ ■n■ff■ff■ff■ffr;��■■■■■■■■■
' 11
' -1
i
1 1 a� i 1 i � i • i
Item#4.
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 11/2/2021 2/6/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 10/27/2021 2/3/2022
Site Posting 11/2/2021 2/7/2022
Nextdoor posting 10/28/2021 2/3/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan)
Mixed Use Community—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-
serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to
integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip
commercial type buildings.Non-residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger
than in Mixed Use Neighborhood(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-
R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel
by car to,but also walk or bike to(up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those
living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged.
The subject site has existing City of Meridian zoning in all directions, including across the
adjacent arterials to the north and west. The site is directly bordered to its north and west by
arterial streets, Ustick and Linder Roads, respectively. Development of these areas are ongoing
with detached single-family to the east and south in Creason Creek Subdivision and multiple
office buildings being constructed to the north across Ustick Road.An ambulance service and C-
C zoning exist to the west across Linder Road. In addition to the existing land uses around the
property, the subject site contains two major waterways and a large area of floodplain that
traverse a large segment of the southern half of the site, the Creason Lateral and the Kellogg
Drain. The Applicant is proposing to pipe the Kellogg Drain and reroute it to make more area of
the site usable as well as provide open space and pathways in the southwest corner of the site and
along the west boundary.
The proposed land uses are attached single-family, townhomes, multi family residential, and
commercial. These land uses are consistent with those outlined in the MU-C future land use
designation definitions and preferred uses when properly integrated with both internal and
external uses. Overall, Stafffinds the proposed site design does integrate the project and
proposed uses in appropriate manners. Specifically, the Applicant has proposed their multi-
family residential product along Ustick and the commercial buildings at the hard corner of the
Ustick and Linder intersection which places the most intense uses closest to the arterials.
Therefore, the single-family uses are proposed on the remaining area of the site that makes up
approximately 70%of the site area. The Applicant is proposing the single-family portion of the
site as all two-story except for the 6-unit townhomes along Linder which are proposed 3-stories.
Because of the proposed transitional density and placement of the proposed uses, this project is
generally consistent with the concept diagrams in the City's Comprehensive Plan for mixed-
use designations.
However, the one area of the site that Staff finds could provide more transition is the 4-story
multi family building along Ustick that is also adjacent to single-family to the east. The existing
detached single-family home in Creason Creek directly adjacent to the site is a single-story home
Page 6
Page 22
Item#4.
with an upstairs bonus room. Despite the separation of the side yard of the single-family home
and a proposed micro path area of 20 feet wide between the two uses, Staff finds the height
disparity of the existing home and the proposed 4-story multi family building is an adequate
transition.According to the Applicant, the multi family units are each two stories and are being
proposed as being stacked, which is how the 4-story concept is proposed. Therefore, Staff is
recommending the top two (2) units directly adjacent to Creason Creek are removed so there is
approximately 65 feet(includes landscaping and unit width) of separation between the existing
home and the 4-story portion of the multi family. With this revision, the height of the two story
multi family units would be approximately 21 feet depending on how the Applicant proposes to
roof the units (flat roof or pitched roof).
In addition to site design, certain densities are required to be met for residential projects within
the MU-C future land use designation. The proposed project as shown is approximately 7.35
du/ac, meeting the 6-15 du/ac requirement(see community metrics above). Therefore, Staff finds
the density proposed with the annexation and plat is consistent with the Future Land Use Map
designation of Mixed-Use Community(MU-Q. NOTE: The gross density will decrease slightly
with staffs recommendation to lose two of the multi family units.
Mixed-use designations also require at least three (3) types of land uses. When analyzing projects
within the MU-C future land use designation, the approved and/or developed land uses nearby
must be considered. Therefore, Staff has taken into account adjacent land uses that can be
traveled between with relative ease. The closest development to this property is an office
development that is under construction to the north. Specific uses of this project are not known at
this time but the property is zoned C-C and does not have limitations on the allowed uses outside
of zoning. Furthermore, this project is proposed with different residential land uses as well as
two commercial building footprints. Staff finds the appropriate number of uses for a mixed-use
area is met.
Therefore, as noted previously and with Staffs recommended revision,Staff finds the proposed
project to be generally consistent with the Mixed-Use Community purpose statement and
concept diagram.Further and specific policy analysis is below.
The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in
Section VULA1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned
to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council
and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ
ordinance is approved by City Council.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for
diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G).Lennon Pointe Community is proposing a
project with a combination of land uses in the form of single family attached, townhomes, multi-
family, and commercial within one development.A vast majority of the housing that exists around
this development are traditional detached single-family homes. The Applicant hopes to add
additional housing types in this geographic area and within this MU-C area that will delineate a
unique living opportunity in the City and add to the housing diversity available while being
within safe walking distance to future commercial uses.
"Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices"(3.07.01A). The
Page 7
Page 23
Item#4.
proposed site design incorporates mews,private streets, an extension ofpublic streets, common
open space, and different land uses within the same project area.As discussed above, Staff finds
the proposed site design is compatible with adjacent uses through transitional density, buffering,
and overall design.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for
this project site due to existing facilities abutting the site. This project also lies within the Fire
Department response time goal of S minutes. Linder and Ustick Roads are currently built at their
ultimate anticipated widths directly abutting the site.
West Ada School District offered comments on this project and estimates 32 additional school
aged children would be housed in this development. According to the letter received, the
allocated elementary and high school for this site have capacity but the middle school is already
over capacity. Staff understands that school enrollment is a major issue to be dealt with on a city-
wide scale. Due to the incorporation of different housing types and a unit count on the low end of
the allowed density, the Applicant has minimized the project impact on area schools.
Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create conditions for
adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project.
"Preserve,protect, and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics"
(4.05.0117). The proposed project offers open space that exceeds the minimum requirements in the
unified development code (UDC). The Applicant has placed a large area of open space in the
southwest corner of the development where the irrigation facilities and their easements exist. In
addition, there is a mew running north-south through the center of the development for the
attached single-family units to front on green space rather than the road network. This adds to
the green space and adds a more livable component to the project. Other areas of open space are
also proposed along the west boundary that would act as a buffer from Linder as well as a
proposed dog park area in the southeast corner of the site. In addition, all of the open space
areas are accessible through pedestrian facilities that connect throughout the entire site. Staff
supports the proposed open space areas and anticipates they will provide recreation,
conservation, and add to the aesthetic of the project.
See further analysis in Section V.F and V.L.
"Establish distinct, engaging identities within commercial and mixed-use centers through design
standards."(2.09.03A).As discussed above, the proposed project offers a distinct set of uses and
design that are currently not available nearby the site. Included in this is the incorporation of two
commercial buildings at the northwest corner of the site with a shard plaza for use by the
residents and future business patrons. This is a desired aspect of mixed-use areas that helps
engage the commercial buildings with the residential component of a project. In addition,
according the submitted elevations and site renderings, the Applicant is proposing distinct
architecture for the project that creates a specific identity for this development and corner
property.
In addition to general Comprehensive Plan policies,projects in mixed-use areas should also
aim to meet the mixed-use policies.Rather than list them all in this report, Staff has
analyzed the project against them and finds the project to be consistent with a majority of
those policies outlined in the mixed-use area of the Comprehensive Plan here.
Therefore,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and a majority of the mixed use policies.
Page 8
Page 24
Item#4.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The site currently houses a single-family home and other accessory buildings. All existing
structures will be removed upon development of this site. The Applicant will be responsible for
maintaining the existing arterial sidewalks along Ustick and Linder Roads during construction.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The Lennon Pointe Community proposes multiple residential uses and a commercial component
within the same project. The commercial area is proposed at the very northwest corner of the site
and shows two building pads totaling 12,000 square feet on 1.47 acres of requested C-C zoning.
No tenants are currently known at this time but the submitted site plan shows the larger building
closest to the hard corner with a drive-through and the smaller building along the south boundary
of the C-C area adjacent to a shared plaza. Should a drive-through be proposed on this
commercial lot, it will require a future Conditional Use Permit(CUP)because it is within 300
feet of a residential use and district. Commercial buildings require Certificate of Zoning
Compliance(CZC) and Design Review so Staff will evaluate uses for compliance with code with
future application submittals.
The remaining area of the site(7.28 acres)is proposed with the R-15 zoning district and
residential uses. The residential areas of the site are proposed with three(3)detached single-
family homes(located at the very southeast corner of the site), attached single-family(2 attached
units with each on their own lot),townhomes(3 or more attached units on individual lots), and
multi-family residential.All of the proposed single-family uses are permitted uses within the
requested R-15 zoning district. The multi-family residential use is a conditional use in R-15
zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2.
No phasing plan was submitted so it can be assumed development is proposed to be constructed
in one phase.Administrative Design Review is required for all of the proposed residential uses
except for the three(3) detached homes proposed in the southeast corner of the site. This
application was not submitted concurrently with the other applications so the Applicant will be
required to submit this prior to obtaining building permits for any of the attached product and the
multi-family. The Applicant has provided conceptual elevations and renderings of all residential
uses and Staff s initial analysis is that the buildings comply with the Architectural Standards
Manual(ASM).
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The commercial and multi-family residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards
per the submitted plat.All of the single family lots also meet the UDC minimum lot size standard
except for the central lot in the 3-unit townhome at the south end of the site—this lot is shown as
less than the minimum required 2,000 square feet and should be corrected with the final plat
submittal to meet UDC standards. The 3-unit townhome building contains the three smallest
building lots in the development and includes the non-conforming lot. Other than these three lots,
the smallest building lot is approximately 2,800 square feet.
Furthermore, it appears the site plan shows building footprints too large for the proposed
building lots—the building footprints do not meet the minimum building setback to the entrance
sidewalks of 10 feet. When future building permits are submitted, the Applicant will be required
to show compliance with all R-15 dimensional standards as outlined in UDC Table 11-2A-7.
According to the submitted conceptual elevations,the proposed 4-story multi-family
buildings are 46 feet in height which is above the 40 foot height limit for the requested R-15
zoning district.Prior to submitting for CZC and Design Review, the Applicant is required to
correct this to comply with the R-15 dimensional standards.
Page 9
Page 25
Item#4.
In addition to the building lots,the Applicant is proposing a private street through a portion of the
residential area. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing this private street to
be at least 26 feet wide and be within a 30-foot easement on the plat. Sidewalks are not required
along private streets but the Applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide sidewalk along the proposed
building rather than adjacent to the private street. Overall,the minimum UDC standards outlined
in UDC 11-3F for the proposed private street are met per the submitted plans.
The inclusion of sidewalks adjacent to the townhome units on the west end of the development
adds to the pedestrian circulation of the site despite not being required for private streets. The
same can be said for all of the pedestrian facilities shown on the submitted site plan that provide
the entrances to each unit and creates alley-loaded homes for a majority of the site. However, the
"detached"sidewalk on the east side of the 6-unit townhome building should be moved to be
located adjacent to the private street so the sidewalk is less likely to be blocked by cars parked on
the parking pad between the street and the garage door.
In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design
and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans
appear to meet the UDC requirements of this section.
F. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
The proposed multi-family development use is subject to conditional use permit approval by the
Planning and Zoning Commission and subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-
27 and below:
11-4-3-27—Multi-Family Development:
A. Purpose:
1. To create multi-family housing that is safe and convenient and that enhances the quality
of life of its residents.
2. To create quality buildings and designs for multi-family development that enhance the
visual character of the community.
3. To create building and site design in multi-family development that is sensitive to and
well integrated with the surrounding neighborhood.
4. To create open space areas that contribute to the aesthetics of the community,provide an
attractive setting for buildings,and provide safe,interesting outdoor spaces for residents.
B. Site Design:
1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is
otherwise required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take
into account windows, entrances,porches and patios,and how they impact adjacent
properties.Proposed project complies with this requirement according to the submitted
plans.
2. All on-site service areas,outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and
transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street,
or shall be fully screened from view from a public street. The site plan depicts screened
trash enclosures that are only visible from internal to the site; all proposed
transformer/utility vaults shall also comply with this requirement.
3. A minimum of eighty(80) square feet of private,usable open space shall be provided for
each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios, decks, and/or
enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other accessways shall not count toward this
Page 10
Page 26
Item#4.
requirement. In circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create
inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section,the Director may consider an
alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in
section 11-5B-5 of this title.Each multi family unit is proposed as a two-story unit with
the units on levels I &2 differing from those on levels 3 &4. According to a document
submitted by the Applicant, the lower units provide at least 132 square feet of private
open space in the form of private patios. This document also states the units on the upper
levels provide at least 251 square feet of private open space per unit in the form of
private patios. The submitted conceptual elevations show the fourth floor patio is
essentially a roof-top deck above the third floor. Based on the submitted elevations and
data provided by the Applicant,Staff supports the proposed private common open space
and finds it exceeds the required area.
4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private
usable open space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not
included in the common open space calculations for the site.
5.No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall
be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,designated and screened area.
Applicant shall comply with this requirement.
6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to
All Districts", of this title. See analysis in staff report below.
7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following:
a.A property management office.
b. A maintenance storage area.
c.A central mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail)that provide safe
pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those
entering the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018)
Applicant is proposing 18 units so this requirement is not applicable to this development.
The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application shall depict
these items.
C. Common Open Space Design Requirements:
1. A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows:
a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500)
or less square feet of living area.
b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five
hundred(500) square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square
feet of living area.
c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one
thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area.
2. Common open space shall be not less than four hundred(400) square feet in area,and shall
have a minimum length and width dimension of twenty feet(20'). Each multi family unit
is proposed as greater than 1,200 square feet so 350 square feet of common open space
per unit is needed to meet the specific use standards. The maximum common open space
Page 11
Page 27
Item#4.
required for the overall project is 44,415 square feet with 6,300 square feet of that needed
to satisfy the multi family standards. Because the project is relatively small, all open
space is proposed to be shared between the single and multi family residential units. The
open space shown on the submitted open space exhibit shows 48,824 square feet of total
qualified open space but does not include all areas that are qualifying per UDC
standards. However, based on the number of units, the inaccurate amount of open space
shown still meets all required open space area. With the pedestrian facilities proposed in
this project Staff finds it applicable for all of the residential units to share the common
open space proposed.
3. In phased developments,common open space shall be provided in each phase of the
development consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units.
This project is proposed to be developed in one (1)phase.
4. Unless otherwise approved through the conditional use process, common open space areas
shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a
berm or constructed barrier at least four feet(4)in height,with breaks in the berm or
barrier to allow for pedestrian access. (Ord. 09-1394, 3-3-2009, eff.retroactive to 2-4-
2009). The buffers along Linder and Ustick Roads are not included in the open space
exhibit calculations at all so this area was not part of the area shown to satisfy the
common open space requirement for the multi family units.
D. Site Development Amenities:
1. All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open space and recreation
amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as follows:
a. Quality of life:
(1) Clubhouse.
(2)Fitness facilities.
(3)Enclosed bike storage.
(4)Public art such as a statue.
b. Open space:
(1) Open grassy area of at least fifty by one hundred feet(50 x 100) in size.
(2) Community garden.
(3)Ponds or water features.
(4)Plaza.
c. Recreation:
(1)Pool.
(2)Walking trails.
(3) Children's play structures.
(4) Sports courts.
2. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of multi-family development as follows:
a. For multi-family developments with less than twenty(20)units,two (2)amenities shall
be provided from two (2) separate categories.
Page 12
Page 28
Item#4.
b. For multi-family development between twenty(20)and seventy-five(75)units,three
(3) amenities shall be provided,with one from each category.
c. For multi-family development with seventy-five(75)units or more, four(4) amenities
shall be provided,with at least one from each category.
d. For multi-family developments with more than one hundred(100)units,the decision-
making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the
proposed development.
3. The decision-making body shall be authorized to consider other improvements in addition to
those provided under this subsection D,provided that these improvements provide a similar
level of amenity. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
Based on 18 proposed units, a minimum of two(2) amenities are required. The Applicant is
proposing a shared plaza and public art from two categories to satisfy this requirement.
E. Landscaping Requirements:
1. Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with
chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title.
2. All street facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The
foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards:
a. The landscaped area shall be at least three feet(Y)wide.
b. For every three(3) linear feet of foundation,an evergreen shrub having a minimum
mature height of twenty-four inches(24") shall be planted.
c. Ground cover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area.
The landscape plans provided appear to show compliance with these landscape requirements and
will also be verified at the time of CZC submittal(see Exhibit VII.D).
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4) &Private Streets (UDC 11-3F-4):
Access from the adjacent arterials(N. Linder Road and W.Ustick Road) is proposed via one 25-
foot wide driveway connection to each arterial street. The driveway to Ustick Road shall be
restricted to right-in/right-out,per ACHD, and passes through the multi-family portion of the
project where it connects to the parking drive aisle for the multi-family units and then connects to
the proposed private street. The driveway access to Linder Road is a temporary full access and is
located approximately 360 feet south of the Linder/Ustick intersection.ACHD has approved both
of these arterial access points through analysis of driveway analyses made by the Applicant's
traffic engineer.No Traffic Impact Study(TIS)was required because less than 100 residential
units are proposed.
The other public access points to the site are proposed via extending a public local street through
the site.N. Zion Park Avenue is being extended from the south property boundary and W.
Pebblestone Drive is being extended from the east property boundary in the northeast corner of
the site. The proposed local street is shown as 32 feet wide with 5.5-foot wide attached sidewalk
within 47 feet of right-of-way. This does not meet ACHD standards so the Applicant will be
required to revise the plat to show the public road as 33 feet wide with 5-foot wide attached
sidewalk. This revision can be easily made as the Applicant is providing the correct amount of
right-of-way; no revisions to the plat are needed to make this correction.
A private street is proposed through the west portion of the site for vehicular access to some of
the residential units. The proposed private street and local street are functioning as alleys for a
Page 13
Page 29
Item#4.
majority of the proposed residential units as the main entrance to each home is located opposite of
the garage access. As discussed in section V.E above,the private street meets UDC 11-317 4
standards by being proposed as at least 26 feet wide.
As noted,the Applicant is proposing three(3)detached homes in the southeast corner of the site.
These three lots take access from a common drive off of the local street extension,N. Zion Park
Avenue. The proposal for the number of units and access complies with code requirements.
In general, and consistent with ACHD analysis and approvals,Staff supports the proposed
road layout and arterial access points because the proposal offers appropriate site circulation
while also providing avenues to minimize cut-through traffic to the east and south through
driveway connections to Linder and Ustick Roads.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for multi-family and single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
Based on the proposal of 18 3-bedroom apartment units, 36 parking spaces total are required to be
provided—one space per unit must be covered,per UDC standards. The submitted site plan
shows 44 total parking spaces for the multi-family portion of the site.Each 2-story unit that
enters on the first level is proposed with a two-car garage. The 2-story units that enter on the
third level appear utilize the surface spaces but none of these spaces are shown to be covered.
Therefore, the submitted site plan does not show compliance with code requirements. The
Applicant should revise the site plan to show at least nine (9) covered spaces for the upper level
units to satisfy this requirement. If this is not desired, the Applicant can provide a single-car
garage space on the first level for each proposed unit.
NOTE: Staff is recommending a loss of two units along the east side of the building. This
recommended change would reduce the parking requirement by 4 total spaces, two covered and
two uncovered. However, due to the overall issues with insufficient parking for multi family
projects, Staff does not recommend a reduction in parking.
The single-family portion of the site consists of 43 homes but the bedroom count of each is not
known at this time. However, each home is shown with a two-car garage and a 20' x 22' parking
pad that allows for a 4-bedroom home,per UDC standards.In addition, the submitted site plan
shows 35 additional off-street parking spaces around the private street portion of the site meant
for guest parking for the single-family homes. The proposed 33 foot wide local street also allows
on-street parking where no driveways exist. Staff supports the proposed amount of parking for
the single-family portion of the project because it exceeds UDC minimum requirements.
The commercial area proposed in the northwest corner of the site is shown with two buildings
totaling approximately 12,000 square feet requiring at least 24 parking spaces based on the
nonresidential parking ratio of 1 space for every 500 square feet of commercial gross floor area.
According to the submitted site plan, 25 parking spaces are being proposed. Each space appears
to meet the minimum dimensional standards of 9'x 19'as well. Complete analysis of the
proposed commercial area will take place with the first CZC application for the commercial site.
Initial analysis shows compliance with all UDC dimensional standards except for how the drive
aisle along the north and east of the commercial site functions. The drive aisle along the north
boundary of the site is shown as 12 feet wide which implies a one-way drive aisle and it leads to
the drive aisle along the east boundary of the site that is shown as approximately 26 feet wide
which implies two-way traffic. There does not appear to be a need for the eastern drive aisle to
allow two-way traffic if the north drive aisle is a one-way exit in this area.
Page 14
Page 30
Item#4.
The commercial area depicted on the site plan is conceptual in nature so future submittals and
proposed uses will dictate more detail in the submitted plans.At this point, Staff is not
recommending any specific revisions to the commercial area of the site for the reasons noted.
I. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
A 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the Creason Lateral in the southwest corner
of the property. This pathway is slated to connect to the existing arterial sidewalk along Linder
Road and to future improvements to the south for a more complete regional pathway network.
The Applicant is proposing the multi-use pathway in an appropriate location but its connection to
the southern boundary does not appear to match with location of the regional pathway segment
approved with Creason Creek No. 2 directly to the south. Upon review of the modified landscape
plans for that plat, it appears the Applicant should shift the regional pathway stub to the west to
be closer to the Creason Lateral. Final approval of the pathway connections will be verified by
the Park's Department and our pathways coordinator. In the interim, Staff is recommending the
Applicant show this shift of the regional pathway prior to the Council hearing to better match
adjacent approvals to the south.
In addition to the proposed regional pathway segment, the proposed sidewalks in this project are
essentially micro pathways that connect throughout the entire development and traverse through
every open space area as well. They offer increased pedestrian connection and provide for the
inclusion of a majority alley loaded residential units. The proposed pedestrian facilities offer
connectivity to and from nearby subdivisions as well as safe access to all amenities and the
commercial area in the northwest corner of the project.
J. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Attached sidewalks at least 5 feet wide are proposed along the proposed local street extension, in
accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Other sidewalks are proposed throughout the
rest of the site for added pedestrian connectivity, as discussed throughout this report.
The sidewalks in this development create connections throughout the entire project including to
and from the commercial portion of the site. The proposed large open space area and regional
pathway in the southwest corner of the development are also easily accessible because of these
sidewalks. The sidewalks along N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road are existing; the Applicant is
required to maintain and/or repair any of this sidewalk that is disturbed during construction.As
stated above,Staff supports the sidewalk and pedestrian circulation element of this project.
In consideration of pedestrian safety as well as traffic calming for the site, Staff is recommending
that all pedestrian crossings that cross the private street and any drive aisle be constructed with
brickpavers, stamped concrete, or equal, as outlined in UDC 11-3A-19B.4.b.
K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N.Linder Road and W. Ustick Road, arterial
streets, and to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 25-foot wide easement
is depicted on the plat adjacent to both arterials starting at the back of the existing attached
sidewalk along each arterial,meeting the UDC requirements for the minimum width.
UDC 11-3B-7C.2 dictates that required landscape buffers for residential subdivisions shall be
located on common lots and owned and maintained by a homeowner's association. The
Applicant's proposal to include this required buffer in an easement does not comply with this
code section. Therefore, the Applicant should revise the plat to show the required arterial
landscape buffers adjacent to the residential portions of the project within a common lot at
least 25 feet in width. The required landscape buffer adjacent to the commercial site can
remain in an easement per this code section.
Page 15
Page 31
Item#4.
In addition, an area of the Creason Lateral and Kellogg Drain irrigation easements underlay a
large portion of the landscape buffer along Linder Road that is currently shown with trees. Staff
anticipates the applicable irrigation district will not allow trees within their easements so the
landscape plans should be revised to show the removal of trees from the easement area.
Furthermore, code requires that if a required landscape buffer is encumbered by easements, at
least 5 feet of landscaping be proposed outside of the easement area to include the required
number of trees. Because of the extensive impediment these two irrigation facilities create in
this area of the site,Staff does not find it feasible to comply with this code requirement in its
fullest extent as it would require half of the site to shift to the east reducing the width of the
mew in the center of the development. Staff finds the trees that are allowed outside of the
easement area, the placement of the access point to Linder, and the separation of the
townhome units from Linder offer appropriate and adequate landscaping and buffering.
However, to formalize this finding and comply with code, the Applicant should apply for
Alternative Compliance with the first final plat application.
Landscaping is required along all pathways (including micro-pathways) in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. The total lineal feet of all pathways with the required and
proposed number of trees is included on the first sheet of the submitted landscape plans.
According to the submitted landscape plans, the proposed regional pathway in the southwest
corner of the site is also within the Kellogg Drain irrigation easement which generally does not
allow trees and minimal landscaping. The submitted landscape plans show no trees proposed
within this easement.
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC H-
3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space and the required number of trees to
demonstrate compliance with UDC standards is included in the Landscape Calculations table and
shows compliance with code requirements.
The proposed C-C zoning district requires a 25-foot landscape buffer to any residential district.
According to the submitted plans, a 20 foot buffer is proposed to be shared over the commercial
property boundary—10 feet on the commercial property and 10 feet on the residential side. It
appears the additional required S feet of area can be easily accommodated and will not require
any revision to the placement of buildings. In addition, in order to allow the commercial site to be
more viable and the fact the proposed development is planned together, Staff approves of the
proposal to share the width of the 25 foot landscape buffer across the shared property line.
L. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-�:
As noted throughout the report,the subject site has two waterways subject to review—the
Kellogg Drain and the Creason Lateral. UDC 11-3A-6 dictates these waterways be piped.
So, the Applicant is proposing to pipe both waterways to help with the usable area of the site. The
Applicant is also proposing to reroute the Kellogg Drain because its easement would greatly
encumber the site if left in its current position. The Applicant is proposing to move it closer to the
southern property boundary and underneath a segment of the public road and private street; it is
then proposed to move north and connect to the existing section of the drain that is piped and
currently passes under Linder Road. Staff supports the proposal to pipe and vegetate these
waterways.
In addition, a majority of the site contains floodplain which will require specific permits and
building requirements. Public Works and Land Development will be the departments to handle
these reviews as final platting and building permits are submitted.
Page 16
Page 32
Item#4.
A portion of one of the building lots (Lot 2, Block 1) is shown on the preliminary plat and site
plan within the floodplain area. The building footprint is not so this technically complies with
City and floodplain standards. However, to ensure the future homeowner has the easiest access
to use their property, Staff recommends this 6-unit townhome building be shifted to the north to
get as much of the building lot out of the floodplain as possible. There is adequate room on the
north side of this building for this to occur without any other changes to the development.
M. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is
required for the single-family portion of the site.Analysis on the open space area required and
proposed for the multi-family portion of the site is above in Section V.F. Based on the proposed
plat of 8.75 acres, a minimum of 0.88 acres of qualified common open space should be provided
to satisfy this requirement.
The Applicant has revised the open space exhibit per Staffs request to depict the qualified
areas and accurately note the amount of qualified open space for the project.According to the
revised exhibit, the Applicant is proposing 1.64 acres of qualified open space, approximately
18.7%. The majority of the qualified open space consists of the large open space area in the
southwest corner of the site, the large central mew, and half of the required arterial street
buffers. This area exceeds the minimum UDC requirements.
Staff finds the proposed open space is adequate in amount and placement to satisfy all code
requirements.
N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
Based on the area of the proposed plat(8.75 acres), a minimum of one(1) qualified site amenity
is required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.
The applicant proposes two(2) qualified amenities to satisfy the requirements in this section of
the UDC, a 10-foot multi-use pathway segment and a children's play structure. The proposed
amenities meet the minimum UDC standards.
O. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is proposed
as shown on the landscape plan and appears to meet UDC standards.
P. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
As discussed in the comprehensive plan policies analysis, Staff believes the submitted elevations
meet the required Architectural Standards. The applicant has not submitted a concurrent design
review application for the attached residential buildings. With the final plat application,the
Applicant should also submit an Administrative Design Review(DES) application for these units.
The Applicant also submitted conceptual elevations for the commercial buildings. These
elevations show multiple field materials of brick, concrete wainscot, and lap siding with roof
parapet variations and wall modulation—in all,the conceptual elevations appear to also meet the
ASM.A separate DES will be required for the Commercial portion of the development with
future CZC submittals to verify ASM compliance.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a
Development Agreement and approval of the requested conditional use permit and preliminary
Page 17
Page 33
Item#4.
plat applications per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director approved the
private street application.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on December 2,2021 and
January 20,2022.At the Januarhpublic hearing,the Commission moved to recommend
aqpproval of the subject Annexation and Zoning,Preliminary Plat, and Conditional Use Permit
requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing;
a. In favor: Andrew Wheeler,Applicant Representative; Patrick Reams, Owner
Representative; Carissa Sindon,descendant of the Owners.
b. In opposition: Caryn Bitler,neighbor; Pamela Stinette,neighbor; Olena Santana,
neighbor; Shelby Shanaber ,eg r,neighbor; John Bitler,neighbor; Pamela Stinnett,
neighbor;
c. Commenting: Andrew Wheeler; Cmm Bitler;Pamela Stinette; Olena Santana; ShelbX
Shanaberger;John Bitler; Patrick Reams; Carissa Sindon; Pamela Stinnett.
d. Written testimony: Caryn and John Bider(,13 pieces of testimony); Helen and Eder
Santana;
e. Staff presentinggpplication: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Kurt Starman,Deputy City Attorney
2. Key issue(s) testimony_
a. Concern over proposal to include multi-family dwellings;
b. Concern with height dispari , across property to existing homes in Creason Creek and a
loss of privacy;
c. General desire to construct the property with detached single-family homes only;
d. Concerns with general increase of traffic in the vicinity with additional homes/units;
e. Desire to relay how difficult the site is to develop with two major irrigation facilities
bisecting theproperty and has floodzone throughout the entire property;
£ Appreciation of proposed design consideringhistory i�ry of property and difficulty of
developing this.
3. Ke. ids)of discussion by Commission:
a. Location of proposed multi-family in relation to existing single-family to the east and
the proposed commercial—could the commercial and multi-family be switched;
b. Height of the multi-family being 4-stoKy and at the maximum 40' mark; general desire
for this to be reduced as it does not match anything along the Ustick corridor;
C. How will the garages for the multi-family be utilized for parking instead of storage;
d. Location of the Dog Park in relation to the other open space and existing homes to the
east—could it be moved;
e. What kind of commercial is the target for the proposed pad sites;
f. Staff s recommended(and agreed to by Applicant,) changes for the homes along the east
boundary to be front-loaded to have abutting backyards along the east boundary;
g. Concern with viability of Commercial with no direct access due to proximity to the hard
corner of Linder and Ustick;
h. General agreement that the proposed changes to the site plan and multi-family are a
benefit to the project;
i. Still concern with proposed attached units along east boundary instead of detached
single-family;
4. Commission change, (s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Commission recommended changes to the staff report consistent with Staff s memo
prior to the January 20t1i meeting.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Page 18
Page 34
Item#4.
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 19
Page 35
Item#4.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps
4 Fox HMH
VLAND SURVEYS engineering
Lennon Pointe
Annexation
Legal Description
A parcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1, Township 3
North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears,South
00'01'03"East,2699,19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88°43'02"
East,665.57 feet;
Thence along the westerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.1 recorded in Book 112 of
Plats at Pages 16486-16488,South 00°02'45"West,680.06 feet to the northerly boundary of the
Creason Creek Subdivision No.2 recorded in Book 119 of Plats at Pages 18301-18303;
Thence along said northerly boundary, North 6-Feettowesterly-1inC of
Government Lot 4;
Thence North 00°01'03"West,693.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 10.41 acres,more or less
END OF DESCRIPTION
Prepared by:
Ronald M.Hodge, PLS
Survey Department Manager
RMHA e`" rF Fad G
a 8575
�0 9Tf Of
�44D M r3
680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#26• Meridian, Idaho 83642•Tel:208-342-7957•Web: hmh-Ilc.com
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 20
Page 36
Item#4.
EXHIBIT 9'
W. Ustick Rd. SURVEYMAP
35 36 388043'02"E 665.57'
2 al — — — —
Pont of Beginning
ANNEXATION
C—C
ry
z
Ln
o v
O N
O
C0 (0 O
O
U)
01
N
w R-15
0
0
0
a
664.76'
N88°59'01"W
�- % �y S Tx
4 a- 8575
77 roazzzfo
A
0 100 200 �'O,L"rF OF
IM NO
� 1
Scale in Feet NOTE:THIS DRAWING IS A VISUAL REFERENCE ONLY.
DS.RMH SCALE VAW DATE&28-2021 LENNON POINTE REZONE-ANNEXATION HMH
DR.Tuc ADA COUNTY,IDAHO
SVRMH SK,1 11 W020-gg SEC.1,T.314,RAW,B.M. enginewirg
Page 21
Page 37
Item#4.
Fox HMH
LAND SURVEYS engineering
Lennon Pointe Rezone
(C-C) Community Commercial
Legal Description
A porcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1, Township 3
North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly
described as follows:
BEGINNING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears,South
00°01'03" East, 2699.19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88'43'02"
East, 356.54 feet;
Thence South 01°16'58"West, 255.14 feet,-
Thence South 89°58'57"West, 350.66 feet to westerly line of Government Lot 4;
Thence North 00'01'03"West, 263.17 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 2.10 acres,more or less
END OF DESCRIPTION
Prepared by:
Ronald M.Hodge, PLS
Survey Department Manager
G STE J
a 8p 75 7+5
l D I Z '21:3
9J �P
9Q f OF \ �4
NqC D M ��D
RMH:tk
680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#213 • Meridian, Idaho 83642 •Tel: 208-342-7957 •Web: hmh-Ilc.com
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 22
Page 38
Item#4.
Fox HMH
LAND SURVEYS engineering
Lennon Pointe
R-15 Rezone
Legal Description
A parcel of land situate in the North 112 of the West 112 of Government Lot 4 in Section 1,Township 3
North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and more particularly
described as follows:
COMMENCING at the northwest corner of Section 1,from which the west one-quarter corner bears,
South 00`01'03"East,2699.19 feet,thence along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South
88`43'02" East,356.54 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along the northerly line of Government Lot 4,South 88°43'02"East,309.03 feet;
Thence along the westerly boundary of the Creason Creek Subdivision No.1 recorded in Book 112 of
Plats at Pages 16486-16488,South 00°02'45"West,680.06 feet to the northerly boundary of the
Creason Creek Subdivision No.2 recorded in Book 119 of Plats at Pages 18301-18303;
Thence along said northerly boundary, North 88°59'01"West,664.76 feet to westerly line of
Government Lot 4;
Thence along said westerly line,North 00°01'03"West,420.00 feet;
Thence North 89°58'57" East,350.66 feet;
Thence North 01°16'58"East,255.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 8.30 acres,more or less
END OF DESCRIPTION
L d
Prepared by: \ST A
Ronald M. Hodge,PLS
Survey Department Manager CL 85 0
"v9.z2.7lco
p 'TfOF 1 3
G
RMH,tk y44 d M ADO
680 S. Progress Ave.,Suite#2B• Meridian,Idaho 83642•Tel:208-342-7957•Web: hmh-Ilc.com
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 23
Page 39
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/14 Q021 January 18,2022)
V)ISIAIC�FSW 4_4
31 K 10,d NO[\N-;7
0Td3un.LOE1lHOdVdnOlJU9C
in
61
Ae p
7117
- ---------
�jj
>1 Z> -I
'14k
j 11
'�l-T�f�
;>
T g j
s . t Fjrc AI
�!T t F
MW
1p�I cd
----------—
ON
Page 24
Item#4.
C. Open Space Exhibit(date. 9/13/202?)Revised January 2022
NOIIV011ddV 1N3W3-ULLN3
' � - i,i=e:y -a�i-inusx oavbaoo mxeprw�»rmv-vvcvry
1141 5 N
v � o€E 31NIOd NONN31 Q
sisaamoi3 rce
�l'ld 3UM031IHOaV dno do oa
gLL *d A
g ° g9 :
5 ma
�a
�� ia§
S b�84 i
3Y
x � I
50'5E'iM.S0.L0.005 I
LL �
Cn rI
I rP r I I Y I �u N
- I I �� I - ILI I I I •I I .I I
a II gl
'I $
_ •7 $tt
— o 0 0 0 0 5 a ol 0 "
I I I.
I xx
If gg
I
I w 6w
I .
I �
I I EP
� P
e
G
I ~ �
l - -
� _may 5s5«M W,o LU
LU
——� ,19'Qb M.[O.SOIJOM._--._----- _ _.-' ;o U¢
vaa ii IM 3AId a
U)
ax u.�axrr •N � �s��
a�s�
Page 25
Page 41
D. Landscape Plans (da4e! 9/15/2"NOT APPROVED(requires revision prior to Final Plat)
DiNIOd NONN3-1
O
A E A"N
0
j
--y
D',�A
V
A V p—A NNW,-,
V:---------- L
F-
Q
u
ui
z
tb------OVOU aACINII N-----
Page 26
Item#4.
N.LINDER ROAD
Z -
o O t7 . tjv
I
�co
I, Ty
m Im 5
v
M-LIME-SEE 5HEET Ll2
n
a x
a EE tl'F E� EE .
-
�
;n
--+aT OG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC ---- -� 3'
z
LENNON POINTE
ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION
Page 27
Page 43
Item#4.
RIAFLHLINE SEE SHEET LII
m
o`
�➢ � J �4 � � � � -� II � P
to
. a I
m OD
J —— 1Lt
a
n ✓. Q� I
m�
� = k
v �
'n'A F FfA9& H-13��en
v.F - .r a 1 1
y 3
is ;�]�' 3 •8i_ Y Ro Y�'_
ft
- - - 5arc Li S
+KT CG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC
Ns LENNON POINTE
ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION
Page 28
Page 44
Item#4.
of
hWTCHLINE 3EESHEEiL4
01. O
m 1 �I
z
IJ
m
m o
vo
— 1
—
444kkR
I
� m �
n
m,
M h � Jo,C oa ao�°e4°o�Q Imp o
o
i �qE s ni P�
- gl6el fs� €
DG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC
w p LENNON POINTE ..
ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION
Page 29
Page 45
Item#4.
N.LINDER ROAD
�: 7-7
�
f
n
Wee
y
+"
r
j O n/ —
O � ,5- e•0 a o�
0 yAl
-0000 DOO O O O e i
00 O I 0-
I o i
Q 1uwLL C
Z
o , p 4 Q
r m
e ' -
0
imp
g
2 q
:t -
art
+KT DG GROUP ARCHITECTURE PLLC -
z 's
y0
ae LENNON POINTE
a
ENTITLEMENT APPLICATION
Page 30
Page 46
Item#4.
E. Site Plan(Revised January 2022)
Lorca
SNLnwG
A9RIur
COXCPEr
AIYENRIE
PAn�GI
uRLeca
LO W MAgYUm
Ir
—
I
COMMERCIK9AP]9F WIDY AI '�IE.
BACf 191 APARtEIEM INl9 WINE• 19 APAMYEM UNR9 •�. PECE44rRINY PII
V I
LJL LPL � L } �Ll L.1 CaVEREO CARR
-- ":. �in NpN p SITE B WiNGAnON PUN
w _ — SITE A rlx r G N 51,619 SF 1.16 A
S
nj
ijAfj
PNW I�
W.P®1
LLGMNERC Wes PaYA
E169wP1E� ®r
MN
OPEMAIN
PESIG �—
SIGNAGE
1-1 GE9IRIAN N r li 3 w O � —
PA?N
si
G .
_ I -
�m -
AYLINE om - -
Lz ,\ � I '= o
4 -
- 4
TdNNXGM
B'PYMOOONTIRON _
FENCE 9G'-0'F(iGM
CEMERLINEOF - —
CREA90NLnlEPPL
—,9EEOIVIL - N IN PRO.£Li 61G RR
dh\ Iff PRIVATE ROAD NO PARIGNGFlR PRIVATE OR NW �1�
• -.. —ILL R ELOOE 111 III ELIX3.E IIlr IIVr III II Ir BLO9�E
o
rrtA9NE>a�LG9rt�
WOG PAn wrwA9N s`aLU
$�gacR��EK
STAnON 2AOW 9F FLOLUNAY
--I FENCING WXT IRON 2i
IccilON rO
W AGAALEM SOIITRERN RNPEIT•
LL 1T
I PLAN r i �
COPYRIGHT GG RE aE GpOUPARCHIT U.TU Ert OE=F
SIiE Pury oRAwN wl[TgUrTNE a WURVE✓
Page 31
Page 47
F. Public Works—Water Markup
RIM 2571.47'
W>IJSTICK RD INV IN
INV OUT
SSMH SSMH
SSMH RIM 256982' ' V IN
ZI,
57' 1 A:2111 INV IN RI M_7 IN NV IN INV OUT. INV IN(E)
.
INV T - FH INV OUT
IY
T, SSMH -SSMH
RIM.2571 87'
I R
114V IN
N M"0'`1'IT 1 1 e
INV INV OUT. IIII
RIM 2
�T
I...Wd
22 17—
r
Z 1:211111
j
\j
INV N
INV CUT
\ 10
r
57' SSMH
RIM'.256967 ssMH
RIM.2569.8V
NI
L IL IN
INV IN
M HASS 17- �J
IN _,N
NV IN,IS').
7
N V.
SSMH
Nv.IN
11 INV OJT
T
iL
_-I I H
IT— A Z 11N 11 1 j 71-N 11-
11.H,1-31
UTILITY PLAN
SCALE'1-40'
Page 32
Item#4.
G. Conceptual Building Elevations and Site Renderings(Revised January 2022)
- EI
yi
00 0
it
1717171171 ii ii ii ii i. u u ii ii ii ii ii ii inn
W
O
70 ZO O
eeE EIE6. eee z
LU
J �d
hey as.za
_
ill - -
® ee wR
- Gi
„IIrITImIC _ I TrIT: - . IITTTITI,ri.,�:. I'ITI
a
- TT-� TTTTT „-TTT a
3,
A a.H
gj EL
- - -- lid HE 0HH
o
®e A4.2
w
w
Page 33
Page 49
Item#4.
J C --Too
OXJ3
oil -0
:•.-.,
-OWN a s
�urur� �r �u `ii i�Tt rL i ri ili iii rLT--i r u i ii it, r' "
3
1 ..N TriiNT_FTf�_ rid�
.I I I I I I I N
A 7F I _
max. oo
3E�
------
y III II IIII® 'll -_.1if' fir_-_ ® _ . 150
-
-- 1
M,,
w w a
Z
A6.2A w
Page 34
Page 50
:d
J T.
F PT
n
!
7 7-1-, RPM _T;A,
111 1 i
RI IRI Irl I_l 111; A ill
A6.2B
L. L A
MOP",
I ���
Elk
-MM
Lu
Lill
Jj
A7.2
Page 35
Item#4.
El El
[FBI I VJ
i
7A
3a
Ills l III III EII II rlHl= III �� IIHI rlHll�l -tl Ir
W
r r Z
a_
k l l I I I I I I I 1 1-I I III-11Id �I III-I I I-III I kl I I I I F
-„ W -
J Q
CI
L�
f �
L Y
•Ilk
— •r
► K
Ilk
AidmwL
Page 36
Page 52
ww
Icy- IL :m
t
- T /
'` N
c II
,,_ a- �--w
qr
�., .,, I r - fit
. � _ .:�x\� Fes'
1`
-Ilk tj
lot
4
i dl 11
-••tea----
- s
l
Page
Item#4.
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the
developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA
shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved
plat, site plan, landscape plan, open space exhibit,and conceptual building
elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein.
b. The 10-foot multi-use pathway along the Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral in
the southwest quadrant of the site shall be constructed with Phase 1 of the
development.
c. The existing county residential access onto W. Ustick Road shall be closed
upon development of the subject site;the only approved accesses to the
adjacent arterials are those shown on the site plan.
d. All pedestrian crossings within the private street and drive aisle portions of the
site shall be constructed with brick,pavers, stamped concrete, or equal to
clearly delineate pedestrian facilities.
e. The required landscape street buffers shall be constructed and vegetated along
the entire perimeter(along N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road)with the first
phase of development.
f. No more than 4-6 18 multi-family units are approved with the Lennon Pointe
Community development the first two u a4s^loses*to the east pr-ope t„
botmdai=y a-ad Cr-eas Cr-eek Su division are limited to two stel=y units in
g. If cross-access is proposed between the commercial lot and the 5-unit
townhomes,the Applicant shall submit a recorded cross-access agreement to
the Planning Division at the time of Final Plat Signature to ensure perpetual
cross-access between the private street in the residential portion of the project
and the commercial drive aisle.
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated October 14, 2021, shall be revised as
follows at least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing:
a. Ceffeet the size of Lot 9,Bleek 1 to meet the 2,000 s"af e foot minimum lot size
b. Add additional common lots for the required landscape street buffers to N. Linder
Road and W. Ustick road adjacent to residential uses,per UDC 11-3B-7C.2.
c. Stamped and signed by the licensed land surveyor.
Page 40
Page 56
Item#4.
d. Add a note stating direct lot access to N. Linder Road and W.Ustick Road is
prohibited except for those access points approved by ACHD and as shown on the
approved site plan.
e. Add a common lot for the proposed common drive currently shown on Lot 13, Block
2 and add a plat note stating the purpose of the common drive and which building
lots it serves.
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, dated September 15,2021, shall be revised as
follows prior to submittal of the Final Plat application:
a. Revise the location of the trees for the Linder Road street buffer to be outside of any
waterway easement.
b. Shift the proposed regional pathway on Lot 1, Block 1 to the west to better align with
the approved segment to the south in Creason Creek No. 2.
c. Show the required 25-foot landscape buffer between the C-C zoning district and the
R-15 zoning district as required by UDC 11-3B-9C.
d. Revise the landscape plan to match the revised preliminary_plat and site plan dated
January 2022.
4. The site plan, as shown in Exhibit VII.E, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat
submittal:
a. Shift the 6 unit townhome building to the noi4h to move as mtteh of Lot 2,Bleek 1
out of the floodway zone.
b. Move the detaeked sidewalk adjaeen4 to the east side of the 6 unit townheffle
building to the east to be iffin a#_Lhted sid—ewa4k to the pr-ivme street.
c. Show the required number of covered spaces for the proposed multi-family
residential development,per UDC Table 11-3C-6.
d. Shift the proposed regional pathway on Lot 1,Block 1 to the west to better align with
the approved segment to the south in Creason Creek No. 2.
5. The multi family residential eleva4ions, shall be revised as follows at least ten(10) days p
to the City Gouneil hear-int�
a. Reduee the heigh4 of the pFepesed buildings to meet the mw4m-um building heigh
limit f F-t..(40) feet f the D 15 zoning distFiet
b. Show the less of the two tmits on the third and foufffi levels of the eastem multi
family building, ;Mort with the D n provision.,1,,,.,o
6. With Final Plat application,the Applicant shall submit for Alternative Compliance to the
landscape street buffer tree requirements along N. Linder Road for that area encumbered by
the Kellogg Drain and Creason Lateral easements.
7. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-7,UDC Table 11-2B-3, and those listed in the specific use standards for
multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27.
8. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for multi-family and single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per
unit.
9. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
Page 41
Page 57
Item#4.
10. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review(DES) for the attached single-
family and townhome units prior to building permit submittal. One DES may be utilized for
the entire single-family portion of the site.
11. The Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative
Design Review(DES) approval for the future commercial buildings and multi-family
structures prior to building permit submittal.
12. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
12.
13. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
14. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial
compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14.
15. The applicant and/or assigns shall comply with the private street standards as set forth in
UDC 11-3F-3 and 11-3F-4.
16. The conditional use approval shall become null and void unless otherwise approved by the
City if the applicant fails to 1)commence the use, satisfy the requirements, acquire building
permits and commence construction within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.1; or 2)
obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F.4.
17. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)
obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved
findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
18. Prior to City Engineer signature on the plat,the applicant shall submit a public access
easement for the multi-use pathway along the southern boundary of the site to the Planning
Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation.
19. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy on any building,the Applicant shall provide
proof of the required maintenance agreement to the Planning Division in accord with UDC
11-4-3-27—all multifamily developments shall record legally binding documents that state
the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,
including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development
features.
20. Business hours of operation within the C-C zoning district shall be limited from 6 am to 11
pm as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4.
21. Any drive-thru establishment use shall require Conditional Use Permit approval in accord
with UDC 11-4-3-11.
B. Public Works
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very
specific construction considerations due to shallow ground water on site. The applicant shall
be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations.
2. A portion of this project lies within the Meridian Floodplain and Floodway Overlay District.
Prior to any development occurring in the Overlay District a floodplain permit application,
including hydraulic and hydrologic analysis is required to be completed and submitted to the
Page 42
Page 58
Item#4.
City and approved by the Floodplain Administrator per MCC 10-6—All structures in the
overlay district must be elevated to flood protection elevations.
3. A water main connection will be required to Ustick Road.
4. Current design does not follow the utility corridor.Water mains should be located north and
east of roadway centerline.
5. A water main connection will be required to the existing stubs in North Zion Park Avenue
and West Pebblestone Drive.
6. The proposed main west of Building B should be eliminated. Townhomes can be served by
the water main east of Building B.
7. Complete the water loop by extending the proposed water main in the private road between
Building B and Building D1 northeast to connect into the water main located south of
Building Al.
8. Minimize water main length near the commercial lot at the northwest corner of the
development. Bring the water main only as far as needed to provide a hydrant for the
buildings' fire protection. Extend service lines from the main to serve the two retails
buildings.
9. Water mains should not cross through landscaping or sidewalks.
10. Sewer service lines should not cross lots other than the lot they serve. Services in the
southeast corner do not meet this requirement and must be adjusted.
11. Sewer needs to connect to West Pebblestone Drive by removing the temporary cleanout and
connecting to the existing main.
12. The manhole located at the northeast corner of the development near Pebblestone Drive must
be moved so it is located out of the landscaped area and instead located in Right-of-Way.
13. Sewer services should not cross infiltration trenches.
14. Utility easements are required for all mains outside of Right-of-Way.
15. No permanent structures can be built within a City of Meridian utility easement including but
not limited to buildings, car ports,trash enclosures, fences,trees,bushes, infiltration trenches,
light poles, etc.
General Conditions of Approval
16. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
17. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
18. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
Page 43
Page 59
Item#4.
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
19. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
20. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassigmnent of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
21. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
22. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho
Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are
any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or
provide record of their abandonment.
23. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
24. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this
subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
25. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
26. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
27. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
28. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
29. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Page 44
Page 60
Item#4.
30. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
31. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
32. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
33. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been
installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required
before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
34. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings
per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and
approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the
project.
35. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
36. 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.
37. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount
of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,
cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240228&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
hyps://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=240012&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
Lty
E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT—PATHWAY COMMENTS
https:llweblink.meridianciU.ory WWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
Page 45
Page 61
Item#4.
F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
hggs://weblink.meridianciN.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=243241&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C
i &cr=1
G. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridianciN.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=242517&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
H. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240139&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=244361&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
J. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=240461&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a
full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant
an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with R-15 and C-C zoning districts and subsequent development is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for the development of
multiple housing types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within
the City and within this area. Commission finds the proposed addition of commercial within
the development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the commercial district
and consistent with the future land use designation of Mixed-Use Community.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
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
Page 46
Page 62
Item#4.
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact
on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Because of the unique and distinct project proposed, the proposed addition of more
commercial zoning, and the varying types of housing options proposed, Commission finds the
annexation is in the best interest of the City.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staff's recommendations, is in substantial
compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density,
transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in,
Section V of this report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with
development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VII for more information.)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
platting of this property.ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved
the proposed road layout and connections to adjacent arterials.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features that exist on this
site that require preserving.
C. Conditional Use Permit Findings:
The commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
Page 47
Page 63
Item#4.
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Commission finds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and
development regulations in the R-15 zoning district in which it resides except for those noted
and required to be revised.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in
accord with the requirements of this title.
Commission finds the proposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other
residential housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of
Mixed-Use Community and the requirements of this title.
3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
Despite the proposed use being different than the residential uses closest to the subject site,
Commission finds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be
compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the
essential character of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Commission finds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed,
will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage
structures,refuse disposal,water,and sewer.
Commission finds the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities
and services as all services are readily available, the nearby arterial street is widened to its
full width, and the Applicant is required to construct a new public road extension to
accommodate additional traffic flow.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
All public facilities and services are readily available for the subject site so Commission finds
that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community or
create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes,glare or odors.
Page 48
Page 64
Item#4.
Although traffic will likely increase in the vicinity with the proposed use, all major roadways
adjacent to the site are already at their full width and the proposed layout offers the best
opportunity for safe circulation. Therefore, Commission finds the proposed use will not be
detrimental to any persons,property, or the general welfare.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-
2005,eff. 9-15-2005)
Commission is not aware of any such features; the proposed use should not result in damage
of any such features.
D. Private Street Findings:
In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following:
1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article;
The Director finds that the proposed private street design meets the requirements.
2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard,or nuisance,or
other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and
The Director finds that the proposed private streets would not cause damage, hazard, or
nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity if all conditions of
approval are met.
3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan
and/or the regional transportation plan.(Ord. 05-1170,8-30-2005,eff.9-15-2005)
The Director finds the use and location of the private streets do not conflict with the
comprehensive plan or the regional transportation plan because the proposed design meets
all requirements and the project is also extending the required public road through the site.
4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
(Ord. 10-1463, 11-3-2010,eff. 11-8-2010)
The Director finds the proposed residential development is a mew development by having a
majority of the units facing green space instead of the private street.
Page 49
Page 65
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
r
� !• x14
EXISTING CONDITIONS
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS - STREET PLAN
W Ustick Rd W Ustick Rd W Ustick
f .
W.PEBBLESTONE
PROJECT SITE
N W Parkstone St
� . o
C
uj M
z'a W Stanhope St W Stanhope st
N Z
•4
za
z
ry �
r' 7
� � d
2 y �
Lowry St - :7 "' %V Lowry
W Lowry 5t 3� z
s
r
_M
z W Claire St Z�
r
Q
CL d}d r }
0. h Dr N W Woodbu a
ry
E
r z Dr o
a z
z
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
BOUNDARY 45re TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ctml,m;
UNTICK M -,w
l-W TAW
1E
14.
112.
v:Fr-
157'
MZ —.Vlll
%-
4�1.
®r-,§�—
,�tff�jr.A IXZ%=
Ji ACCLRATE
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
' Jjff .:•:1��. -
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
3.
' 4 uuLL�vF.
�1-
-tom: ...`:..•,
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
1 -
zT
•'firr•[�� ` 1 •.i':..J� .• _ - •.\1.... ..
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
�. +r` - .r. _ � .. +fr--.'n�,�,.,.,- �'"s`�S"' .x+-r••�7'�i7�1:_.�._ µ _F '-
a.
y;Y:�
41
r.dr.'�L K'� •i' .. .R'y� �+1r.1� ..:{5555 t. ir'•' i .�:����' �. r,��`. a�
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
Now
x�• I.
,n r
_ •i 3Y �•�' Ylf'�
��°'' f� 3 .� 3p. ..,1!... ���;:f.�%�' �.P`°' •�.-,may,
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
:Y •. v
49
n
a
E
. ti
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
rs;
`I
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
� � z
. \-
.
- z/ � � �m� •A�a>—v. . �ƒ���J<A2x��z��:���:
5 '
•4 ilbo
� r
y ,
r,
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
-. .-a� f. '4�+y _ «., .. •tea-
is l`.a;��7T�li L7t'P f�La�
SITE DESIGN
SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT
SITE B
.ro
S]TE A 1 1 d AC '
AC
51TE C f
&IOAC - - _- --
fill-
ur vecrw :; , �� ��: TwrwR, ♦fvMW.R;./.[_�nrwrt _— —`�_ _1
PLAN
LL �
1
SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT
SITE e
!- SITE Rom" _`1'1 - 51,5SB SF 1.F AC __64.271
DRIVING FACTORS t� 1.47Ac —
• Existing zoning and multiple building ��.,.: :o.��• `
type requirements F - -
• Extend existing public roadways -
• Floodway and Flood zone areas
_ � °SITS�•- � �.._
. - _ N
• Kellogg Drain relocation 10A
• Existing one and two story single family ' -
to the east --- --- *- - - --- --
:.
Arterial Street Access and circulation =
r
' J
I
I , I
TX..
lT PLAN e '
rr,. ma....
SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT
1]
I•
SITE 6
I' -`SITEA "' ___ `'1G19SF 1.119AG
-4Z
...........
SITE
19 A - € ---
-- --
"./2
lI
w � I�iiu�mir.nmew�nnran .
LL 9 liiil
{•ll�ITµ PLAN
PATHWAY PLAN
------------_ - .----------= -- - r --- - _
.. -- . SITE B
"_
SITE A . .... 51,619 SF 1"t S AC _
.S.
64279 SF I• F� ti"
1.47 AC �j• .fL\. "I
—
'I
$!TE
.861 F_ I
� I
J �
-- I
1 I..
� r• V:A
I
I
W �, � +CMtM MMM YrnTr
I �
L51 PLAN 5 f
QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE
1r• UMCK 1D.NIM
r
_L s
�• I � !{! '111 � 1�1 I �
I T
SrrEA — 5F REQUIRED
7 �� = 44,415 SF
iHY
PROVIDED
�;., `3,. a _ = 74,695 SF
l n I � __ 6• � - ;Fsr
tl�. � a:3• a � fp: —
I`'l;' —
.Il:
I _
f
� 1
� I 1
1
�P SPACE Exmll;,T i 1
s-
PARKING
31TE A _ 51.619 SF 1.16 AC " °^
- r?4.279 SF
i
i
SITE PARKING REQUIRED-500 SF STALL £""`—
24)STALLS REQUIRED', — --- .
PARKING PROVIDED ; 4 s •o __ --
I?55 FRDjIjbEb I wsoWa - - <3c .jy
SITE B: - --- - -- -
_
APARTMENT UNITS: (18)UNITS �41e `
PARKING REQUIRED
(1)SEDR00M UNITS -
-1.5 STALLS PER UNIT -
=(9)STALLS REQUIRED
(2)BEDROOM UNITS •-: i � =� -. i:';; �
-2 STALLS PER UNIT - o
.(24)STALLS REQUIRED
-(33)TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED
-(i0)GARAGE STALLS n'PARKING PROVIDED
(B)COVERED PARKING STALLS
(14)SURFACE
_(3)ON-STREET
�ROVIDFD (35)STAII S
SITE C: — -- ---
TOWNHOMES: (42)LOTS .tom -
PARKING REQUIRED =4 STALLS PER UNITNlkl
.GUEST: I STALL PER 10 UNITS �: .w:u::si Z
= 168 STALLS REQUIRED s:
-(5)GUEST STALLS
(173)STALLS REQUIRED
L .i } it• yfll+ Lwv
PARKING PROVIDED-GARAGE+DRIVEWAY PARKING+SURFACE
(84)GARAGE STALLS PROVIDED n
- {78)DRIVEWAY STALLS a °'
(35)SURFACE PARKING 1 ON-STREET
(197)TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED
SITE DESIGN AND CONCEPT
R� �
1
F
L*
rawo
'4kjIl CL ��Jr Li
BUILDING DESIGN
COMMERCIAL
.� I
Ell 11I I 1 E 1-111 II-1—1i-1 1-7 —1[FII=1I�I�— -1-1 --
- — — T---=-11[pi —fir-1 T
.py.p•g1ryiK A..f]iRW.TgM
m r11 l ii iil lii it 'ii'if'li �a 9 ° a
��n�ierra..o�cr mMnui a i�6
w
o
1p
I p6�yyg�g�
I O�3L1
Q
-- — �__ I — I--�-, -1-f�7�' �m� �41 � �Il�.l it L
=�J
O
� z
_.., w Q
2f f
Lu
Lu
II I I —I —1 l II I I—Igll II I—I IEI ICI I—I li lE F••-^w••-^ P-
(. 2
w
COMMERCIAL
�r�u�Pax*..o•us*n�v+.�� w�iufnan-wmaevnnou r�
uxazs
_ wg
—IL' IiA ii Ili 1 lI I li
�iNll1—II�II�IINil�il['�.Iti lti ir=il=.i—,I—il i1�—rr-Ir�rn—f�4 I II II II—
,y rwawesrraa-nouns a�rn+aM �Y� ���
POT
w
z
0
To a
I— — — — — CII CI I—I—I—IC C II_II II II II II CII ' '
—
I—I—I— —I—II II CII CIICICI II,_I-I-I-C7 C7 C]CIJ:I_17_IZII IICIIC 0 ~
8 V n awa..s nc*an.wx+waw.*rw Z � J
Z
w "= a
J � ¢
A9.2 W
J
f
Z
W
• � 1
x
3
COMMERCIAL
oc
1
COMMERCIAL
_ r
.y
�;Jl
it• .l
COMMERCIAL
i r•
AD
J f F �lj .H •� �' i
_ 6 I
•�• .,ter•
BUILDING A 4 2
w
F-
z
C
fl-
�-- z
Lu 30 30a.
H Z
W
F
2
W
BUILDING A
11
I'
- m-r -111-ter -r-m -rr� .. "'Imir
G
W �
Z
u Q _ z a
_ hH
pJ
Pee. HHB � � a
^a
q•Ai9'y ��
— BBB BEE] .Bee o A3.2A W
BUILDING A
10 I
+,■■ A Ali M� �\ �AA�r �YMf � .
II w� i
R
-L=4 do
• #
' BLDG. A2 { ' � .
. l� � � PEDESTRIAN R
(9) APARTMENT UNITS
D ,
44, I,
d
A A A � � - BIKE
RACK
L -i L -i L COVERED CARPO
SITE B IRRIGATION PUMP
51 ,619 1 . 1 AC STATION
w'�yy T n
■� _ ■ . • r
EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE ELEVATIONS
IMAM
w 2575
2572 EP -EP- -��FP� GRADE
GRADE �, ELEVATION
ELEVATION f w.ussc�i Ro. z�N �Niy�� Copp X Pfts�
r `` I NCF a- ygZ�R w. USTICK RD.
I �
CR£T£
VER L
l ralNwc
FFE_2572.01T
w HFADGA g' �
z
` w 0) 72"Pvc wV
a o f m ELEV-2570.77'
�
w C.m
Wp + °o
a -4.4% I IWCL
o T w. ES TONE C
ca _ _ ^N ' W.PESBLESTQNE D
rP
Cs2 LLC.
�! II C52 LLC. I w. PEBBLESTONE DR.
2571.83 n� aFRRi FCTTINF nR I
BUILDING 1
M
_ 1
tE a
BUILDING
� \\i •
_ �•JA> ��\ .2%
�
\�2
BUILDING .A
0.
- a
L••.
BUILDING
R
BUILDING B
— ------ ---- ----.s
-
-J
777
,
H! t�
s
- �
- - - z o
IM
r Za
r------t3 —_ r�_- ._--- —_- 't3 p J gr a
.12
A4.1 A Lu
�:ODR��BwW,3B�sEsE,t aaah[�e•aEvasaa �••
BUILDING B
-----------MR
o-z
1L— L
� s.xomnaswmw �euu,n��nw� — _
r
,EyCr�ii. -
� 1
— -- ------- -:
a
s
ao 0000
00 0000WNW
=oo� o0 00
r e
g MIR
z
0
fa.uon ti z
2 0
O �
' gra
w
BUILDING B
Am
I
F �
�}�1�'t i� ��f�.r l•���'i •;i'rr7y..� i� t r .� s _i a�. ?:n �'•-7+.=�'�.i�r.. � `i .,y�{.r��.
a a t. �iSw. il�w�ry � -k��A AF• i•k 1rr
BUILDING i
-•� �11T� ..4�7s
ba
y�
ir.
/. -
� ti
1 .�� may` •Tr .
BUILDING C
T 7 TIT
I�r
Lh7
z r�ma�iw.rwar�r..iwr,� $g
G Fo �• R $ $
�a
I °
w t
CL
I Q o
----- -------' ------- -------- -
- f W 5 a
J Q
II . W
A5.1 W
BUILDING C
a.G iA"..0 T&Oa+.0
III
9;
. a
�ZZ'yy.
F
I IIIIII d
— LU a
J n
- -iii- otzDxq
<
IM
BUILDING
r _
.vr m y i�� s ■ A _
• F.. � � :ii �f�� `may `�. `� r, � _r'>��.y���*.�►�f ��7:� �.
to
BUILDING
IL
Its
ip
b
BUILDING C
� is � � � �' ..�r .�_�• � '
i f.JJ 1-1 I I !Ili f� ruin �
r.�•�j�'.:�"ti.FS i � .{ �� i�•�.-�� 7i. `i. ,.vw+ri'^''�-'"`/""'"'•��.."wraa- _ .- �. .-^'�'"
�rrey"C��r�i7�;�i+7F•r•ww.•" 's'• •aj�Yl ":^x.•^."r`::` . . :•�
�7 ,• n f .�t�'. �.t; �'4l .i`y'1't.:' 1, i� ,f' •4 •,:' .f� 'i. J. xL^e�rv}�,.,�!ew f P+,
{ ;.k. 'J :'r :•11 ,.:ti� .Sq• ..tic` ~r.4 s� r• r�•y �r.t�'�,,. ,�.. ':i.•',•' .4': •t'. 1_? y,fir,`.. .�'"— •�� I
��' f•..1,'.' '•.x•r
i;r.+ +;. �1 F +i ia7•�'.k 'f. is `s-.• --
.�..., .5'i• '�r `'r }}��,, •a•'F'�rr.� '�r•.'• 'i'r .4'+t` '�:�.L ��1 ,�.,... F.• �.•+
-a:•'i? "•�." `.p. .�r J !sf • •n:• �! .�•{''f�''S T. :� �•�Y�'+ �rl :n. v
, � .P_:J�<'.L�; -.r,'. ,'1.• �'.4�'-. ,.�f.,, �.r r �R•1�- }•. .�; r.�0. xfy,'.�:' ,'}•'S,'•,bY: .r..ti-
.t l- � .7 0`• 5 ,+�,: � ,� r t Vr.f.'i..Y..,,l:'rq, „t� `Y7�• �:r;;`�, �'-.1..r1.- �ti+. •„� �x _••�, .�. �
?•S+� ''!.. .'y-' .l` •j .;'L:1{�e r��'k'� �� � ['+• �„7. �1.:.,y',r,�j��`„��: v.-.f I�- Vd'.r.; i�'F�.�i,.-. �d.l. ,.r.I�, ,� ,�.•',:r t.,.•..i ,,-
'�ifr:. ,i. ! :r,i 'j,y .}. �Y p. �f,..+ ��.. ..�f.: r•���1... .ti: .-Ki r.,;F Hf.• +ti ,.p.+1' �S. -7.:e: 1,[.;..L .•Y' �iS r ktiV x,rJ"y.��V�. 5�
g.�.. (f 1 .r�r' +�. i ..F` ..h' `'SR;••'�''•;!•'r+4 'l.r.>• .�• �`t.�..F' / f 'b. •a.e� '�:• l - •.r `ti
S �' :�.,r r•{., .v , .S "S`'•,.�•,' � .r� 7 r nl {, {'.,,. s.; 1. '.F: ", �Y:; .I,•�'"�'� ,,;.- •+',14 r 4•`
'{`,i': i�,'}?f:'"i' S R r•r„ .+,{•r.I �•r. '�, '�'.r •f ? •• e ,.s' i.Y'...Y'f +::hw%'.1 A�S,'i'Fy. .f .,.. .�1 r' r.. 1.
� . .r w;_ Lr � d: p �tr";.: t; a,. ; �;, ,��' ti ; ,., • l ' 1 ;r ,;t �� _ r:'.,• 'r :
r,, •�•/� M1 �''i i/.. .�•.. �1�P 7 f���}�' + .1� �• I+`.a f �.f .r�•'� i; i 1-,t r j. f• r., +►a. .•' r"�}.. ��-sr% yTrc.�i. ' � f'rti':,,r,. ;,t'�i��'�,iaf ��'+;r���i7�' { se '���e..le �,•' 'ri:�,•,:l� �"i•. �f.'Y :�� �t�''�' ,�1 'S' ' y -
•e •rR�•;�,,. y ",h.t;''� r+ � i i� i$,.;�.,,.a? ��°• o':.���r e?•.'�ifi t x 't rh''•F.� ,{'�i.��i�` #�a.. i:P`_5 `7�y4'l,in��,r'''q ���i•nl�. ,�►ti1�f`IF��{v •�.'�,`''�' Y.
�Sjy�,jZf'.�:i�`.j]'{.LI`!•7�•.��y�r y J ifi'.STS:�:I Yp ��Y�il f'Y'.� '+'�1f +{„.�I,rt q f7'• u� ' r•,�!'
.".I,J',YYCr}�i'ti' {>i�a��' �'l l'1[�„' �j rL•,� 4"��F'f �r•''.r ��' 4 _1' rc r� � ,1�2,r h• r�,Er� ��
4��.�'r r `�- �� 'r'"�4i�� �, yyrj�11�� k'Z' .!1! r`� f'{ � � I++{j�i= i. ��.i• 7��..
#-
�s �E. ��it�:L��1 �ir'�%YYal�AI uG{iyr\�$tr� .' J�/���:1�a���Yi � kiSal��•r +? �a��i 'ie- s. i' 1 �:a+� .I� .+ I��'R:k�t!.W' ]} .i? `��s f.r 'l.��
BUILDING D1
71�
:-.Yl.bf O,-fbSR WVnMw VMaLNGp-MNlILLvrTb� i ��
lei
LLI
— � o
Z
Z o
W 9 a.
ra
J � F
2
A6.2A W
J
W
BUILDING D2
T T TT
F1
- .'W.. JP TlfT� gpy�p CC
iP.�f - - t4
.1LIIM 1
-41
�� J- P m 6!
iu.,.. 69
..
Lu
� �a
J r Q
2
A6.2B
uq
BUILDINGS D1 & D2
x - -
61
f.
;;')
BUILDINGS D1 & D2
� j f
.11,----------------
� 1
� . a.�•l. i sib �s S'7•IY
BUILDINGS Dli
J .. ■ Y7 '
5
BUILDINGS Dl i
ME
ry..
_.;,,►
BUILDING D2
FDG1
RN
T — --
1 �17 ,
„p
-- -J d7MI
lti-l: ����,-:ICE
z
LLJ
- a
rIF IL
CJ,s�wxioe.wwon.,�or, C++)�a�c-ma.rua.�.*w
w
A7.2 W
J
r
a
w
BUILDING E
y.-
[T
• I r 7'�i�i•F'.;�...� •,i,.�: �r ::." .':gtii••;1.' r.l _ �'^13� ..r�Si �`^ j
nr
v
1
EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADE ELEVATIONS
- -"� 2571 .75 .
3
- - - r GRADE x,FK oaY7D SFEVENS q
sos w r3FH r� sr. CQ
- -257'1.2 z 7,.� ELEVATION xEAOOAFE f } x
571.75' FFE: 71. RfGA l
- 25 1.62 I CTORE
-013% 1 ` i
E 2571.59 '1111 NW 13-1"ST =das Z
TAA"—
075 NW S
571_T5 ' I I F 2s»-f ; ,�EAOCArE
1 3T. �
�G 12'CCNLWETE WV
G
I 4q° 2571." 5 ElEV.-257D.75
20 I I GRADE 2575
572t7 2 az:_ 9_� _�$7z.90 "" ELEVATION , GRADE
I ELEVATION
- , zs72.7s
l EOER N.SRNTAlN �' �
3375 N*f 3T'.5T SyD -
572.00' A 5 -
2-0 3 FFE'2-M.00' 2571.84
2
- 0
U x
}} JARDAN LEACH •
�,.8 I I 4' I 2s J039 NW 13TH ST.
257,.8A l �y—_ —_ _•.. _...I � ___ _.—_ __ _ __ JOMN G Hlfl FR 1��
I 3Q55 ilJ�t3111 S I �-v(n
572.U0'2 5.6 I I ! 7_FFE:x57'2.D0' i7i.59 h 9�
f A
- { 2671.48 JOR13AN LEAGN
3039 NW 13TH ST.
i72.W 6 0 I :FFE 2572-00' 2571.7f '
2Q
�5 70 II RMAN 4A ► Jr
f. .0% 1 — � 302 W 137b! ST.
--
' MAN S.OE LA M07TE �--Y— •—•
302f Nri IJTM ST �^ �`
BUILDING TYPE D1 & D2 - EAST SIDE SITE SECTIONS
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
6'0"VINYL FENCE v LTH
' "VINYL FENCE
HFIGHT OF EXISTING SFR m
g, HT OF EXISTING SFR
_
in
—III—III—III—III—III—III III—III—III ill � � � � � � � � III III Fl � T,--,
18'-8„
22'-0"
SETBACK TO WALL
SETBACK TO LEVEL 2 PRIVATE PATIO
OVERAL SITE IMAGES
fin. '♦ i �"°` _ � � •� w�`, -=�' 1 � .� - s7,
OWN-
tea„' ;�-�,-��' � -•,,
l � x
OVERAL SITE I MAG
gas A"
1�
R
OVERAL SITE IMAGES
• .; i i
23" as Fill
�� t r
lips D
ME
Val
t
� 1 1
,�.-' `�•a -- — � __�—-
1
� Ire � ��•+,y. � '" s,. ����� _ "�, -� - - �.�
00
r„
7/tem 77
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Police Department: Fiscal Year 2022 Net-Zero Budget Amendment in the
Amount of$5,000.00 for Central District Health Partnership for Success Mini Grant
Page 80
Item#5.
C� fIEN ,
IN4,
IDAHG-.
MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL
Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda
From: Police Department Meeting Date: 2/22/2022
Presenter: Lt.Jeff Brown Estimated Time: 10 Minutes
Topic: Central District Health: Partnership for Success Mini Grant
Recommended Council Action:
Approval
Background:
Grant was awarded in January 2022-funding opportunity was not known during the FY22 budget
cycle.
Page 81
N
Co
N
0)
ca
1/13/2022 9:30AM City of Meridian FY2022 Budget Amendment Form CL
Personnel Costs Full Time Equivalent(FTE):
Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total E IDIAN�^- ''
20 2135 41200 5041 Wages
20 2135 41206 5041 PT/Seasonal Wages
20 2135 41210 5041 Overtime Please only complete the fields highlighted
20 2135 41304 5041 Uniform Allowance in Orange.
20 2135 42021 5041 FICA $ Amendment Details
20 2135 42022 5041 PERSI $ Title: Central Dist Health:Partnership for Success Mini Grant
20 2135 1 42023 1 5041 Worker's Comp $ rtment Name: Police
20 2135 1 42025 1 5041 1 Employee Insurance $ Presenting Department Name: Police
Total Personnel Costs $ Department#: 2135
Operating Expenditures Primary Funding Source: 20
Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description One-Time On-Going Total CIP#:
20 2135 57500 5041 Printing/Binding: Sign creation $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Project#: 5041
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $ Is this for an Emergency? ❑ Yes ❑� No
20 2135 5041 $ New Level of Service? ❑ Yes ❑� No
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $ -
Clerks Office Stamp
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 5041 $
20 2135 1 1 5041 1 $
20 1 2135 5041 1 $ 2-22-2022
Date of Council Approval
Total Operating Expenditures $ 5,000 $ $ 5,000
Capital Outlay
Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total Acknowledgement Date
20 2135 5041 �-
20 2135 5041ilY'
20 2135 5041 De ment Director
20 2135 5041 BP 01/27/2022
20 2135 5041
20 2135 5041 Chief Financial Officer
Total Capital Outlay $ -
Revenue/Donations Approved Treg Bernt 1:00pm 2/10/2022
Fund# Dept.# G/L# Proj.# G/L#Description Total Coup aison
20 2135 1 33100 1 5041 JGrant Revenue $ 5,000 ( 2-1 0-22
20 2135 1 1 5041 1 "___�*u �4--
20 2135 5041 1 Mayor
Total Revenue/Donations $ 5,000
Total Amendment Request $ -
L6
E
otal Amendment Cost-Lifetime
1;,,—1 nn,..,a;. —1-1 o.,.+,..,.n......,a....,...a r,..... re nip+W-4k KNi ;n,-..+krvonoo P 4—+AmonA—+(`en+nic+I-Ienl+h r�rnnf_rirnn froo manna cin—
Item#5.
rw w N O N CD Cal n p v
O J m 0 (OD rp-r 'n0 H G 3 M m — N � j
o' m N m ut H OJ n 3� K Q° N = N
1 C �, i y S '� S G m O' D) .`� D)
a p CL 7' (D H to Q
n a as C D m m m e. v =:m (D .T o
< O N O" Q m vi .0 = d
,�i 3 C n ( aj
3D d m vm) iD O O N D N Q' O '..`� < fD Q -G
J G. O• O .Ot 3 a�-r : ^' < p •O fl- 01 O" d i/, N < y m
A : 3 3 0 = n ac c m v I v rD o -�° C �
)^ O S. C 3 (D < c- N O qGj (D rpq p"' 0
m 7 :m O y N
m (D < < 'a m n in v v
C •ti p O S C N ,O N (C p .0 p T
3 CL (c m s o o m a C
3 m O C v (D Q N ;O N 3 IIJ - - O
2
3 a O. rt = A S rt Oa 7 ut rOF Q O - N f{D
m N V �. _ fl_ ;a u+ .v N 00 00 N
i m m a o c 3 3 oc o 0
m 3 CD cr 3 (D v 3 Q Da
3 3 Q m m -0C Do o : 04 T
m tO 'D6 m B m I- + •.) Op U4 .O m m S in.
f O N N N
M, ro
c 0 3 m v) m 0 CD
m a a
cr
d O "O .� va v> th to
3 N r v n O C
;m
N y m D! M _S cr7 .trt (D (D al N -I-
^� ts ^ m m ti ao o <c o 3 m m 4� <
coOZ 'O' CD 03 --a, m 7 WO ,DO O. ..< p- d
m
C �
O .7 •O_ a G. N ::7 D7 :O' S O Q CD
S m K — m p H m G O m 'O
m •O -n DJ DO V1 ¢X ? d T
O Q N m ti. fU ir* fD y `O n
m v) (D O mu+ -^ rmr K O SU
_ a 3 g v w N n
N S: m rD
tr d. 3 j % �� N n (D O N
11! O S y 'd CL 1 (D
m 3 H C O a) N .a N M to to v*to N
(D (mD 7 (n N m x iv "C r-r T
S �•r S O T1 (D kN¢ v N n N
cr u) _ F CD
fl N
C O O (p 1 _ 'D (D
iff n
ti CD
N p .�j 0) Vs m m
^ C O m O O D) W
S (^ m 1 V V V Y( tl Y
N
3 C O 7Ml
42. h
7 � m Q. G1 O
L tO 'O D fD ID n a D m D
r ° a, CD o Q m 0 m °' a 3 "� m
Q` rD (D m a _ n c �'� 3 as .1 � CD
Y ,p O fl. m
J C O \ Ut C s
a O rF O_ f > j w e m
�. N C } § IA d C N (D
G
3 = aq
e,... (D y < o n O
m
3
N n
D 7 H O
n
7 O a a m
D 0
's
3
2
D
D
J
7
D
n
7'
n
Page 83
Item#5.
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH
Subgrant Agreement
Subgrantee: City of Meridian
Subgrantee's Federal I.D.No. 82-6000225
CFDA Number and Title: 93.243 Partnership for Success Grant
DUNS Number: 028451367
Subgrant Amount: $5,000.00
This subgrant outlines the relationship between Central District Health,hereinafter referred to as CDH,and the
City of Meridian,hereinafter referred to as the Subgrantee,for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the
Idaho Office of Drug Policy Partnerships for Success subgrant deliverables. This subgrant is expected to be
effective as of January 1,2022,and will expire on June 15,2022.
The Subgrantee agrees to provide,and CDH agrees to accept the services detailed in the Scope of Work.
Subgrant Terms and Conditions
1. Subgrant Effectiveness and Renewal. It is understood that this subgrant or any amendment is effective
when it is signed by all parties, or at a later date if specified in the subgrant or amendment. Any
extension or amendment of this subgrant shall be in writing,signed by both parties.
2. Performance. The failure of CDH to require strict performance of any term or condition of this
agreement or to exercise any option herein,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 CDH.
3. Fiscal Records. The Subgrantee agrees to maintain all fiscal records, including its books,audit papers,
documents, and any other evidence of accounting procedures and practices,which sufficiently and
properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended in the performance of this subgrant.
These records shall be available for and subject to inspection,review or audit and copying by CDH.
4. Records. The Subgrantee shall maintain all records and documents relevant to this subgrant for three
years from the date of final payment. CDH shall have full access to and the right to inspect,review,and
audit any of these materials during the retention period. If an audit, litigation,or other action involving
records is initiated before the three-year period has expired,the records must be retained until all issues
arising out of such action are resolved, or until an additional three-year period has passed,whichever is
later.
5. Monitoring. The Subgrantee shall be monitored on a frequency to be determined by CDH and the
program shall be periodically reviewed. The results of this program review may be used,with other
information,to evaluate the Subgrantee's provision of services funded by this subgrant.
6. The Subgrantee's status under the subgrant shall be that of an independent Subgrantee and not that of an
agent or employee of CDH. The Subgrantee shall be responsible for paying all employment-related
taxes and benefits,such as federal and state income tax withholding, social security contributions,
worker's compensation and unemployment insurance premiums,health and life insurance premiums,
pension contributions and similar items.
7. Confidentiality. The Subgrantee shall comply with all applicable state and federal laws,rules,and
regulations concerning confidentiality. CDH will furnish the Subgrantee with copies of applicable
statutes,rules,and regulations upon receipt of a written request from the Subgrantee.
1
Page 84
Item#5.
8. HIPAA. The Subgrantee acknowledges that it may have an obligation,independent of this subgrant,to
comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act(HIPAA), Sections 262 and 264 of
Public Law 104-191,42 USC Section 1320d,and federal regulations at 45 CFR Parts 160, 162 and 164.
If applicable, Subgrantee shall comply with all amendments to the law and federal regulations made
during the term of the subgrant.
9. Lobbying.
a. Influence. The subgrantee certifies that none of the funds provided by this subgrant have been
paid or will be paid by or on behalf of the Subgrantee to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any governmental agency, a member, officer
or employee of Congress or the State Legislature in connection with the awarding,continuation,
renewal,amendment,or modification of any contract,subgrant,loan or cooperative agreement.
b. Standard Form LLL. If any funds,other than funds provided by this subgrant,have been paid
or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee
of any governmental agency, a member, officer or employee of Congress or the State
Legislature in connection with the subgrant,the Subgrantee shall complete and submit Standard
Form LLL, `Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying', in accordance with its instructions,and a
copy of Standard Form LLL to CDH.
c. False Statement. The Subgrantee understands that a false statement of this certification may be
grounds for rejection or termination of the subgrant,and that their signature upon this `Standard
Subgrant' is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this
subgrant was made or entered into. In addition,under Section 1352. Title 31 U.S. Code,a false
statement shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than$10,000.00 and not more than
$100,000.00 for each such false statement.
10. Single Audit Act. The Subgrantee acknowledges that it may have an obligation; independent of this
subgrant,to comply with the terms of the"Single Audit Act"of 1984.Funds provided under the
subgrant may be used to pay for compliance with this act in proportion to other funding sources
available to the Subgrantee for the services provided pursuant to the subgrant.
11. Termination for Convenience. CDH or the Subgrantee may cancel this subgrant at any time without
cause upon 30 calendar days' written notice specifying the date of termination. The obligations and
liabilities of the parties shall cease upon the date of termination except that the obligations or liabilities
incurred prior to the termination date shall be honored.
12. Appropriation by Legislature Required. CDH is a government entity,and this agreement shall in no
way or manner be construed so as to bind or obligate the CDH beyond the term of any particular
appropriation of funds by the State's Legislature as may exist from time to time. CDH reserves the right
to terminate this agreement in whole or in part(or any order placed under it)if, in its sole judgment,the
Legislature of the State of Idaho fails,neglects, or refuses to appropriate sufficient funds as may be
required for CDH to continue such payments or rescinds or requires any return or"give-back"of funds
required for CDH to continue payments,or if the Executive Branch mandates any cuts or holdbacks in
spending. All affected future rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall thereupon cease within ten
calendar days after notice to the Subgrantee. It is understood and agreed that CDH's payments herein
provided from shall be paid from Idaho State Legislative appropriations.
2
Page 85
Item#5.
In Witness whereof,the parties have executed this agreement.
SUBGRANTEE
Kendall Nagy
Date; I AP
Su6stanae Abuse Prev;idont6rdinatDr&
Meridian Anti-Drug Coalition Director
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
Russell A.Du"
Date. 11 "Zzr
District D6ctoAJCeAiW District Health
3
.......,........._..............__............_...............-1.,,..,......_..----..----._...........................,......................._.._........._....._.a...._..._......__......_.....,.,..............._..._....,..,...,,....._.....................................................................................___.................._.....................................
Page 86
Item#5.
Scope of Work
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. This subgrant is funded by the Idaho Office of Drug Policy,awarded October 1,2018,through the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration(SAMHSA), [Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance(CFDA)number 93.243,Federal Award Identification Number(FAIN)
SP080981-01.
B. The purpose of this subgrant is to support the goals and objectives of the Partnerships for Success
Grant.
C. The Subgrantee shall comply with the CDH policy on meals and refreshments,a copy will be provided
by CDH upon request.
D. The Subgrantee shall adhere to the following:
1. For State,Local, and Tribal: Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State,Local and Tribal Governments. www.ecfr.gov—CFR Title
45 Part 75.
E. The Subgrantee shall read and comply with the 2018-2023 Partnership for Success Grant guidance,a
copy will be provided upon request.
F. The Subgrantee shall receive prior written approval from CDH for any deviations from the budgeted
services or activities. The Subgrantee shall be financially responsible for costs deemed unallowable or
unapproved by the subgrant monitor. Unallowable costs are outlined in Cost/Billing Procedures,
paragraph B.
G. The Subgrantee shall share with staff,as applicable,to ensure their knowledge of the expectations
and ability to meet subgrant and compliance requirements.
H. The Subgrantee shall maintain staffing with the knowledge and skills to accomplish subgrant services
and activities. Changes in key staff positions shall be reported to the subgrant monitor within 30
calendar days.
I. The Subgrantee shall comply with all programmatic and financial monitoring activities required by
CDH as outlined in this subgrant.
J. The Subgrantee's risk level has been assessed as Low and is reassessed annually.
1. If at any point during the subgrant year the Subgrantee is deemed to be high-risk,additional
monitoring requirements may be added to the subgrant and the Subgrantee will be notified.
K. The Subgrantee shall acknowledge federal funds when developing any documents describing
programs or projects,issuing statements,press releases,and requests for proposals,bid invitations,
and other documents funded in whole or in part by federal funds using the following disclaimer
template:
1. "This publication was made possible by SP080981-01 from the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration(SAMHSA). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDH or SAMHSA. [Subgrantee
Name] [Date]".
L. The subgrantee shall ensure that conference materials,including promotional materials,the agenda
4
Page 87
Item#5.
and any websites that advertise the conference, acknowledge that the federal agency funding this
subgrant provided support for the conference,in whole or in part. The acknowledgement must be
accompanied by the following disclaimer:
1. "Funding for this conference was made possible in part,by SP080981-01 from Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration(SAMHSA). The views expressed in
written conference materials or publications and by speakers and moderators do not reflect
the official policies of CDH or SAMHSA nor does mention of trade names, commercial
practices,or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. [Subgrantee Name]
[Date]".
SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES
The Partnership for Success Grant(PFS)is the second generation of the five-year Strategic Prevention
Framework State Incentive Grant(SPF SIG)awarded to ODP in fiscal year(FY)2013. The goal of
implementing the PFS grant is to prevent underage drinking,marijuana use,and methamphetamine use in
communities using evidence-based prevention programs and practices,especially among American Indians,
Hispanics/Latinos,veterans and their families, and Idahoans living in rural communities,while increasing
capacity for prevention efforts in each district.
A. Subgrantee shall purchase and install drug-and alcohol-free signage on the West Ada School District
campus.
B. Subgrantee shall work to increase capacity for prevention efforts within Ada County.
C. Subgrantee shall participate in CDH-specified evaluation and complete reporting for the Idaho Office of
Drug Policy(ODP).
D. Responsibilities of CDH shall be as follows:
1. CDH is responsible for the administration of the Partnership for Success Grant. CDH reports
quarterly to ODP. CDH will maintain staffing for the Project Coordinator position to oversee
project implementation as well as to support development and maintenance of the grant
activities.
2. Billing and Finance: CDH will pay invoices to Subgrantee based on timely and adequate
documentation from the subgrantee.Records will be maintained for a period of three years for
audit purposes. Subgrantee will submit invoices and supporting documentation monthly for
activities rendered.Payment will be released within 30 days of invoice submission. If complete
documentation is not submitted in a timely manner,payment to Subgrantee will be delayed.
E. Quarterly Reporting
1. Subgrantee will be provided with a Subgrant Monitoring Report(SMR)template by Project
Coordinator.
2. Subgrantee will provide quarterly reports to CDH in conjunction with the following schedule.
3. Quarterly reports are to be submitted to Rebecca Sprague,Project Coordinator at
rspraguegcdh.idaho.gov.
Quarter Reporting Period Report Due
Quarter 1 January 1,2022—March 31,2022 April 15,2022
Quarter 2(Abbreviated) April 1,2022—May 31,2022 June 15,2022
5
Page 88
Item#5.
Cost and Billing Procedure
COST
This is a Cost Reimbursement subgrant. CDH will pay and the Subgrantee shall receive up to the total sum of
FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS [$5,000.00] for services satisfactorily performed and
authorized under the subgrant as defined below.
Program Budget
-Budget Item Estimated Budget
-Operating Expenditures $5,000.00
Total not to exceed budget $5,000.00
A. The Subgrantee shall ensure that the amount billed for this subgrant only includes the incurred costs
directly related to and necessary for the activities in accordance with the intent of the federal grant.
1. Subgrant funds may not be used for research and development,construction,reimbursement of
pre-subgrant costs,purchase of promotional items,personal use items,conferences or meetings
not associated with the subgrant,entertainment costs, lobbying activities, clinical care,purchase
of vehicles, or purchase of incentive items.
2. Federal funds shall be used to supplement and not supplant other federal,state, and local public
funds.
B. The Subgrantee shall not assign a cost to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for
the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated as an indirect cost.
C. The Subgrantee shall apply all costs consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to
both federally financed and other activities of the Subgrantee.
BILLING PROCEDURE
The Subgrantee shall submit monthly invoices to CDH within 15 business days following the closing date of the
prior month's operation that includes all actual monthly expenditures. The monthly invoices shall include,but is
not limited to:
1. Total amount of direct costs billed for the billing period;
2. All subgrant services delivered during the billing period, identified by each item as reflected in the
budget matrix above, and the total for each;
3. Operating Detail Report;
4. Receipts and other supporting documents as requested.
The Subgrantee shall submit invoicing for activities rendered under this subgrant with supporting documentation
via email to Rebecca Sprague at rsprague@cdh.idaho.gov.
The Subgrantee shall submit a final invoice to CDH no later than June 15 for actual expenditures occurring June
1-15,2022,in order for the final payment to be processed. If submitted after this date, CDH cannot guarantee
funds will be available for reimbursement of expenditures.
6
Page 89
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Parks and Recreation Department: Meridian Parks and Recreation Master
Plan Update Findings Summary
Page 90
Item#6. Mayor Robert E. Simison
El'IDLIA N�� City Council Members:
Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun
Joe Borton Jessica Perreault
H 0 Luke Cavener Liz Strader
February 16, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Robert Simison & Councilmembers
FROM: Steve Siddoway, Parks & Recreation Director
RE: Parks & Recreation Master Plan Findings Summary and Update
Background
Last fall,Art Thatcher with GreenPlay(now Berry Dunn)presented a kick-off presentation to the City Council
regarding the Parks&Recreation Master Plan process. Since that time,GreenPlay/Berry Dunn has conducted an
extensive public involvement process including interviews,focus groups,and stakeholder meetings. We have also
completed the public opinion survey and the facilities inventory and analysis. Art is coming back to town to present
their findings at a public meeting on Wednesday,February 23 at 6 PM. We would like to provide the Mayor and
Council an overview and summary of the key findings and next steps.
Proposal
No action needed. This is an update on the process to keep the City Council informed about the status,
as well as a preview summary of the Findings presentation.
Page 91
Item#6.
WE ARE
PARKS AND
RECREATION
Parks and Recreation Master Plan
City Council Briefing February 22, 2022
6REE14PLAYLLC
UW L Pg€age A7 P8�Yr8,AwYa8861ti a
AadOpmSmee Canqumnp
RRC
BerkASSOCIATES
_
m landdesign
Page 92
Item#6. The
Master Plan
Process
A . + `
kn ormation Gathering Findings Draft Final
Visioning Recomm;ill
f-F*P--M
Plan
• � �leedslkssessrne
• Sk�tf • Presen#a tie rVFeedbaek • Summary Fin • Review
• 5takel�alders Sessions SIrategiesqqq
• Staff
• Public Nketing * Stall + Uq-Term * Publre
Strategic Kich-Off • Foes groups - Slakeholdets a Short-Term • Ncislon hl k r
• h�trsrvlevrs * I)Kk'im Makers * Imormations * I}is#ributcfPesi
- Critical Success Faelers * Urvgs - What We Have Discovered * Financial
• Key 1actis areas * Online engagement - Key Issues Malrix * Operalional
• Meeting schedule „ ln%*ntory + Key Ideas artd Themes • Maintenance
+ Idenl�ication of @ All Assels [Or Irnprovement . Recommendations
Key Siakehalders * All Program locations * Analysis . Action Plan
• Galhcringol All Relevant • Other Providers • 1}t•otrammrne fa5ks Imple en
Documents • Level!01 Service Aaallys Operataans + taming
• Briefing wish • ClStompmenk-based ■ mairilvanGe Costs 0 Action
Dacrsion�,la�ers
mapprng * Markel ing� R�viewg:�_. AnnualPla
• uelGty, uarrklty, Communications
I unctiditality * financial Resources Review.
Ccmaw*NO*
Hislixncal& Planning
Conlext
+ 0emggi3phics
Typically our Strategic Master s ine a a 5-year focus an operations, 10-year focus on capital, and
20 year strategic vision. Other slam s and tools are added as needed for a community-specific plan.
Page 93
Item#6. Master
Plan
Update
Strategic Kick-off: - October 10, 2021
Leadership Interviews — October 13-15, 2021
f.
Survey — ')ctober 2021 - January 2022 WW7 :.
5, y
Community Engagement — November 2021
Focus Groups — N"�ember 16-18, 2021
Public Presentation — November 18, 2021
Y
Inventory — Novertwer 2021
Level of Service Analysis — December 2021 - 4
❑Community Center Feasibility Study — r
ivo%/pmaer Luzl.,— April 2022
❑Cost Recovery Study = January-May * ' ' PLAN
❑Findings Presentation — February 23-24, 2022
❑Draft Recommendations Presentation — May 2022
Page 94
❑Draft & Final Plan Presentation — July 2022
Item#6. Public
Engagement
Public Engagement included:
• On site November 16-18, 2021
• 6 focus groups consisting of 39 participants
• Interviews with ten elected officials and stakeholders
• Staff interviews and SWOT Workshop
• Parks & Recreation Commission Briefing
• Tours of parks and facilities
• Open public forum in person and virtually with 18 people in attendance
Page 95
Item#6. Focus Group Strengths
Strengths
Staff/leadership approachable, responsive, open to new ideas, follow through
Diversity of offerings (facilities and programs [movies in the park])
Location of parks well planned, bikeable, for everyone, parks are an asset
Partnerships (Library, other Departments, Organizations)
Parks are well maintained
Foresight/planning/infrastructure/keeping up with growth
Amenities at the park (the extras)
Accessibility
Department serves the community well
Communication (ease of access)
Page 96
Item#6. rAreas
ocus ou s
Areas of Improvement
Lack of parking
Communication
Need more athletic fields (diamonds for youth)
Greater need for more open space, more park space
Lack of tournament field facility
Lack of indoor fields
Lack of lighted fields
Lack of connectivity, bike parks, trails
Facilities for programs not as good as parks
Greater need for more reservable space (outdoor/indoor)
Courts for basketball, tennis, pickleball
b"N
Page 97
Item#6. rPriorities
ocus ou
Priorities
Connectivity
Indoor facility BEL
Rectangular fields to support demand
Land acquisition
Manage growth
Create a multi-sport complex (synthetic fields)
Upgrade all parks to offer more amenities
Useable community center
Inclusiveness
Providing ample space and accessibility for our growing...
Adventure type amenities (Zipline, bowl)
b")
Page 98
Item#6. U rve Methodologyy
3,500 Surveys Mailed (3,444 delivered)
Primary methods :
1 = Statistically Valid (Invitation Survey)
Mailed survey with an option to complete online
through password protected website. 690
Invitation Online and Paper
312 - surveys completed
+/- 5.5% Margin of Error L Total
2 = Open Link Survey Surveys
Online survey available to all residents of the
City of Meridian.
378 - Open Link Surveys Completed
Ite"#6ture
Needs- Indoor Facilities
Future needs for indoor and outdoor facilities are similar across survey years.
Q 13: What are the the greatest needs for indoor and outdoor facilities to be added, expanded, or improved in Meridian over the next 5 or 10
years? Indoor Facilities:
Rating Category 2021 Survey 2015 Survey
Community/recreation center 3.9 3.7
Indoor aquatics facility 3.8 3.8
Field house/gymnasium space 3.6 3.2
Performing arts center 3.3 3.2
Ice rink 3.0 3.0
Page 100
"#6ture
Needs-Outdoor Facilities
Q 13: What are the the greatest needs for indoor and outdoor facilities to be added, expanded, or improved in Meridian over the next 5 or 10
years? Outdoor Facilities:
Rating Category 2021 Survey 2015 Survey
Pathways&trails AIIIIIIIIIIIII 4.3 4.1
Improved park amenities(drinking fountains, 4.1 3.8
restrooms, benches,etc.) Ad
Shade structures in parks E
4.0 4.0
Playgrounds 1 3.8 3.7
Lights for outdoor athletic facilities 3.6 3.4
New parks 3.5 3.2
Parking at recreational facilities 3.4 3.1
Splash pads 3.4 3.1
Outdoor athletic fields/courts 3.3 3.1
Dog parks 3.3 3.0
Fishing ponds 3.2 3.1
Pickleball courts 3.0 2.3
Disc golf 129 2.6
Public art in the parks .9 3.1
Exercise stations along trails in parks 2.9 •• 3.2
Rodeo/equestrian facility 2.2 2.2 Page 101
L!mL,6st
Communication Methods
Both samples agree that emails from the city, social media, Meridian Parks and Recreation Activity Guide, and the
City of Meridian website are the best methods for communication about parks and recreation opportunities. The
interest in all the different methods suggests that residents prefer a variety of communication methods.
Q 9: What are the best ways to reach you with information on parks, recreation facilities and services? (Check up to
3)
Invite Sample Open Link Overall
Email from the city 163% 69% 66%
Social media (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Twitter) 40% 55% 48%
Meridian Parks and Recreation Activity Guide 35% 41% L 38%
The City of Meridian website 29% 34% 31%
Local media (e.g., TV, radio, newspaper) 25% 17% 21%
School email/newsletter/flyers 20% 16% 18%
Word of mouth 15% 9% 12%
At the recreation facilities/program location 8% 8% 8%
Flyers/posters at businesses 8% 4% 6%
Other 7% 1% 4%
n= 310 347 657
Item#6. Recurring
Themes
Trails, pathways and connectivity
Need for a community center
Improving park amenities
Maintaining what you currently have
Shade structures at parks
Land acquisition
Keep up with rapid growth
Lighted athletic fields
s Space for performing arts
Indoor aquatic facility
Page 103
Item#6.
• Parks are very consistent across the board. .17
• Parks are very well-maintained with high standards
• Restrooms are probably the cleanest of any system I have been to
Al
• Noted: most of the parks have public art -
This was a recommendation from the last plan to try and create identity for each
individual park
Inventory Many of the parks can benefit aesthetically from increased use of berms and -
landforms
Site visits Noted: addition of bike repair stations in many parks -
• Turf conditions are excellent
• There seems to be a high priority to plant trees in many of the
parks ; w
s x '� Page 104
Item#6. Master
Plan
Future
Schedule
hol
Findings and Visioning Trip
February 22 — City Council Briefing
February 23 — Public Findings Presentation
February 24 — Visioning Workshop Project Team
Community Center Feasibility Study
March 30 - Open House and Public Meeting
-A Cost Recovery
Workshop 2 A & B - Last Week of April
Community Workshops to identify and sort categories of services
Page 105
Strategic Master Planning Process
Information Gathering Findings Draft Final
& Visioning Recommendatims Plan
• Heeds Assessment
Stalt Presenta tin rd Feed hack Summary Firniifip' MEEM * Review x
+ Stakeholders Sessions + Strategies * Staff
+ Public Meetings` * Staff • Long-Term sio ;_ • Public
Strategic Kick-Off + Focus groups • Stakeholders • Shalt-Term Actio • Decision Ida
■ Interviews • Decisioc Makers Implications p1strihutelPost
+ Critical Success Factors * Surveys * What We Have Discovered Financial
• Key focus areas Online engagement * Key Issues Matrix Operational
Meeting schedule + Inventory * Key Ideas and Themes • Maintenance
* Identification of ■ All Assets for Improvement + Recommendatio
+ All Program Locations * Analysis + Action Plan
Rey Stakeholders y .
* Gatheringof All Relevant • Other Providers • Prograrnming + Tasks
+ LevelofServiceAnalysit * Operations * Timing Irnplt'rnBnt8tI0t1
Documents
• Briefin with * GiScomponent-based • Maintenance • Casts ti
S mapping * Marketing& + ReviewZ Revisiorm Action Plan
Decision Makers . duality.Quantity, Canlrnuniea#ioj)s Annual
Functionality * Financial Resources Re.wrew
• Gnmrnuniity Pr�sf�te �t,
* Historical A Planning
Context
•�pDemographics -_
' * Trends
REENPLAYat
Mr zInM&ftrft, Typically our Strategi c/Master Plans include a 5-year focus ono Z9, 10-year focus on capital, and
"`DPW A—`"°�° 20 year strategic vision. Other elements and tools are added as needed for a community specific plan.
Page 106
Thank
Item#6. You For Your , Consideration
dREEN AYa
4.
YEARS OF
# - IMPROVING
� 7} PARKS AND
R£CftEAT1ON
Al
* rWE ARE Art Thatcher, M PA, CPRP
, 4 PARKS AND
Direct (mobile): 757-592-3103
4 -r RECREATION Art-thatcher@berrydunn.com
berrydunn.com
Manager
Tom Diehl, CPRP
Direct (mobile): 804-833-6994
reenPlayisnow b BerryDunn Tom.diehl(@berrydunn.com
Consultant
Project Manager/Consultant
er
� g l
RRC
w .S...
A0IATE
Page 107
m lartidde5ign
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1970: An Ordinance (Woodcrest Townhomes H-2021-0015
- Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest % of the Southeast % of
Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and Also Being a
Portion of Lot 4, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision, as Shown in Book 87 of Plats on Pages 9881
through 9883, Records of Ada County, Idaho; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning
Classification of 2.10 Acres of Land from L-0 (Limited Office) Zoning District to R-15 (Medium-
High Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this
Ordinance Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho
State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance, and
Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 108
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-018614
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 02/23/2022 08:52 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1970
BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, FERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE (WOODCREST TOWNHOMES 2021-001 - ZONE) FOR ZONE
F A PARCEL LAND LOCATED IN THE S UT EST '/a F THE SOUTHEAST /4
F SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 3 NORT , RANGE 1. EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, A A
COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF LOT 4, BLOCK 1 OF MALLANE
SUBDIVISION, AS SHOWN IN BOOK 87 OF PLATS ON PAGES 9881 THROUGH 9883,
RECORDS OF A A COUT Y, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE
LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 2.10 ACRES OF LAND FROM L-O(LIMITED
OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT TO -15 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)
ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF
THIS O INANCE SHALL BE FILED WITHTHE A A COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE A A
COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED
Y LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THEORDINANCE; AND
PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READINGRULES; AND PROVIDING A
EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF A A, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION L That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description
herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said
property, to-wit: Don Newell, Landmark Pacific Development, LLC.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from L-O (Limited
Office)Zoning District to R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential)Zoning District in the Meridian City
Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the Laws
of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property.
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as
the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the
City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed, rescinded and annulled.
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—WOODCREST TOWNHOMES(H-2021-0015) PAGE 1 OF 4
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 22
day of February 2022.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 22 day of
February , 2022.
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) ss:
County of Ada )
On this 22 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
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—WOODCREST TOWNHOMES(H-2021-0015) PAGE 2 OF 4
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ' r �
An Ordinance (Woodcrest Townhomes H-2021-0015)for the rezone of a parcel of land as defined in the
map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from L-O
(Limited Office) Zoning District to R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zoning District in the 3
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]
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY:
William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary
below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public.
William L. M. Nary,(City Attorney
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE-WOODCREST TOWNHOMES(H-2021-0015) PAGE 3 OF 4
EXHIBIT A
Item#7.
Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map
WOODCRESI F*WNIIOMES SUBDIVISION
EXIIIBIT'A'
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PARCEI,LOCATED IN THE SOUTIWEST 1/4 OF TIM SOUTIIEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 5,TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH,RANGE 1 EAST,BOISE MERIDIAN,ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND ALSO BEING A PORTION•F
LOT 4,BLOCK 1 OF MALLANE SUBDIVISION,AS SHOWN IN 1300K 17 OF PLATS ON PAGES m l
THROUGH 9883,RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBF-,D As
FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5 AS SHOWN ON SAID PLAT;
THENCE NORTH 06028'03"EAST A DISTANCE OF 67.14 FEET TO A 5/8 INCH VIAMI I'ER IRON PIN
MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 3, BLOCK i OF SAID MALLANE SUBDIVISION.
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 00"28'03"EAST ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3,A
DISTANCE OF 252.95 FEET TO A 112 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN MARKING TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 44028'03"EAST ALONG THE•WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4,A
DISTANCE OF 129.73 FEET TO A 5/9 INCH T)TAMF.TF.R IRON PiN;
THENCE NORTH 430 19'3Z"EAST ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4, A
DISTANCE OF 257.72 FEET TO 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 43019'32"EAST ALONG TIIE NORTIIEASTERLY PROLONGATION OF
SAID NOTHWESTERLY BOUNDARY, ADISTANCE OF 34.49 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF NORTH
HICKORY WAY;
THENCE SOUTH 76012'56"EAST ALONG SAID CENTER LINE,ADISTANCE OF 90,01 FISET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF400.00
FEET;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CENTER LINE AND SAID TANGENT CURVE,93.24 FEET
THROUGH A CENTRAI.ANGLE OF 13021'21"TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY
PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4;
Woodcrest Townhomes H-2021-0015
Page 113
Item#7.
PAGF.I OF 2
THENCE SOUTH 00026'44"WEST ALONG SAID PROLONGATION,A DISTANCE OF 33.93 FEET TO A 1/2
INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN MARKING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 00°26'44"WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY,A DISTANCE OF 210.08 FEET
TO A 519 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN;
FHENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY NORTH 89°34'20"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 244.66 FEET
TO A 5/8 INCH DIAMETER IRON PIN;
TI IENCE SOUTH 00°28'04"WEST,A DISTANCE OF 47.00 FEET TO A 5/9 INCH DIAMETER IROIti PIN ON
THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 89037'22"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY,A DISTANCE OF 129.20 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINS 2.10 ACRES. MORE OR LESS.
EXHIBIT`B'ATTACEII D HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
L
96 7732
OF to
P
�qA�p �►.d�'
Page 114
EXHIBIT B
Item#7.
o sag-�z�
3
�r
m�
;o N
0 µ o
os
t.�
c
a
.. . . . ...
.. .. .. ,.
.. �M9.
. ... ...
g LAN
O $
n w � 7732
��
a
'gyp A• .
JN14120 Annexation Description 4/21/2021
Scale: 1 inch= 58 feet File:
Tract 1:2.1063 Acres(91752 Sq.Feet).Closure:nO0.OD00e 0.00 ft.(11281991).Perimeter=1270ft.
01 n00-2803e 129.73 08 n89-3420w 244.66
02 n43.1932G 257.72 09 s00.2804w 47
03 n43.1932e 3448 10 n89,3722w 129.2
04 s75.1255e 90.01
05 Rt,r-400 00,cbha=013 2121,arc--M.24
05 SOD.2644w 33.93
07 s00.2644w 210.08
Woodcrest Townhomes H-2021-0015
Page 115
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1971: An Ordinance (Apex East Subdivision - H-2021-0086
Rezone) for Rezone of a Parcel of Land Being a Portion of Government Lot 2 and a Portion of the
Southwest % of the Northeast % of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho; Establish-ing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 32.21
Acres of Land from R-4 (Medium Low Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density
Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code, Providing That Copies of this Ordinance
Shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax
Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing
for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 116
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-018742
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 02/23/2022 11:12 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1971
BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE (APEX EAST SUBDIVISION-H-2021-0086 REZONE)FOR REZONE OF
A PARCEL OF LAND BEING A PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2 AND A PORTION
OF THE SOUTHWEST '/4 OF THE NORTHEAST '/4 OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE I EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ESTABLISHING
AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 32.21 ACRES OF
LAND FROM R-4 (MEDIUM LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT TO R-
8 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY
CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH
THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO
STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A
SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE
READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description
herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian,
Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re-zoning by the owner of said
property, to-wit: Brighton Development, Inc.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4(Medium Low
Density Residential) Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning District in the
Meridian City Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws
of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property.
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as
the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the
City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances,resolutions,orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed, rescinded and annulled.
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—APEX EAST SUBDIVISION H-2021-0086 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 22
day of February 2022.
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 22 day of
February , 2022.
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) ss:
County of Ada )
On this 22 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.
(SEAL) Notary Public fQ0 o
Residing At: en ian,Idaho
My Commission Expires: 3-28-2022
PAGE 2 OF 3
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE—APEX EAST SUBDIVISION H-2021-0086
i
3
i
i
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.
i
i
William L. M. Nar , City Attorney
s
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1971
An Ordinance (Apex East Subdivision H-2021-0086) for the rezone of a parcel of land as defined in the
map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from R-4
(Medium Low Density Residential)Zoning District to R-8 (Medium Density Residential)Zoning District
in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County
Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and
providing an effective date. A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of
Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. This ordinance shall be effective as of the date
of publication of this summary.
[Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B.]
RE-ZONE ORDINANCE-APEX EAST SUBDIVISION H-2021-0086 PAGE 3 OF 3
Exhibit A
Legal Description for Rezone to R8
A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 2 and a portion of the Southwest 1/4 of the
Northeast 1/4 of Section 5, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, B.M., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho
being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a brass cap marking the North 1/4 corner of said Section 5, which bears N89056'45"W a
distance of 2,659.06 feet from an aluminum cap marking the Northeast corner of said Section 5, thence
following the northerly line of said Government Lot 2, 589056'45 " E a distance of 287.51 feet to a 5/8-
inch rebar;
Thence leaving said northerly line, S00°00'42"W a distance of 104.38 feet to a point on the centerline of
the Farr Lateral, said point being witnessed by a 5/8-inch rebar which bears N00°00'42"E a distance of
40.76 feet from said point;
Thence following said centerline the following five (5) courses:
1. S69011'54"E a distance of 194.76 feet;
2. 153.61 feet along the arc of a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a
delta angle of 44000'19", a chord bearing of 547011'44"E and a chord distance of 149.86 feet;
3. 525011'35"E a distance of 135.17 feet; 4.
522029'45"E a distance of 1,518.71 feet;
5. 549059'18"E a distance of 27.38 feet;
Thence leaving said centerline, S00059'12"E a distance of 31.97 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence N65000'09"W a distance of 64.53 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence N46001'41"W a distance of 379.52 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence S68036'58"W a distance of 694.76 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence 542057'43"W a distance of 108.58 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence N78031'11"W a distance of 191.55 feet to a 5/8-inch rebar on the westerly line of the Northwest
1/4 of said Section 5;
Thence following said westerly line, N0000110"E a distance of 1,854.56 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains a total of 32.207 acres, more or less.
a
�4�'459
o �
�9�ON T 0 BALy�4� .
EXHIBIT B
Item#8.
WE CORNER SEC-41ON 5
E. Lake Hazel Rd. rOUND ALUMINUM CAP
BASIS of BEEARING � ��
N89'56'45"Af 2659.06'
POINT OF BE�GIIINING 28 51' 1 — 2371.55'—
N 1/4 CORNFR 40,76' WC 5 4
5ECTION $ C- PLS 4998
FOUND BRASS CAP 25' PRESCRIPTIVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
t
Unplatted
Rezone Area- 32.21±AC Raa,p stanch
SCS Investments LLC Subdivision
S1405120902 (Portion)
Current Zoning: R4 CL FARR LATERAL
Proposed Zoning: Rg
I
LINE TABLE
Lq
LIFE DEARIK DISTANCE +
en
co L1 SU'00'42"W 104.38
L2 S69'1 '54"E 194.76 C6
w I
0 L3 S25.11-35-E 13.5.17
` cP
c3 L4 549'59'18"E 27.38
o =
Z L5 SD'59'12"E 31.97
L6 N65'00'09'1Y 64.53
L7 S42'57'43'W 1 G&S8
Un lotted L8 N78'31'°IV 191.55 I
bs
` Unplatte j -1/
Lyl -
c r�
Le ti
IN
0 300 6DO 900
Plan Scale: 1" 300'
Page121
Apex East Subdivision H-2021-0086