Loading...
2022-06-21 Work Session CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 4:30 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison ABSENT Councilman Treg Bernt Councilman Luke Cavener ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] Approved Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 1. Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Work Session 2. Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting 3. 3410 W. Nelis Drive Water Main Easement 4. Hatch Industrial Pedestrian Pathway Easement 5. Meridian Middle School Cafeteria Addition Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement 1 of 1 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. 7. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021- 0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 8. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. 9. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. 10. Addendum No. 20 to Agreement for City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services Dated November 1, 2002 Between the City of Meridian and City of Boise 11. Resolution 22-2231: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi-Permanent and Temporary Records of The City of Meridian; and Providing an Effective Date ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS \[Action Item\] 12. Proposed Update to Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(C), Regarding Limitation on the Fee Charged by a Vehicle Immobilization Company to Release an Immobilized Vehicle 13. Police Department/Attorney's Office: Proposed Updates to Animal Impoundment Fees 14. Parks and Recreation Department: Eagle Road Roundabout Landscaping Discussion 15. Public Works: Vehicle Emission Testing Update ADJOURNMENT 6:23 p.m. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 4:32 p.m., Tuesday, June 21, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Members Absent: Luke Cavener and Treg Bernt. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Emily Kane, Mike Barton, Laurelei McVey, Kyle Radek, Berle Stokes, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader X Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call the meeting to order. For the record it is June 21 st, 2022, at 4:32 p.m. We will begin this afternoon's City Council Work Session with roll call attendance. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: Next item is the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Don't have any changes to the agenda, so I move adoption of the agenda as published. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] 1. Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Work Session Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 2 of 36 2. Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting 3. 3410 W. Nelis Drive Water Main Easement 4. Hatch Industrial Pedestrian Pathway Easement 5. Meridian Middle School Cafeteria Addition Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement 1 of 1 6. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022- 0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. 7. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels S1226142251, R08314300309 R0831430022, and R0831430010 8. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grayson Subdivision (H- 2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. 9. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021- 0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. 10. Addendum No. 20 to Agreement for City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services Dated November 1, 2002 Between the City of Meridian and City of Boise 11. Resolution 22-2231: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi- Permanent and Temporary Records of The City of Meridian; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next up is the Consent Agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 3 of 36 Hoaglun: I move approval of the Consent Agenda and for the Mayor to sign and Clerk to attest. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the Consent Agenda is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item] Simison: No items were moved from the Consent Agenda. DEPARTMENT / COMMISSION REPORTS [Action Item] 12. Proposed Update to Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(C), Regarding Limitation on the Fee Charged by a Vehicle Immobilization Company to Release an Immobilized Vehicle Simison: So, we will move into Department/Commission Reports. First up Item 12 is proposed update to Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3-(C) regarding limitation on the fee charged by a vehicle immobilization company to release an immobilized vehicle. I will turn this over to Ms. Kane. Kane: Thank you, Mayor and City Council. I'm Emily Kane. I'm a deputy city attorney. I'm going to introduce this topic and, then, introduce Allen Sparhawk to kind of talk about the specifics of this request. Meridian City Code Section 3-3-1 places a cap on the fees that can be charged by a company for removing a vehicle immobilization device or also known as a boot on a car. The cap under city code is one hundred dollars. Mr. Sparhawk has requested that this cap be raised to 150 dollars on the grounds that his costs have increased since 2019 when we -- when the city adopted this code. As Council and Mayor are aware, costs are increasing state and nationwide in general due to increased labor costs and gasoline and rising inflation. So, those are some generalities that would support an increase from one hundred dollars, but Mr. Sparhawk is here to talk about his specific needs with regard to this request. Oh. And I guess I would say he is with Deep 6 Security Services, which is licensed by the city and they are the only company that is licensed to do this in Meridian right now. Sparhawk: Thank you for your time. Simison: Well, welcome. Sparhawk: As you guys all know, been corresponding with Ms. Kane and one of the knee jerk -- or what I felt was a knee jerk reaction was, oh, my goodness, that's quite a raise, Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 4 of 36 but one thing that I think deserves attention is my fees and I have been in existence since 2016. Ninety-five dollars was doing just fine in 2019, which I helped author the code that is in front of you. I never thought in a million years that we would be where we are at today with cost of anything. That's back when I was paying people ten dollars an hour for a part-time job. Now, I'm forced to pay 15 dollars an hour or I have no employees whatsoever and I let my client base down. That has nothing to do with the gas prices and the insurance costs that went up 40 percent just this year. So, yeah, I understand your reaction of, oh, man, that's a pretty significant increase. Like I said, my fees stayed the same for six years and to be responsible and to pay these people a wage that they are happy with and that they stay with me with I have to put my boot fees at 150 dollars. The other thing that I wanted to bring up is that Ms. Kane told me that you have your constituents' best interest in heart and that's the people of the City of Meridian and I totally stand behind you on that. I want to bring up to you something that you might not know. So, when somebody parks in a property for whatever reason, whether they didn't see the sign or they just don't care, that's not what we are here for, but they parked there and you have the option of having a vehicle immobilized. The vehicle stays there. We don't hold it hostage so to say in a tow yard and the fees were a hundred and now 150. That is nothing compared to my friend that had too much to drink at the Frontier last week, left their car parked facing the building that used to be called The Busted Shovel I think it was -- what it was and I took her to get her vehicle at 10:00 a.m. in the morning and it was gone. ASAP Towing had her car and it cost 320 dollars to get her car. That is no joke. I can show you the receipt. That's how much it cost. If I'm not able to provide my services to the gentleman that owns the First Interstate Bank behind Frontier and right over here across the street from you, I can't responsibly do it, he is going to have every one of those cars towed. It's going to cost everyone of those people 300 plus dollars to get their cars towed. I offer a service that's not as much and that is instant. We are -- we are within -- within 45 minutes answering the call to get over there, process their payment and release their boot. If you guys have any other questions -- you have to excuse me. I'm nervous. I have never done this before and I don't know if I touched bases on anything that you are interested in hearing, but as a business owner I have to be responsible and I have to be able to meet all of my -- my -- my -- my bills that come along with being able to provide those services. I wasn't able to -- and the last thing that I did was, hey, wait a second, need to raise my boot fees, so I did. Simison: Thank you, Allen. I don't think there is any -- I think you are doing just fine from that standpoint. I think I have more of a philosophical question -- Sparhawk: Sure. Simison: -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth and I don't want to get in trouble with law enforcement. My understanding is, you know, to your point that the boot fee is what they were and, then, you start charging a different rate, but we have a code that says you shouldn't -- Sparhawk: Yeah. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 5 of 36 Simison: -- or couldn't. My philosophical question -- what's the purpose of the code if people aren't going to follow it? No different than if someone's parking in private property and says -- Sparhawk: I understand. Simison: -- don't park here, you are going to get booted. So, it, you know, kind of goes both ways -- Sparhawk: It does. Simison: -- in my opinion in terms of do we establish a fee -- you know. And I -- I throw that out to yourself or whoever wants to answer that -- what's appropriate or how do you balance that? Sparhawk: Well, we had a week after that I wasn't involved, I had a manager that quit and let people keep coming out and booting at 150. Every one of those people I refunded their money. So, we refunded their money and we didn't take their money and I stayed away from the lot for about two -- two to three weeks and we just picked up about a week and a half ago. I had to get time on -- because I want to -- I want to de-escalate situations, so we have a website that you are more than welcome to look at. On the sticker it says go to the website and pay. I had to get a differentiation of my current 150 and, then, a hundred. That's on there now, so that's when I picked it back up, going and booting in Meridian, and so that was -- that made it successful to follow your code. When -- before I had that and after I found out that that manager was letting -- or didn't tell people to stop booting -- or my booter to stop booting there, I stayed away until I was able to responsibly follow that code. Simison: And so do you think that the code is the right place to have a fee? Sparhawk: Well, honestly, no, I don't, because city of Boise doesn't dictate to me what my fees are. You guys are the only ones and I'm not here to -- you asked my opinion and -- and my opinion is, no, I -- I don't think it is. You guys don't tell Sunrise Cafe that they can't charge eight dollars for a 25 cent egg. So, that's -- that's kind of where I'm coming from, you know. Nobody told them to park there and, you know, in my opinion I'm still -- I'm -- I'm half of what a tow company charges and people get towed every day. They can't afford their tow bill guess what happens? Less than five days they get -- they lose possession of their car. Hundred fifty dollars is a lot easier to come up with than 300. Simison: Thank you. It is a philosophical question. That's why it's kind of put -- Sparhawk: Oh, it's a valid question and -- and I appreciate it and -- and -- and, like I said, I never thought we would be here when I hoped -- when you guys invited me and asked for my input and, really, I'm -- I'm okay with it. I don't -- I don't see us having to raise every year and do I think that will be where we are at right now forever? No, I don't. But I think things will catch up so that it will even it out. So, your -- your question was valid. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 6 of 36 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you. Question for you, Mr. Sparhawk, and, then, maybe for Emily a different question. Thanks for coming. How does Meridian compare with Boise, for example? I think -- you are saying you provide this service in Boise as well; right? How much do you charge in Boise? Sparhawk: Hundred and fifty. Strader: Okay. And if we make a change to 150, is that going to get you through the next few years? Are you going to be back in the same spot a year from now? Sparhawk: Well, let's -- let's say a few years passes, at least now I'm familiar with the process of coming to the city and providing -- and having the economy also backed me up with what's going on. I mean that's one of the things that I regret about coming in here in 2019 is I didn't have the foresight to say, hey, wait a minute, you guys are putting a cap on here. I was just happy that you guys were getting involved. Strader: Sure. Yeah. So, I guess -- you know, I'm -- I'm kind of wondering -- well, if you don't mind I have a question for Emily. Sparhawk: Sure. Do I need to step away or -- Simison: No. She says you are fine, so -- she will just come next to you. Strader: Thank you. Thanks, Emily. So, how many -- like under our code how many licenses are available? Do we limit the marketplace for this service through the way our code is written or do we have -- are we granting, effectively, a monopoly to a business owner in Meridian? Kane: Mayor, Council Woman Strader, there is infinite number of licenses available. There is no cap. It just so happens that there is one company out there. I think at one time there were three and they have kind of just gone by the wayside. Strader: That makes sense; right? So -- yeah. So, it's not like a totally captive market that we have provided -- and I'm not familiar with this. It's the first time it's come up on Council. So, basically, we -- our past practice has been to set a cap on the fee. Do you think there is a way we could build -- if we were open to it -- an ordinance change, either some type of a COLA built in, some sort of a formula -- do we have any other licenses that work that way where we set the fees proactively for any business owners throughout the city and how do we bake in increases for their fees? Kane: Mayor, Councilman Strader, I can't think of another license fee that does that. I believe we have fees that do key off of market rates and different economic indices and certainly that is possible to update this to have a built-in increase that follows something like that. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 7 of 36 Strader: Thanks. That's helpful feedback. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I was thinking along the same lines as Councilman Strader about -- if we can set -- there -- there has got to be a profit margin in a business, otherwise, you are not going to be a business very long, so -- Sparhawk: That's how I started. Hoaglun: Yeah. Setting -- setting that -- okay, this is where you can make money today in a reasonable amount, nothing excessive -- what that term is can mean different things, but -- but, then, build in a -- to -- to the Consumer Price Index, the CPI, where every year it could raise his rates based on the CPI to -- to a higher amount just to cover -- cover extra expenses and -- but, then, if we get an extraordinary time like we are now, come back and we can make changes, but my-- my second --that's -- that's kind of a comment. Possibly if -- if we could do that that might be a solution. The other question I have, though, is --Allen, you provide the boot and what I had heard you described earlier they were actually towing the car and so it -- and, Emily, do we have -- we don't cap any fees or do anything for-- when a tow -- a vehicle is towed? Do we have that in our ordinance? Kane: Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, our ordinance does say that the vehicle -- a vehicle cannot be towed if it has a boot on it, unless it's been there and immobilized for 12 hours. Otherwise, regulation of towing is generally by state law. Sparhawk: And it -- and it is actively -- all of your tow companies that operate -- and the reason I know this is because I partner closely with the Nesmith Towing. So, all towing is regulated by the state. They cannot charge more than what the state is saying that they can charge. It just so happens that -- so, 300 -- and that depends on where you are -- where you are at in the state, because it goes by mileage. So, right now we are about half -- we are about half of what they can tow by the legal law of a -- they call it a nonconsent tow. Simison: Okay. Sparhawk: So, that's the only part of towing that the state has a code for is a nonconsent tow. Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up. Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I was just kind of curious, you know, because I'm thinking, boy, if we can't regulate towing -- but it sounds like the state does that. You know, we are -- we are Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 8 of 36 -- we are regulating the booting of a vehicle, which, of course, I think the cost would be less for a person to have it unbooted and having you boot and, then, have to come back, unboot and -- but towing and actually physically moving a vehicle and doing all that there would be less, but -- yeah. It's -- it's just -- what are your thoughts about a Consumer Price Index, if we could do something like that. Set the fee and, then, have it move according to the increases there? Sparhawk: Well, I can only speak for myself. It's only a matter of time before there is more people that come in and go, hum, there is only one booting company and one booting company already was doing practices that weren't conducive to be in business for very long. Who knows if that's going to happen again. I certainly don't mind it. You guys have been welcome -- you have made me feel welcome to come in and talk and be transparent about everything. Maybe there is -- you know, maybe there could be -- you know, maybe we should -- you know, I'm asking you for something I'm -- I'm -- I'm also going to see things from your perspective, too. Like I say, it's probably just a matter of time before somebody else comes in and doesn't have the right mindset to -- to provide a service that is more convenient and less expensive as towing. I don't know. But, then, again, if they do, then, that's just going to make me look better, because I will always operate ethically, even though some people don't agree and -- you know. But I'm the bad guy, but somebody's got to do it; right? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. So, I was involved with -- with booting when it originated back in Boise back in the '90s and crafting the ordinances in Boise that we wrote back then and --and --and, Mr. Sparhawk is correct, I mean the --the --the industry has some bad -- has had bad actors in it both locally and nationally and that's why I think a lot of both -- municipalities and the state have chosen to regulate this area. I mean towing has the same sort of history, again, why the state chose to regulate at least some minimal things and -- and that's not Mr. Sparhawk's fault, I mean that's really just the nature of the business that he understands, that there are some people out there and it is to avoid predatory practices that end up falling on the consumer and so, you know, one of the things we look for -- it's not necessarily the -- the price point, but the consistency, so that what had happened sometimes back in the '90s in Boise is, you know, at 3:00 o'clock in the morning the price was suddenly a lot more expensive than it was at 10:00 o'clock, because you could charge it and someone has been drinking and they wanted someone to unboot their car and so there was a lot of bad practices that we were trying to get a handle on back then that has sort of continued and so now really the minimal is the registration of the business so we know who the people are, they know that they have insurance, so that there is no damage to people's vehicles and no damage to anybody and that they are covered and that there is some pricing sense that's consistent and that can be posted on the signs that are on the lot, so the person doesn't go there and say, well, wait a minute, I thought it was a hundred dollars or 150, because it says there on the sign, now you are telling me 300 dollars. So, it really was to try to prevent some of Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 9 of 36 the bad predatory practices that other businesses have had and -- and as Mr. Sparhawk said, many of those, obviously, don't survive, because that's not a good way to run a business. But that's really the reasons for why we have had these. And, again, when we work with the business like Mr. Sparhawk it really isn't problematic. And, again, I think it's one whether or not -- we don't have any other licensing that has any inflationary practice to it, but certainly if that becomes an issue, whether it's from him as the operator or from the business owners of the parking lots, whether it's apartment complexes or other businesses that find that it's not viable for -- for the way we are enforcing it or the way we have created it, we are certainly going to hear from that business community and we have always been able to adapt to that and work with them through this, like with Mr. Sparhawk on this particular one. So, it -- it doesn't -- it doesn't feel like at least at the moment that an inflationary tool is really necessary. I mean I think, again, if this -- we see such an extraordinary shift here, I don't know that we are going to continue to see that level of shift, but certainly we are going to have that conversation and we can talk about that with both Mr. Sparhawk or any other business owner that wants to come and adopt this type of business here in Meridian, we certainly are always open to that conversation and we wanted to be responsive to the community, both from the consumer standpoint, as well as the business owners. So, I think we are -- we are definitely able to work together to try to figure out a solution, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much. So, I'm going to ask a question that's going to go a different direction and try to understand the history of our ordinance from 2019 and what was happening at that time to cause it to be in place in the first place and, then, to try to understand, then, why the city of Boise is no longer regulating it. So, if anybody could share with -- that information with me that would be great. Sparhawk: So, I have been involved since 2016 and since, then, Boise has not regulated the price. They have done exactly what Mr. Nary has said and that is make sure that we have insurance to cover the vehicle that we are touching, make sure that we have workmen's comp, make sure that we are a valid business and to make sure that the people that are touching the cars are licensed. So, that -- what happened was in 2000 -- between 2016 and 2019 1 started getting more and more properties as the other person that was established was going through his trials and tribulations, whatever, and I began getting more clients and I started servicing them the way that you service a client and that is you provide the business. You -- your yes is your yes and your no is your no. So, it became more up on the radar here in the City of Meridian and you guys -- your entity here, the Council, just wanted to be proactive in saying, hey, let's -- let's regulate this at least and so they invited me and they invited the other gentleman that was running his business and with everybody we all authored the code, so -- and, like I said, at that time, you know, heck, we had already gone three -- three years with 95 dollars and that was great, you know. But it's just not so great anymore. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 10 of 36 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much. That -- I appreciate that. Sparhawk: Thank you for your question. Perreault: I also agree -- or I should say have concerns about the city limiting what a private business can collect, as long as it's within market range. So, I -- I don't know if -- I have to think about the suggestion to increase it -- offer a small increase every year. I don't know if that would -- if that would be effective in the long run or not, because in this particular unique case costs have gone up exorbitantly in a very short amount of time. But it does also concern me, just as a matter of -- of practice on the city's part, to raise a fee based on one company's request or concern. So, it doesn't sound like the legal department has any issue with that request. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, I'm okay with the request. I think indexing is bad policy for any fee. This one's no different. If we didn't want a business like this to survive we probably wouldn't have allowed it in the first place, but we found a --a --a place for this service and business should be able to recoup enough revenues to remain productive. I find this increase to do just that. It's not specific to this particular operator, but as a city as a whole I think this makes sense. I wouldn't index it. I would allow a future issue, if it ever arises, as to whether or not it's an appropriate fee to be addressed at that time and based upon the circumstances and evidence at that time, that Council can up or down that change. But just think it's bad practice to build in an inflationary figure, even if it's with good intentions. So, I'm supportive of the amendment that's requested here. Sparhawk: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Let's go to Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: One of the things that I heard Mr. Nary mention that hadn't occurred to me earlier was the fact that if you do to a CPI type thing it sounds like there are signage out there where it says the fee shall be 150 dollars. Well, if we do a CPI, then, we are going to have that -- that sign is going to be limiting or not correct and that makes it problematic and so I think that -- that was a good idea that met a better idea, so -- so, just -- just a thought on that, that -- and -- and I don't have a problem with increasing the fee either. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 11 of 36 You laid out your case, gave percentages. We know what the markets are doing. Our Public Works director is coming to us all the time wanting more money. I don't know what we are going to do about that, but -- so, we understand where the market -- so, yeah, it -- it makes sense. It's been there for quite a while and knowing what's going on in the marketplace is certainly something we could -- we could do. And the other thought is the fact that by completely unregulating this marketplace we do allow bad actors to come in. They don't have insurance. They may say they will charge 150 dollars and, then, the scenario of 3:00 a.m. in the morning and it's all of a sudden 300 dollars and what recourse do we have? And -- and we don't -- we don't want to get into that. We want good people who are in business and do the right thing, as -- as you are doing and providing service and -- and have it -- have it work for everybody involved. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. I -- I think I agree. Yeah. It seems like the CPI idea, while an interesting idea, I don't know if tinkering with that would make that much sense. It does appear that the -- right, the price is regulated at a state level for towing and I think that to me is the foundation of why this is similar, because it's an elastic demand. Like customers don't call you and ask to be towed; right? Like they are, you know, getting towed and -- and they are paying and so they -- I think the issue there with regulating the fee make sense, you know, so that people aren't getting taken advantage of. We have business owners that are operating their businesses the right way. So, I think it makes sense and, hopefully -- hopefully 150, given that it is a huge increase, would get you through the next few years without having to come back to us I think. So, makes sense to me. Simison: On the -- the question that you -- what you have mentioned -- and I don't know if we have anybody that knows this, but, you know, I understand why CPI may not be the best thing, but what about 50 percent of the state towing fee? I don't know how often they evaluate that, what they make that determination based upon -- Sparhawk: I believe litigation it seems. Simison: Yeah. So, I'm not going to say it's right; but -- but to your point someone else is making determinations and that's what is weird, is I do feel like we are artificially selecting a number based upon what I can't pretend to tell you anymore than towing fees are -- Sparhawk; What I can do is give you my word to be a good statesman for that which I am representing. Simison: And I don't -- I don't doubt that, but, you know, we have had interesting conversation in the past where we have asked people to show us your books to show us what your real cost is, you know, and I don't think that's what we are in the business of doing from -- but when you start putting regulations on and -- and assuming that these are your business costs and assuming that this is good -- again, I -- I don't know if Boise has an unscrupulous market. I would -- I don't have any idea if it's unscrupulous today. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 12 of 36 But as you mentioned, you know, the fee is -- that's what the fee that you are at least charging over in Boise. Is everyone else in Boise charging that fee or not? Sparhawk: I'm the only one in the Treasure Valley that I know of. Don at Signal 88 helps a few of his clients. He hates doing it, so he doesn't really proactively do it. I love the guy, too, by the way. If I die he's getting my business. But, really, we are the only ones that are out there. I have got -- I think 96 properties. I'm not sure. I just have too many. Simison: It's just a great question, conversation, that, you know, everyone wants to protect predatory practices. We do it at all levels of government, you know. Sparhawk: Right. Well, predatory in the sense of what we do would be exactly what you guys said, except for in the past it was -- oh, I will knock down your price for -- and I will leave the rest up to your imagination and it was also in trade for other goods and services. So, it just -- it wasn't -- it wasn't good. Also hiding behind bushes. That's predatory and that was done. So, we have -- which I will be more than happy to turn over at any point in time -- every one of my employees are GPS tracked on their T sheets on their phone. They are GPS tracked on every car that I have and so I also have an app that when it pulls up the property that you are at, it GPS dings it, so you can see that we are never in one spot and we are definitely not hiding in any bushes, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I just want to say from one business owner to another, thank you for self regulating within your industry and setting a standard for other members of your industry. I'm also in a self-regulated industry and a few bad actors create a lot of challenges for our industry as a whole. So, thank you for doing that and being part of the conversation. I -- I was the victim of predatory booting of my vehicle in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake is very very bad. There are a lot of private commercial property owners that will not appropriately mark the parking spots or appropriately mark where their property sits, so you will have multiple owners of different retail centers that will run into each other and they won't say this is mine and this is this other persons and then -- and, then, they have somebody that sits in a car and waits for out-of-state plates to come in and park and leave their car and, then, the police cannot help you if that happens to you, because it's on private property. So, this is something that I know a lot of other areas of the country are dealing with and it's not a good thing at all. So, thank you for educating us on this and trying to keep it reasonable and not, you know, take advantage of people, so -- Sparhawk: I would much rather that they never park there. I hate booting and I have been told don't tell people you hate booting, but I hate it. Perreault: Do you think that the property owners do a good job of signage and -- and making it clear to -- Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 13 of 36 Sparhawk: So, the property owners hate signs on their property. They do not like signs on their property and I just tell them, look, you have no choice, it's 18 by 24, it's reflective and everything -- you know, you have to have it. They hate it, but I think it's good and, of course, everybody that gets booted wants a sign right in front of the Stoll that they park in and I'm like we could do that, but you wouldn't have seen that one either. Go figure. So, it's just -- you know, you are -- you are danged if you do, danged if you don't. So, you just got to try and regulate what you can and we make sure that our signs are there and that they are visible. I have even went and trimmed bushes away from our signs and just even -- even down here at Frontier --just to give you guys an idea of how I do operate. I went there, there was 13 cars in that parking lot and it was right after I put the update on the website and I got the booter there and three people came --three or four people came to park while I was in that parking lot. I went up to them and I said, hey, don't park here, you are going to get booted just like all these other people and I just want to let you know that if I would have been here when they came here, too, I would have told them. So, I am as fair as I can be and so I do every chance that I can get. I'm not there -- I'm not there to make my money on the boots. I like security better. Simison: So, Council, what's your direction? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Not sure if we are taking action on the city code today. Simison: No. It's just -- the question is would you like to see this come back. Strader: Yeah. It sounds like we are all in agreement that 150 sounded fair in light of economic circumstances, with the hope that that will get you through the next few years before you are back, so -- Simison: Okay. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: This might be a question for Emily or-- or Bill. Do we have similar regulations for the licensing as what Mr. Sparhawk explained with city of Boise as far as the requirements to have the insurance and -- and those kinds of requirements? Sparhawk: So, you are pretty parallel. The only difference -- you guys are a lot more -- on your fingerprints you -- you do it a little differently, but you got -- you are parallel. You are very parallel. Like it's the same. The only thing different in -- is that you -- you do allow for booting in the fire lane if we are present to get it towed immediately, because it's a fire lane and you do say that we cannot tow a vehicle unless it's been booted for 12 Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 14 of 36 hours. So, 12 hours is the magic number of the time where people start coming out and they start destroying our boots. That's why I have come up with 12 hours. But, yeah, you -- you are very parallel with the city of Boise. The signage, everything. The only thing different -- and I will be fair to the process -- is that you don't have a city code enforcer going to any of the properties in Meridian and signing off. But, rest assured, they are where they are supposed to be at every entrance and they are visible. Simison: Thank you very much. Sparhawk: Thank you for your time. 13. Police Department/Attorney's Office: Proposed Updates to Animal Impoundment Fees Simison: So, next item up, Item 14, is the Police Department, attorney's office, proposed updates to animal impoundment fees. Let Ms. Kane continue the conversation. Kane: Thank you. Mayor and City Council Members, this is a long standing request from City Council to work with the Idaho Humane Society to update our impound fees that they collect on our behalf when an animal is impounded in the City of Meridian. So, quick history of our impound fees over the years. In 1950 it was one dollar. They were actually comparable to where we are now for -- in the 70s and '80s and, then, in 1997 the -- our impound fees for some reason spiked way up. So, a first impound was 23.50, second 36, all the way up to 96 dollars. Today it's ten dollars for a dog and 12.50 for a cat and it's been like that since 2013 when we first contracted with the Humane Society to be our -- to be our pound. We are -- Meridian is the lowest -- has the lowest impound fees of all of the other jurisdictions in the valley. Kuna does have a ten dollar fee for a dog, so they are tied with us for the lowest, but they do also have graduated fees for the repeat offenders that come back. One thing we don't have is a livestock fee, which Ada county does. Boise has a fee structure that's -- that keys off of licensing and whether if the dog is altered or unaltered. Ours is a flat rate of ten dollars for a dog and, again, 12.50 for a cat. So, our -- I have worked with the Humane Society to kind of determine what -- what it takes to impound a dog, the amount of work and the amount of time, equipment, things like that. There really is no per dog rate, because the factors that go into each impound are so different, based on kind of the animal they are dealing with and the circumstances and where everybody is, the dog and the -- and the -- sorry -- the animal officer. But this 50 dollar fee does include some assumptions. They outline these in the memo that's in our packet, but just as an example, we assume 15 minutes of dispatch times with the time on the phone with a calling party saying there is a stray dog or there is a dog in my backyard or on my block, 30 minutes for the officer to travel from where ever they are to that location, 45 minutes to capture the dog, talk to witnesses and, then, kind of write that report, take up notes, 30 minutes back to the facility, the -- the shelter. Fifteen minutes to unload and kennel the dog and, then, 15 minutes to do the paperwork that it is necessary to process the dog into the shelter. So, altogether with those assumptions the Humane Society incurs a cost of about 50 dollars for -- to impound a dog. It's a little bit more to impound a vicious dog or a bite case. It takes longer to deal with the dog and to assess Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 15 of 36 the circumstances and talk to the witnesses. For cats what I have learned is that people generally bring in cats. The Humane Society doesn't usually go out and pick up cats and that's not covered by our contract with them. So, it's something they kind of do as a courtesy for public safety or where a cat is in trouble or hurt, but they -- they told me that 87 percent of the cats that come in are captured by other people, by members of the public and dropped off. So, that fee is significantly lower. It's really just administrative in dealing with it and, then, the occasional going to pick up the cat again. We don't have a livestock fee, but I would recommend that we do that. It takes two officers -- they -- they need the trailer, which means it takes longer and more gasoline. They need more equipment to capture the animal and, then, with -- with two people going back and unloading the livestock and kind of dealing with it, it takes a lot longer to deal with it. So, the -- that fee is significantly higher -- or that proposed fee. So, these are the proposed impound fees. I would recommend that City Council authorize us to raise these rates -- or raise these fees rather. Again, historically, our revenues over the past six fiscal years have been in the -- from 2,000 to 3,000 range. In FY -- fiscal year '21 there were 2,900 dollars. If we were to apply the proposed fees to an average of the number of dogs that were impounded and redeemed over the last three years, it would come to about 13,750 dollars. Same kind of formula with cats. It would be -- it would be higher than usual, 675 dollars. Livestock would be 300, but they really only captured two -- I think cows in Meridian. Might have been horses actually. But overall if the numbers stay about where they are and we adopt the new fees, the projected revenue from fees in fiscal year '23 would be 14,725 dollars. So, that is a significant increase. It's -- the fees, again, are at a rate that -- are at a number where people we are thinking would still go and get their animal and redeem it. Of course, if we charged a true -- a true cost this fee might be so high that people would not go and redeem their animals. When that happens this fee is not collected. This fee is only collected when the Humane Society impounds a dog or cat and it is redeemed. So, it would meet Council's request that we capture more of what it actually costs and more of what the city is paying for these services. So, the next steps would be that City Council would adopt the proposed impound fees or fees that Council thinks are appropriate. I would update and clarify the Humane Society agreement to state that the city receives one hundred percent of our impound fees. We are collecting one hundred percent of our impound fees now. So, we just need to clarify that in the agreement. But we would empower the Humane Society to set and keep one hundred percent of its fees. So, boarding, vaccinations, veterinary care, the things that it -- that the IHS covers and that its 501(c)(3) branch supplements. So, that would -- that would be kind of their--whatever they expend they keep and our fees would come directly back to us. I think that is it. Simison: Thank you, Emily. Council, questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader, Strader: Not questions, just to comment. Thank you for doing this. It's something we have been focused on and I -- you know, I just -- I don't know what happened there over Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 16 of 36 history with the fees. It's hard to understand why they would have gone down so much. But this makes sense to me; right? Like the taxpayers of all Meridian -- City of Meridian is paying the Humane Society a huge amount of money for a contract every year and as we heard directly from the Humane Society there are repeat offenders where the same dogs are getting loose coming back over and over again, because they don't care because the fee is so small. So, I really hope that this will change people's behavior. appreciated the methodology and thought that went into the cost behind each fee and I thought it made a lot of sense. So, thanks for following up on this and I think it's good work. Thanks. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I agree. I hope that it changes behavior for the better and I am not opposed at all to the increase, but because the increases as a percentage are somewhat significant, I'm going to counsel -- I'm going to kind of like channel Councilman Cavener here and ask if -- if we feel it's necessary to have a public hearing to get public input -- input on it. Kane: Mayor, Council Woman Perreault. Yes, so for -- as with any fee adoption there is a public hearing process built in. So, it's noticed twice in the newspaper. I'm not sure if anyone sees that, but we can do some outreach to broaden that scope and, then, there is a public hearing that's required to make an increase in the fee. We can -- you can have more than one, but you do have to have at least one. Perreault: Did I miss that in the next steps? Was it there and I didn't see it? Kane: No. It is implied under adopt fees. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Emily, you mentioned another city has -- for dogs that are frequent flyers, if you will, and they raise the fees. Is a -- is 50 dollars enough to make that work? Because there is that price point where people go I -- I don't want the dog back, because I'm not going to pay that. Are -- are we at a good place or do we need to look at having some sort of increase in fees for frequent flyer dogs? Kane: Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, I -- that -- it is popular to have the increase in fees for the repeat offenders. If -- I would say with regard to fees, fees are not punitive. So, where ever that is happening we would want to start with what it actually costs, so the actual approximation and discount for the second and first. So, we can certainly do that. But I would recommend that we structure it a little differently in that event. As far as whether-- I -- I do think there is a price point out there, a point at which people will not go Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 17 of 36 and redeem the dog, but it's somewhat of a guess certainly. I think the Humane Society knows more about that. Ten dollars is certainly too low. I think depending on the circumstances people are paying the 77.25 to go get their -- their dog that's been out three or more times in Boise. The Humane Society does really like Boise's structure. They like having that quasi-punitive aspect of the fee. So, we can certainly do that. I would -- I would structure it, again, to start high on the -- on the repeat offender and scale down. Most dogs are -- well, most animals are not repeat offenders. There are those out there, of course, but the hope is that this point is the point at which people would go at least once. Hoaglun: Thank you, Emily. Mr. Mayor, follow up? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. Our dog when we had it would have been a frequent flyer every Fourth of July, but -- once a year trying to keep it in, but -- so, you can't penalize in these fees, but you can incentivize, so you work back -- there is the true cost and, then, work back to first impound, like Boise does in that case, because we are at -- we -- we would be at 50, which would be their third impound, so -- Kane: Mayor, Council Member, yes, that's correct. Hoaglun: Okay. And -- and just to comment further, Mr. Mayor. I'm -- I think these are -- these are fine. I think it's something that we need to update and utilize and -- and bring up -- bring up to date for our times now and add that livestock fee. Hopefully, we don't have many, but as you show maybe two in livestock. Could be goats. Could be cows. Could be a horse. So, yeah, something we -- we have to have for those rare occasions it does happen. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I agree with Councilman Hoaglun. I think that -- that the amount that was determined was pretty close to what is acceptable. Is about 50 dollars where the Humane Society believes that people will -- like above that people might leave their animals there and, then, they need to adopt them out or like at that point it's their cost and they kind of got to figure out what to do with the animal if they are left there. So, are they -- have they advised you on what is kind of that tipping point? Kane: Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, we did discuss the -- the issue of will people pick up their dogs, but we didn't discuss the specific tipping point. They -- they do believe that 50 dollars is a nice number that is -- it hurts, but it's not going to make someone abandon their dog. That's the hope. But if -- if you would like me to find out more about where they think that tipping point is I can do that. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 18 of 36 Simison: Well, Emily -- and I guess maybe to piggyback on that, this is just a City of Meridian fee. This is not the Humane Society fee and one day versus eight days or seven days -- I mean there -- there are increased costs -- you know, because on one point I was like, oh, ten dollars. You can just--that's a pretty cheap pet boarding fee, you know, while you go on vacation, you know. But we know that that's not the only cost. There is more and it -- so, I don't know that you could ever truly define what is an acceptable when every day that cost changes to a certain level and I don't know what their fees are related to that, but I think it would be hard for us to set our fee based on what would be acceptable or not acceptable to the general public, unless you say for one day, you know, that -- that would be the number. But that's just my two cents on looking at that, because it's -- who knows. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Just out of curiosity, do we have a hard time collecting these fees? Did the -- does the animal owner have to show that they have paid the city before they can go pick the animal up or is this become one of the situations where we are trying to chase down payment for these, because they don't have -- it's not tied to whether they can go release their animal. Perreault: Mayor and Council Member Perreault, so the way it works is that the Humane Society collects this fee on our behalf and remits it. They do that for all the jurisdictions. So, they have to keep track of where the animal came from and attach that particular fee. Simison: So, Council, your direction? Bring it back at these fees for public hearing? Okay. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Kane. Kane: Thank you. 14. Parks and Recreation Department: Eagle Road Roundabout Landscaping Discussion Simison: Would you like to do the next one, too? No, it's not you. I just thought I would ask if you would like. Okay. Then with that we will move on to Item 14, with the Parks and Recreation Department. Eagle Road roundabout landscaping discussion. Turn this over to Mr. Barton. Barton: Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm here this afternoon to talk about the two roundabouts that were recently completed on Eagle Road and in November of 2020 Council approved a cost share agreement with ACHD for several nontransportation items. One of those items was landscape improvements and in that cost share it says that ACHD will do their standard treatment of the two inch washed rock if -- if -- if we don't -- if we don't say we are going to landscape it per the cost share they are going to go ahead and put in that washed rock as their standard treatment. So, we thought it would -- you know, Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 19 of 36 to leave that open that -- at that time Council said, hey, you know, probably a good idea that we might want to put some landscaping in there to be determined in the future. So, during the process ACHD had a turnover of project managers and the information of the cost share wasn't disseminated to the new project manager. So, on one of the roundabouts the rock was installed and, then, on the other roundabout when we saw that we stopped them and said, hang on a minute, we have a cost share that says you are -- we are going to leave that open to possibly landscape it. So -- so, that's kind of-- kind of where we are. One -- one of the roundabout looks finished and this is supposed to be a map, but I'm not seeing it here. There we go. So -- so, there is two of them. The one at Zaldia and, then, another one at Eagle and Amity. So, the one roundabout at Eagle and Amity that received the two inch -- or the four -- actually, it's a four inch layer of two inch rock -- is what you see right there. So, it looks okay. But you have this pavement section that's however wide it is. Ten foot sidewalks. The diffuser islands that are concrete and, then, you go to the center and it's all rock. So, it's not -- it's -- there isn't anything there to soften the appearance. That's kind of a close up of it. And ACHD put boulders in there to keep traffic from going across it, so -- I mean it is what it is. It's low maintenance and definitely -- definitely a lot of rock and concrete. So, that the roundabout at Zaldia we went and put bark in, which according to the cost share we said that we would do, and it has some of those diffuser boulders they call them in there. A little bit of a softer appearance. So, that -- close up picture of just the bark in that one. So, what we did is we developed a landscape plan to beautify both of the roundabouts and in this plan there is a mixture of plant material and several trees in the center and this is all kind of low maintenance, low water consumptive type materials that could be put in here with a perimeter of rock, thinking that we could transfer some of the rock from the Amity roundabout and move it, you know, back -- back truck the very center of that material up and transfer it into a roundabout over on Zaldia, so it wouldn't go to waste. There was an expense in moving it, but at least it kind of fits in the design. We are not throwing it away. So, you can see that's just a -- kind of an illustrative plan of what it could look like. A-- a mix of low water consumptive blooming plants that would definitely kind of soften that street section and there is a -- a cross-section of what it could look like. So, again, definitely a little softer appearance than just the -- the rock out there. So, we are looking for a discussion and Council direction. I guess one of the things before we -- before I kind of wrap up what I have to say is that Miranda Carson will be here -- be in front of Council here in a couple of weeks to talk about a cost share at Taconic. So, there will be a roundabout as you are traveling south on Eagle Road. There will be one at Zaldia, one at Amity and, then, one at Taconic. So, I think whatever we do here, if we -- if we leave one bark, one rock, and, then, decide the landscape another one, we kind of have this mixed match set of -- you know, in that corridor there is not a real consistent look. So, it makes it -- at least in my mind it makes it a little bit odd. It could be that we landscaped the one at Zaldia, leave the one at Amity rock and, then, landscape Taconic, because at least you have maybe a similar road typology that -- it's an arterial -- arterial has rock and, then, where the arterial meets a -- a collector maybe that's landscaped. So, that's just another -- another thought to put into the conversation. So, we can -- we can leave the roundabouts the way they are. The -- the cost share -- we could basically just ignore the cost share, because it was ignored in a way. That's certainly an option. We can move forward with a budget request that we can move into the -- the parking lot for the Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 20 of 36 discussion on the 28th to -- as an FY-23 budget request. We could do one or the other as well. So, like I said, we are looking for Council direction on how to move forward. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Thank you, Mr. Barton. Council Woman Strader. Strader: Thank you so much, Mike. So, I'm just -- 150,000 dollars is a huge amount of money for this and I saw the breakdown that you sent Council Woman Perreault; right? So, it feels like it's really the irrigation is a big piece of it. So, you have got the drip irrigation, the water meters, the connection, lateral mainline -- is that part of the irrigation as well? Barton: Yeah. Strader: Yeah. Barton: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, it is. So, the water meters are outside of the roundabout. There is -- there is a sleeve that's been installed underneath the roadway. One of the water meters is about 150 feet from that outside edge of the street up in the Albertson's parking lot. Strader: Okay. Barton: That's the one at Amity. The other one is a little bit closer. So, there is a whole point of connection with a water back flow device and, then, we need to put a line underneath Eagle Road and we need to put a line through the landscaping at Albertson's. Strader: Right. So, this is what I was thinking. And I apologize, because I -- it's not one of the options, but I really think maybe we could take a step back and get creative and -- and even we could reach out maybe to a couple of folks that are experts that -- what is a native pollinator or a native plant that would survive based on the natural precipitation of these roundabouts? Like so through Googling found a few -- maybe sage brush. Maybe arrow leaf balsam root. It's in the sunflower family. It's beautiful. It's a beautiful wildflower. Looks just like a sunflower. I see it growing on the side of the highway, which tells me that it could possibly grow inside of these roundabouts. But I was just thinking can we find a native plant that helps the bees that could live in the middle of these roundabouts where we don't have to Install any kind of irrigation and -- and just test it out and see if that would work and if it would -- I mean that would cut down on -- it looks like just a huge amount of the cost. So, just some creative -- yeah, just some creative brainstorming there. But I think the issue is ACHD is super loving these roundabouts and by -- not everyone loving them, but we are just going to get more and more roundabouts and every single roundabout is going to cost just like 75k. I think we need to really think about is there a -- a more -- you know, appropriate type of plant life that could live in the middle of these roundabouts. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 21 of 36 Barton: So, maybe just a comment to that. And I like -- I like that thought. I think it -- think it's good and if there is, you know, native -- there aren't many native plants that grow in this valley and there is sage brush, so -- and it doesn't -- there isn't a -- it grows in our environment, but I don't know if it will do very well in a roundabout environment where it's -- that soil that's been placed in there is compacted -- I don't know what type -- I mean there is -- there is those factors and the other thing to consider is that if we want to kind of test drive something like that, it's a pretty high -- high profile, high visibility area and -- I like the thought, but, you know, maybe experiment with some of that stuff with planted in the fall, anticipate moisture during the winter so it can get through that first season or so and survive, but maybe just a thought, do we want to do that here where people see it a lot. Maybe we do, but -- Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I was even thinking that City Council should do this as like a volunteering service project, you know, as team building or something. I -- I don't know. I -- there is no harm in trying if it's just a matter of, you know, basically like find a native plant that's beautiful that's also kind of a weed. I don't think is any harm in experimenting with that and see if it will grow and -- but I do think you need to leverage a couple experts and speak with somebody, you know, maybe at ISU or some program locally. I'm sure we can connect you with some people that could advise us about something that would grow. I just think it's -- it's better to try to find a solution that's more low cost in light of the fact that it's not just one, it's not just two, now there are three of them. Probably there are twenty of them coming and this is just a huge amount of money. I want it to be beautiful, but cost effective. Simison: Yeah. I think that there is going to be at least two more in the short term coming over on Locust Grove, but one, two, maybe even three in that area. So, yes, it's a high cost. It's also a high maintenance cost ongoing. I'm going to withhold my comments, because staff knows where I am on this topic and I will let you guys dialogue. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. One of the things I am concerned about is -- is maintenance cost -- ongoing cost. I mean it is expensive to landscape, but there is that ongoing maintenance. I know since I work in Nampa and -- and there is two roundabouts near where I work and go and they do -- they went with architectural structures and historical structures. So, one to my south is Guffey Bridge, but they do a raised brick and gravel and rock, but, then, it's a -- you know, a miniature Guffey Bridge on the Snake River. In another one they have horses and different things. So, significant upfront costs. Probably more than 75,000. 1 don't know. That's a Nampa Highway District item. But -- but maintenance wise that -- you are -- you are -- you are really reducing maintenance costs on that, Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 22 of 36 because it's just going to be there and probably maintain for weeds, spray every now and then, and that would be it, so -- Simison: And fix when people hit them with their cars. Hoaglun: Oh, yeah. Simison: Which will happen. Hoaglun: Yeah. So, yeah, I'm kind of torn. You -- you want something -- if we can do rock like we have and -- and they have got a few boulders, but maybe doing a little more boulder work that makes it a little more interesting of -- and -- and -- but, again, a low maintenance type of thing, you know, it -- I think Council Woman Strader's point about low maintenance, native vegetation, if that could work, yeah, let's take a look at that. But something that requires less maintenance, less water. We are high desert, so that--that's always a concern. So, one of the places we can be more efficient at, so -- Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: I -- I agree with my fellow Council Members. I do have concerns about maintenance costs and just -- yeah, I don't want to take this on as a project for our parks to maintain when we get ten plus of these. I mean it could get excessive. So, I love what Nampa has done with their roundabouts. They are really neat. And I'm not opposed to an -- an increase in the up-front cost if it means that we are not maintaining, you know, watering, cutting, all those things. Specifically the question that you brought before us -- I was -- as you e-mailed some cost it looks like there is about 12,000 for us to move the rock from where it was placed to another set of roundabouts and, then, if I understood what you had sent correctly, there is another 14,000 in repairs that we need to be making. Is that -- is that related to the main lines or is that related to moving from the one roundabout to another? Barton: Council Woman Perreault, yeah, that's -- so, the 12,000 dollars is to move the rock from one roundabout to the other and what they have to do is there is weed fabric in there, so a vac truck would go in and vacuum all that rock up in kind of a design that we have and however much -- that's an hourly charge to vac that up. It's pretty expensive. And, then, move it to the other roundabout and, then, the -- the 14 is the -- both lines under the street and the point of connection -- both point of -- points of connections and particularly the one in the Albertson's parking lot that's so far away. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 23 of 36 Perreault: I just-- I -- I don't know if you all read the e-mail, but I asked Mike whatACHD's response was to requesting compensation for that and they -- they don't have it in their budget to do so. So, I -- I'm also, along with Council Woman Strader, struggling to say that this is where taxpayer dollars should go to this extent. So, I don't know where that leaves us. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Barton: I think what I -- what I'm hearing -- Simison: We have one more Council Member who is unmuted, so -- Councilman Borton. Borton: Thank you, Mayor. I may be on the other side of it. We had contemplated less than two years ago to spend money on the landscaping. I just -- the principle that you got one shot to make things like this attractive, calming -- we knew we were going to spend some capital on it and there is going to be some maintenance cost, but perhaps there is a lesser expense, but, still, landscape it. There is nothing wrong with making this -- these roundabouts look attractive. We got one chance to do it, so -- I'm not -- I'm not opposed to continuing down the path from November of 2020 that contemplated the city's desire to spend funds to beautify these large roundabouts. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I -- I agree that it would -- I think it's important for the city to look good. I think it's really important. I just wonder if we need to dig deeper and find a beautiful solution that natural precipitation -- redefine -- like the weed of wild flowers, whatever it is that will survive in this location. But let's not give up on it. I don't think it's a no for me. Like would rather have it look beautiful for a third of the cost if possible. Like that's kind of where I'm at. I think it's important for it to be beautiful. I don't want it to look terrible. We want our city to look beautiful. I think it does. I think we should continue down that path. At least we could find something that's more cost effective. Just my general take on it. So, I'm kind of in the middle of this. I don't -- it's not a no, just hoping there is something that's more effective. Simison: And I just would like -- I don't know it would generate a lot of phone calls, but I want to be careful that we don't just make this made of weeds, because I do think that that -- you know, we see native weeds going over Meridian overpass and they are not the most attractive. We would say why aren't we out there taking care of them, so -- Borton- Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 24 of 36 Borton: Do you think one option could be to parking lot this idea for next Tuesday? We are missing a couple of Council Members and that might be the more definitive work in the road and give Mike a couple days to move some ideas of perhaps a low cost -- a lower cost idea -- couldn't hurt at least. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I'm more generous than Council Woman Strader. I was thinking half the cost. She was a third. I was thinking half, so -- one thing I would like -- and this probably isn't for you, Mike, but maybe Dave can find out from Miranda -- because I know like on -- on Black Cat there is going to be a roundabout at Black Cat and Ustick and a roundabout at Black Cat and McMillan. How many roundabouts are we going to have -- Ten Mile and Amity. Yeah. There is -- there is going to be a number of roundabouts coming to this community over time and -- and that's fine and I do want them -- if we have a cohesive look -- it's just that cost factor. What's that going to look like for us as -- as time goes on. So, it's one of those things that -- we want to look nice, but -- yeah. I'm good with half the cost. Simison: And -- and that's the challenge is that we are being --ACHD is -- is putting these throughout our community, then, turning to us to make them look nice and maintain them. I guess I have got some fundamental issues with that concept of -- because there is a lot of other needs in the city that we invest these dollars into one time or ongoing related to these. As someone who lives right near these two roundabouts I have not seen the community advocating for a more impressive looking roundabout in either one of these locations. Now, I'm not going to say they would or wouldn't long term, but that's -- you know. And as a -- as a homeowner in my HOA where we do have a roundabout right there in the middle, as people go through, and I see the amount of vehicles that have hit that and the damage done and the costs that have been reinvested towards fixing these. So, the nicer these go, the more expensive they become to maintain and I don't know, Mr. Nary, do we get one hundred percent or do we have a deductible that will be our cost no matter what--whether it's replacing landscape, whether it's rocks that are -- you know, there is -- because one of these does have a rock wall in it. If -- right currently it's -- both of them do. So, someone hits these rock walls who is fixing that rock wall right now? Is that us? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean it depends. Obviously, if we catch the person who hit it -- I mean -- and they have insurance we certainly are going to go after that to do that. If it ends up being on our dime, say it's a hit and run, we don't catch anybody, yeah, certainly we have a 2,500 deductible. So, it's our dime for the first 2,500 dollars. You are right, no matter what we do it's probably going to be more than 2,500 dollars if it's more than just rocks that are in there, so -- I mean there definitely can be a cost that can get really significant. Again, they don't get hit very often, but, like you say, -- I mean when they do it can be very significant. We replaced those two islands -- or the island down here on Main Street that had two big giant pots and a pole taken out in Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 25 of 36 the center of it and it was well over 20,000 dollars. So, it was very expensive. But, again, they had insurance, so we were able to collect back on that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Probably should know this, but is that section there in South Eagle still considered Highway 55 or does it stop at the Interstate? Simison: It's Overland Road is where it becomes state. Nary: Yeah. Perreault: So, it doesn't make a difference as far as our planning goes, the type of road. Because I was thinking along the lines of -- of what you had said even before you had mentioned it, but, okay, Zaldia and Taconic are there next to beautiful neighborhoods that are beautifully landscaped and do we -- do we landscape those, because it keeps with the landscaping along the berms and because it is a different use it's neighborhood use with a collector versus Eagle and Amity, which is two arterials. Do we kind of look at those elements of it as we are talking about future design for roundabouts? So, I -- all in all I'm not really in favor of changing the one that already is how it is, especially -- the Mayor lives in that area and he's not hearing anything from anybody about there being concerns about it. But maybe as we are considering this now and in the future, the location -- it just becomes a location specific thing. I want the consistency, I do, but -- Barton: And that's definitely one way to do it is the treatment matches the road typology. Like if you have an arterial meet an arterial, it's -- or maybe it's rock, because you are -- you know, just going through. But maybe where it meets a neighborhood, it's landscaped. I mean that's just another consideration I guess. Simison: Yeah. I mean the -- the one at Eagle and Amity, that area is just wide open. Nothing -- it's blank. It's -- it's a blank canvas of-- who knows what that corner is actually going to look like and what may or may not make sense. The other one is smaller, closer to the neighborhood, and I think that because it's got the --the bark on it, it-- it does blend a little bit more than the other one, which really stands up and it is the only thing down there in that corner, so -- and you got an Idaho Power station on one corner and you have a parking lot on the other and the other we don't know. So, it's -- yeah. I don't know. And it's big. It's just a huge thing. The one thing I don't know, maybe, is, you know, when we did Meridian Road interchange we took -- we took very careful in making sure we had areas where people could pull out and do the maintenance. I -- I don't know how people do -- you know, I look at Pine 43's roundabout, I don't know how we are -- how someone is safely, in theory, performing maintenance on that and -- same one in these two locations. I mean, you know, these are designed to have people drive on the -- drive over them, especially large semis, fire trucks, when necessary and so I just don't know. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 26 of 36 Barton: Mr. Mayor and Council, there -- there is a pull out. So, there is a wall there and you can actually park on that. Simison: So, that's what that cut out is for is more for the auto -- Barton: Yeah. Simison: -- maintenance? Barton: Yeah. You can safely park there and get out. Simison: Okay. That helps me understand that. It's like -- I just thought it was a good maintenance -- or a good architectural feature. Barton: Yeah. No, it -- it actually has function. Yep. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Just one other thought. You know, you can adopt a highway. Maybe people in -- maybe businesses in Meridian want to adopt a roundabout. You know, that's another idea. But I -- I think if -- if you wouldn't mind following up on the possibilities of the more native --that thrive --the really hardy plants that could make it. If there are any that would be awesome. Barton: Yep. I will. Hoaglun: Yeah, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I think we could start out right tonight for -- for sponsorships and John's Auto Care, for example, could be sponsor of a roundabout and they take -- you know, pay the city big bucks and take care of that. I think that would be fantastic. Barton: Maybe the Community Planning Association might want to get involved. Hoaglun: I -- I think there is an administrative issue to all that, too, so -- yeah. Barton: So, bring this back to the parking lot on the 28th is I think what I'm -- just to summarize and come back with a short list of plants that could be planted and the conversation maybe leave Amity the way it is and plant some of these plants at Zaldia and if they don't work come back and say, hey, they didn't work, so it's -- now we got to landscape it. Trying to -- Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 27 of 36 Simison: Mike, maybe just -- can you just get a cost on just some bigger rocks? I mean that's what we did at the Meridian Road interchange on those areas. What if we just put some bigger boulders, especially in the one at Zaldia, where you don't have to go into any of the water aspects and -- at least find out for myself, you know. I don't know how much a boulder costs to place -- two thousand a boulder and you put in five boulders, six boulders. Simison: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Xeriscaping. There is a lot of really cool stuff that's done with xeriscaping. Cactuses. Rocks. Work -- working with rocks and cactus. Things like that. But I -- I do like the idea of -- I guess I just assumed that parks had already kind of started down a road of-- of making sure that we were going to be consistent from here on out, so I didn't know if that -- the planning of these was specific to these or if this was intended to be replicated. Barton: Most -- well, a little bit of both. Yeah. It's -- it's something that can be replicated from one to the other. Sure. Simison: And I guess the other question -- I mean we are -- the private -- private development is doing these as well. Do you want to meet their standards? Because, otherwise, you are -- you know, that's just a great policy question, because, otherwise, you know, are we going to be mismatched, are we going to be the same. Does it matter who did it? I don't know the answer, but -- next week I guess more -- Barton: Sounds good. Simison: -- conversations. Barton: Thank you. 15. Public Works: Vehicle Emission Testing Update Simison: Thank you. Next item up is Item 15, which is the Public Works vehicle emission testing update. McVey: All right. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I'm actually not going to ask for any money tonight. I know. So, while Chris is pulling up the presentation -- so I sit on the Air Quality Board as a representative for the Mayor and, then, I also have some other Members from the Air Quality Board, as well as Emily Kane here to help answer any technical questions, because I'm definitely not the technical expert on this, but -- so tonight I'm not asking for any official action, but we are seeking the intended direction that the Council would likely go if federal and state emissions testing requirements were revoked. So, this is definitely a forward looking -- if these things happen what would you Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 28 of 36 likely consider. So, currently vehicle emission testing is required at three levels of government, so the state, federal and local and it's important to understand why and what each level requires as we discuss this topic. So, a little bit of history. Ada county's emission testing program was started in 1984 due to violations of the carbon monoxide air quality standard. So, out of that over the years the Air Quality Board was eventually formed and local ordinances were put into place under a couple of joint powers agreements. So, emissions testing was required as part of a ten year maintenance plan to address the carbon monoxide issue and we are actually ending the second ten year plan that will sunset this year. So, additionally, in 2008 state code was changed to require emission testing in areas where -- that were at or above the 85 percent national ambient air quality standard and that's what drove in 2010 the emissions testing that became a requirement in Canyon county and Kuna. So, currently only Ada county and Canyon county are the two areas that emissions testing is required in the state. So, who is required to test? So, this is kind of an important element. So, emissions testing is required every two years for gas and diesel vehicles made between 1981 and 2018. So, you will see newer cars, classic cars, electric, hybrid vehicles are exempt, among several other types of vehicles. So, what has changed? Well, the first was Senate Bill 1264, which was passed and signed into law last year that struck vehicle emissions testing in the state effective July 1st, 2023. So, this will eliminate emissions testing in Canyon county on July 1 st, 2023. However, it does not eliminate the testing requirement in Ada county, because we have that extra federal requirement in place. So, let's talk about the federal requirements. So, this was established in 1984 only in northern Ada county, because we were in violation of the national carbon monoxide air quality standard. It's important to note that the last measurement that was in violation of the standard was measured in 1991 and DEQ is required to give a recommendation to EPA every five years on the effectiveness of the program and whether that program should be continued. So, DEQ is anticipating going to EPA and requesting the removal of this nonattainment designation in December of this year and the reason that they are doing that is their data shows that the effectiveness of the program has decreased due to the fact that more and more vehicles that are on the roadway are new -- newer vehicles that are built to meet higher emission standards and that many of the vehicles that were failing emission standards have been repaired or removed from service. So, only about ten percent of vehicles that are tested each year fail, not necessarily all those are directly related to emissions. There is a few other things that can cause you to -- to fail those tests, but DEQ data shows that if emissions testing is removed that there will be no negative impact on the Treasure Valley air quality. However, we still will see periods of lower than desired air quality, but the vehicle emissions program is not what will fix those concerns. So, we are seeing those exceedances due to the fact that we just have more vehicles on the roadway, emissions from industry, wood stove smoke, and wildfire smoke. So, the vehicle emissions testing program doesn't change those things. So, you may be curious about the impact on vehicle emissions testers. So, currently there is 39 of these testers in Ada county. Ten of those are in Meridian and only four of those stations solely do emissions testing. So, ending the program, obviously, would have an impact on those four businesses and all of the testers have been notified of the pending changes. So, at a high level this is what the process would look like. So, if DEQ moves forward with their recommendation and EPA agrees with their data and conclusions, then, only local Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 29 of 36 ordinances would remain in place that would require emission testing. So, there is kind of two paths. If all local ordinances were repealed, then, emission testing requirement would end in Ada county and Ada county cities. However, if some of the local ordinances remain in place, then, emissions testing would only be required in those select areas and likely the requirement to administer those programs would fall on those local agencies that are choosing to keep their local ordinances. So, why is the Air Quality Board asking for direction now well before they go to EPA, well before EPA makes their ruling. They are just trying to set direction for FY-23. So, they are trying to plan for their software needs. They are trying to plan to let the testers know what they are going to do, whether or not they should continue with agreements. So, the discussion that we would like to have tonight is to gain Council's general consensus on -- if both the state and federal requirements are revoked, would Meridian repeal its air quality ordinance or air quality emissions testing ordinance or when Meridian have the desire to keep the emissions testing requirement, which would require us to rewrite our ordinance and likely administer the program ourselves. Simison: Thank you, Laurelei. And this is why I'm always so impressed. This is what she does on her downtime to help inform and educate us, get us up to speed and so I appreciate you sharing this with us and as was mentioned, we -- we -- we do have our Air Quality Board member and the automotive industry and part of that John Nesmith is here and Matt Stoll is also here with COMPASS Air Quality Board oversight management and so open up for any questions you have for Laurelei, Legal, or -- and we can probably get one of those two to come up as well if needed. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: So, my -- my biggest concern would be -- it seems fine now, right, but we have emissions testing in place and there is a whole infrastructure and ecosystem of people that do the testing, et cetera. If DEQ and everyone agree it could be eliminated, but, then, what if what happened to Canyon county or Kuna happens to us and we end up in that same position? I guess I'm just more worried about like opening and closing programs quickly without knowing that that's a long term viable option. Is there any background in how Canyon county ended up? And I don't know if Matt is the right person or who, but how Canyon county ended up with a separate program and what drove that and how that could impact us. Simison: Thank you, Matt. Stoll: Matt Stoll, executive director for the Air Quality Board and also the Community Planning Association. Can I go back on these slides? Okay. So, historically emissions testing has been required in northern Ada county since 1984 when we violated the health based standard for carbon monoxide. Canyon county and Kuna have never violated the health based standards or -- and been declared as nonattainment for any pollutant of concern. The -- back in 2004 or so the legislature at the encouragement of some local Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 30 of 36 elected officials and also some citizens created the ability to create an air quality council and so they created the Treasure Valley Air Quality Council, which reviewed the data for the region and, then, also made some recommendations regarding proactive measures that could be had. That was the emissions testing program in Canyon county and Kuna and what they specified in Idaho Code 39-116(b) was if you are 80 percent of the design value or the health based standard for a given pollutant and transportation is one of the top two contributors to that elevated level, then, you can have an emissions testing program. DEQ can mandate it. And that's what they did with Canyon county and Kuna. They never had a violation of those standards. So, back to your original question as far as are there any assurances that we won't have to go back to emissions testing in the future. Simple answer is no, because we do have -- ozone is a pollutant of concern and fine particulate matter are pollutants of concern. However, the drivers of those tend to be industry, also wildfires and transportation is a component. If we go nonattainment for any of those pollutants and the regulators, EPA and DEQ, decide that emissions testing would be a viable control strategy to help bring it under control, it likely would not be the same program that we currently have. We have -- in looking at a variety of scenarios about what could be done with the equipment that the station owners own, we have been told that they are antiquated and they would not be usable in nonattainment areas for ozone or PM 2.5. Does that answer your question? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yes. Yeah. That does answer my question fully. So, I guess just to reflect back what I'm hearing and -- you know. So, DEQ and the EPA are the experts, right, on what a control strategy -- what control strategy would work. It seems like they are both leaning toward getting to a place where they -- they don't think this requirement should exist and so, you know, I think it's really important we take care of our public health and our air quality, but if I'm hearing that the environmental experts are saying that the -- controlling vehicle emissions is not an effective control strategy anymore in terms of what we are -- what we are dealing with now -- I don't know. Is that a fair characterization of -- of where we are at? Stoll: Mr. Mayor, Council Member, I would phrase it a little bit differently. They are not saying that controlling emissions is not appropriate. What they are saying is is that the emissions testing program may have outlived its purpose. So, we have federal standards for vehicle emissions that continues to lower periodically and also as we are turning over to more of a hybrid vehicle fleet and adding in electric vehicles, we are seeing emissions decreasing significantly or being nonexistent. So, emissions from the motor vehicle fleet are being controlled that way through national standards and, then, also fleet turnover. But keep in mind that the emissions testing program in Ada county was solely created for the carbon monoxide issue that -- we haven't had an exceedance since 1991. Strader: Got it. I just have one more question. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 31 of 36 Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: How far are we off of the standard? I -- I think maybe you went through this, but like here through state code they had decided at one point -- you know, you wanted to be at or above 85 percent of the national standard. Where are we in terms of Ada county relative to standards? Is it like within ten percent, within 50 percent? Just ballpark. Stoll: Mr. Mayor, Council Member, it would depend upon which pollutant you're talking about. So, carbon monoxide you're nowhere near the standard. It's pretty much, again, non-existent. For ozone and PM 2.5, they are pushing up the standard. It's about 80 percent since the last time I saw the data -- is that last data set I saw. It's around 80 percent. Now it gets into whether your elevated levels on a daily basis are related to wildfires. A majority of the data that they are seeing is because of wildfires and wildfires that the smoke's being transported in from other states and it's one case it was transpacific transport. That also affects, because of the gases that are being emitted from ozone, so it's not just fine particular matter, but also oxide that measures in and also organic compounds. So, it is around 80 percent. That standard or that requirement through Senate Bill 1264 has been struck out effective July 1, 2023, which gets back to your question what assurance do we have that we won't be pulled in like Canyon county or Kuna. That state law is going to be struck. Strader: Got it. Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I wouldn't mind hearing from John. I just wanted -- since I think you guys do emission testing, just impacts and that transition and if you can speak kind of to that -- that question. And also I -- I want to correct the record, because it's Meridian Automotive that's going to be the first sponsor, not -- I saw John sitting there with John's Auto Care, but it's Meridian Automotive which John owns, so -- anyway, thanks, John. My question just is, you know, you conduct emission testing and I know there are some just sole providers. You're a full-service automotive center, but what type of revenue does that look like for people who do this? Is it a big impact. And I can understand the guy who sits up on a street corner that's it, but can you give me some thoughts on that? Nesmith: Sure. Certainly it's going to affect all your -- the red vans or, you know, those -- those facilities will all -- will all close. You know, I'm kind of in the middle ground where it's not going to affect our business, you know, hugely negative. You know, it's probably five, ten percent, depending on the time of year. Probably more like five percent. The thing I see is the -- the mentality of folks -- you have a certain amount of people that are like no problem, I need to pass and that's what I think that potentially that ten number that I heard that don't pass, those folks come in -- I know I see all the notices come in, you know, the delinquent notices and that's why I was an advocate of having to pass the emissions before you register a car, because I think there is some other things at -- like Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 32 of 36 other states you go buy a car from California they don't pass emissions they sell it here. I don't know what that makes -- you know, I'm not a good numbers guy to know what that affects, but I do see that your -- the diesel guys that blow black smoke everywhere, the guys that -- you know, I don't know how much that's going to encourage that behavior or if it even matters, you know, in the big picture, because there is enough new cars that are clean enough, will it really affect us. I know I enjoy sitting in traffic when there is cars that aren't blowing blue smoke and that do run properly, because you still breathe it and -- and our traffic's getting worse. So, I think that's, you know, certainly going to have an industry that's going to go away. I -- I see the negative behavior increasing. So, I think it's going to be not ten percent, I think it's going to be -- I think it's going to double personally. think you are going to have 20 cars out on the road that wouldn't have passed emissions that --just because I think the behavior of people won't fix cars. People run around with check engine lights on that won't worry about it, because your car still runs, because we see that -- the behavior coming in -- oh, my gosh, I got to pass the emissions. I got to fix the car or -- that's what I see. Anyway, stand for questions. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I appreciate that perspective, John. Yeah. It's interesting, you know, human behavior is rather, you know, interesting. It's always fascinating what people do and how -- what motivates them. You know, I -- I'm a believer in -- in the -- in the science in this, that if -- a lot has changed in 30 years in our -- our car technology. I mean you would -- you would know of anybody how -- how that -- how that has changed and are we to that point where there are going to be less vehicles that emit as much pollutants as in the past. The standards as Matt pointed -- you pointed out, federally or -- have changed and there are -- it looks like they are going to change again. We will see. You know. So, to me it's -- it's a science question and if we aren't violating the standards why do we need to have a -- have an ordinance that requires inspections, especially if we are moving in the direction of cleaner -- cleaner transportation options. So, just one of those things that I'm mulling over right now. Appreciate the insight you all have given. Nesmith: No worries. You know, I network with a group that is nationwide and it's interesting to talk from, you know, guys from New Hampshire that they still have state inspections, so they still have people bring in cars that make sure they are safe and they don't have broken windshields and -- and other things that are also important, you know, that are the safety of our-- our families and stuff running around that people aren't driving. So, you know, I don't know how far you take it. I certainly -- I -- I'm a believer in science as well and if the numbers are getting down so small enough that the few polluters are out there that aren't -- it's not overall affecting our air I just -- I grew up here, you know, enduring inversions and, then, things like that in the wintertime and, you know, I'm very passionate about being healthy and in good clean air. So, I don't know, it's -- it's certainly, you know, a challenge and -- and I appreciate the numbers that Matt has brought forward and appreciate that, too. But, you know, I'm sure the industry will survive and, you know, Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 33 of 36 1 appreciate their perspective of trying to at least, you know, taking care of the equipment and that stuff, too, as well in the industry that -- that, you know, may disappear. Simison: So, John, anecdotally scientifically, if you even have any idea, cars that are failing that you guys see is it more overall age of vehicle, like a car that's 30 years old, or is it a year, make, model threshold where you think that the technology changed in those cars that that's not been -- that's just more informational, because I'm curious. Nesmith: I think it's both. Definitely age. And as I see, you know, families have cars and so you have mom and dad have one vehicle and, then, they recycle and go down, so we see, you know, kids' cars that are higher mileage and, you know, the more mileage you put on a car the more things fail. You know, catalytic converters fail. They are warrantied to 80,000 miles, but after that you're done. So, I -- definitely age and mileage for sure and the mentality of the people driving them is also a factor and, then, especially your younger generation, unless they're mandated to fix it they won't, because they can watch Youtube and it tells them everything that it involves in either fixing it or -- you know. So, pretty much they-- I don't mean that literally, but there is a --definitely a different education factor on a younger generation that -- you know, that just seems to either want to resolve it themselves or not worry about it and I think there is a -- you know, a good factor on having -- having -- I would like it to see what they could to pass a -- you know, not run around with -- with problematic vehicles and I would take it a step further with safe windshields and, you know, safety program like other states do. But, you know, we are not there. Simison: Well, as someone who unfortunately got rid of my 1987 Jeep Wrangler when I couldn't pass the Virginia state safety inspection, it was the dumbest day of my life when I decided I didn't want to do a thousand dollars worth of car repairs and I went and bought a new car. So, I -- I have seen it -- the value -- apparently three broken engine mounts is a reason to put a safety -- and I would have not known that, that I could have my engine fall off at any point in time related to that. So, I appreciate your comments. Nesmith: No problem. And, you know, here we are very blessed to live in a state -- we are a very arid climate and vehicles are a lot older versus, you know, back east they don't live that long and so here it's very common to have 20, 30 year old vehicles, you know, it's just the way -- you know, we got a nice community that helps take care of them, they don't rust out and that stuff. But I'm with you. So, it's a little bit of a conundrum, you know, that we run into. I just worry about what will come, because I worry about the dealers that go to other states and they go, great, we don't have an emissions program anymore, we just get to dump here and, then, the consumers won't know what they are getting and they get very -- that will -- it will affect us. We just -- I -- it may have to sort itself out and, then, we will see how it goes. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 34 of 36 Perreault: The challenge that -- that I keep chewing on is we just have such a huge amount of people that drive through the City of Meridian that don't live here and while we -- if we were to choose to keep a program and even administer it ourselves, for example, I don't know how much that actually benefits the City of Meridian, because we have five towns --four towns that drive through us. That's kind of my struggle and curious if anyone wants to share their thoughts on that. McVey: Yeah. Council Woman Perreault, I think that's a good point and I -- I would continue to point back to DEQ's data, right, because if-- if the state -- if DEQ and the EPA both have to agree that this emissions program is not benefiting the region, I think, you know, if -- if we as a city want to focus on emissions reductions it's -- it's other things besides the emissions -- vehicle emissions testing. It's -- you know. And things like you guys do, encouraging public transportation, getting more cars off the roadway, you know, potentially -- one of the things on DEQ's website was encouraging residents to convert wood burning stoves to another form of -- of heat. But I think, you know, this -- this top chart -- it's a little bit hard to see, but this is straight from DEQ's website and shows basically their analysis of with and without the emissions testing program in place and you will see that even with the emissions testing in place it really does take very little of the emissions out of the picture. So, I think you are spot on that if one or two of the local agencies keep the program it's going to be an even smaller impact than -- than what's shown on the graph there. Simison: All right. Because just -- ultimately we are not going to make a decision about for or against. Mr. Stoll is looking to get a gleaning into Council's consideration about do you want to do your own emission testing program if everyone else backs out. That's the basic question that we are going to get around to somewhat, because I don't think that what -- many of the other cities are going to maintain a program in Ada county. Maybe one. But I won't even go that far. Okay. I'm getting a shake. But, you know, they-- you're not going to make a decision until you have all the information. I would never expect anything less than you, but for their budgeting purposes they are looking for some general viewpoint on Council. So, if-- if we have three or four -- so if we have four of you -- if we have three or four that have a general direction, you can take that for what it's worth, knowing that until a decision is brought in front of you for an up or down vote nothing is guaranteed one way or the other. So, any direction you -- any comments you can direct specifically towards him on your general thinking if both -- if the assumption is that both were to say it's no longer necessary or required, what your thinking would be. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm happy to kick it off a little bit. I believe if DEQ feels strongly that there is not a negative impact from this -- one of the frustrations I had when I served on the Air Quality Board was that I felt we were administering a program that the mandate was so incredibly narrow in terms of what we were there to do was really executing on that specific framework and I think as a city we are better off -- if we think it's important for us to have Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 35 of 36 great air quality, I think that's a better wider conversation than a vehicle emissions testing program, to Laurelei's point. I think there are other things we could consider doing to incentivize people in Meridian and improve our air quality to the extent that we can and I -- I totally take the point that, you know, wildfires are driving a lot of the particulate issues and et cetera. So, I -- I personally don't believe -- if the experts are showing this data that we need to administer our own program. So, I wouldn't be in support of starting our own program at this point. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. If EPA grants me the DEQ's request to discontinue the vehicle emissions program for northern Ada county, then, I think I'm in favor of repealing our ordinance. I mean, yeah, if we need to do something else for other reasons, then, we can look at that. But if the science is there, we are asking citizens to do something that isn't really having an impact in a positive way. It's -- it's negligible. So, there is -- there is no need to do that, so -- but, again, I would only do that if EPA grants the DEQ's request. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I agree. Perreault: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Mr. Mayor, thank you. I agree that I -- I -- I'm not in favor of the city administering its own program, committing dollars and stuff to that. I hope that there will still be some locations that will allow people to do it voluntarily. Those that -- you know, I'm all about people being responsible drivers and responsible with their vehicles. So, I hope that --that there will still be an opportunity if people want to do it voluntarily that they can have their vehicles checked in that way. I don't doubt that having that one requirement every couple years makes people more aware and more conscientious of the condition that their vehicle is in and that alone creates a benefit. But I don't -- I don't believe that the city should bear the cost of running its own program. Simison: Okay. Does that give you enough feedback and guidance at this point? Okay. Well, then, we will look forward to seeing what comes later this year and if there will be anything officially brought back for the Council for consideration. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here, John, Matt, Laurelei, Kyle. Kyle. Okay. All right. with that -- Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we adjourn the Council Work Session. Meridian City Council Work Session June 21,2022 Page 36 of 36 Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and we are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:23 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: Approved 7-12-2022 CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Work Session Meridian City Council Work Session June 7,2022 Page 22 of 22 (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN By Robert E. Simison, Mayor Approved C 21-2022 ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the June 7, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting Meridian City Council June 7,2022 Page 68 of 68 Baird: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman -- Mr. Baird. Baird: Appreciate the comments. Totally unexpected. I was hoping to leave under the radar. But Bill -- Bill set it up this way. He knew he was going to be gone and he wanted me to stay long enough to take this meeting. So, I guess I appreciate Bill for that. Couldn't have asked to work with a greater group of people and having met and worked with Kurt for the time that he's been here and, of course, Emily and we have a new deputy Tishra, who started Monday, I think you guys are going to be in great hands. Bill -- Bill has a good vision for the office and -- and I don't expect that to -- to change, but it's been a blast. Thanks. Simison: Here. Here. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move we adjourn. Simison: I have a motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it. We are adjourned. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:02 P.M. (AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) 6 / 21 / 2022 MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: 3410 W. Nelis Drive Water Main Easement ECISCOUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-057567 EIDAHO Pgs=6 VICTORIA BAILEY 06/22/2022 08:06 AM OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ESMT-2022-0181 3410 W.Nei is Drive ' WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement, shade this 21stday of-dune �`'20 22 between .LLC("Grantor")4 and the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation ("Grantee"); HP_REAS7 the Grantor desires to-provide d water main'rightaof-way/across-the premises and property herdinafter= articularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, gr the ater main is to be provided far throttgh underground pipelines to be construdted by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pip0ines from time fo irne by- the Grantees :. NOW, THER FORE,in-­consideration-of the benefits to be'r6ceived by the Grantor, and - other good and valuable consideration,the Grantor does hereby give,grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A--and BY The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction'and operation of water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the-free right of;access,to such faci ities:at any zild all -times;" TO l AVE AND TO HOLD-the said easeri ent and right-of-way unto the said Grantee,-it!s successors and ass.igns.forever. IT IS>EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after-snaking repairs dr.performing other;maintenance-, Grantde shall-restore the area of the merit and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and " maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that-was placed there in violation of thi easement. TI IE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures trees,brush,or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for-.this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein, Water Main Easement / REV. 3/ 6/18 THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of- way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street,then,to such extent,such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land,and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors, assigns, heirs, personal representatives, purchasers, or transferees of any kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year fir t herein above written. GRANTOR: Golden Ogden Properties LLC by Terrence M. White, Member: See Notary Acknowledgement on following page Water Main Easement REV.03/26/18 A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Los Angeles On April 21, 2022 before me, Kenneth Daneman, Notary Public, personally appeared Terrence M. White (on behalf of Golden Ogden Properties, LLC), who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. KENNETH DANEM N�1 -� Commission No. 2268432 NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY My Comm Expires DECEMBER 21.2022 Si nature (Seal) GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 6-21-2022 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-21-2022 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-21-2022 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 Water Main Easement REV.03/26/18 Exhibit A Description for Meridian Water Main Easement 3410 W. Nellis Drive April 15, 2022 A portion of Lot 5, Block 2, McNelis Subdivision as file in Book 100 of Plats at Pages 13082 through 13084, records of Ada County, Idaho located within the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 34, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the South corner of said Lot 5, from which the westerly angle point of said Lot 5, bears North 52044'39" West, 347.43 feet; thence North 38°02'50" West, 34.44 feet to the westerly boundary line of existing water main easement'N' recorded on October 25, 2007 as Instrument No. 107145840 and re-recorded on January 31, 2008 as Instrument No. 108011075, records of Ada County, Idaho and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said westerly boundary line, North 65006'00" West, 11.82 feet; thence North 30016'32" West, 99.05 feet; thence North 59043'28" East, 59.48 feet; thence South 30016'32" East, 20.00 feet; thence South 59043'28" West, 39.48 feet; thence South 30016'32" East, 72.78 feet; thence South 65006'00" East, 8.15 feet, to the westerly boundary line of said existing water main easement 'N'; thence on said westerly boundary line, 20.17 feet on the arc of a curve to the left having a radius of 459.00 feet, a central angle of 02031'04", and a long chord which bears South 32019'42" West, 20.17 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 2906 square feet or 0.07 acres, more or less. End of Description. FD N S 4 G� 11779 u' V 15/2022.0 C�0p 9�F OF YM McC , Page 1 of 1 N Scale: 1"=40' 0 10 20 40 80 Westerly Lot 5, Angle Point Block 2 Lot 5 S30'16'32"E �20.00' -0 C2�\ Lot 4, �� Real Point Block 2 of Beginning N38'02'50"W \ \y 34.44' South Corner y� Lot 5 Meridian Water Main Easement 'N' Inst. No. 108022167 I LINE TABLE LINE LENGTH BEARING �pr1NL LAND L1 11.82 N65'06'00"W ENS G� — L2 8.15 S65'06'00"E !� !�� �� 0 11779 �,,Y/�s/z�zzs CURVE TABLE �0OyP McCP CURVE RADIUS LENGTH CHORD DIST. CHORD BRG. DELTA C1 459.00 20.17 20.17 S32'19'42"W 2'31'04" P.\NW 5--c 22-070\dwg\22070E.h,b,l.d- 4/15/2022 12.10,22 PM IDAHO Exhibit B Drawing for 22-070 SURVEY 9955 W.EMERALD ST. Meridian Water Main Easement Sheet NO. BOISE.IDAHO E3704 (208)840.8570 3410 W. Nellis Drive 1 GROUP, LLC Lot 5, Block 2, McNelle Subdivision located In the SE1/4 of the SEl/4 Dwg. Date of Section 34, TAN., R.M., B.M., Meridian, Ado County, Idaho. 4/15/2022 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Hatch Industrial Pedestrian Pathway Easement ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-057565 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=6 VICTORIA BAILEY 06/22/2022 08:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ESMT-2022-0175 Hatch Industrial PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY EASEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this 21 St day June , 20 22, between 160 N Linder LLC , hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", and the City of Meridian, an Idaho municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Grantee"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of real property on portions of which the City of Meridian desires to establish a public pathway; and WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to grant an easement to establish a public pathway and provide connectivity to present and future portions of the pathway; and WHEREAS, Grantor shall construct the pathway improvements upon the easement described herein; and NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: THE GRANTOR does hereby grant unto the Grantee an easement on the following property, described on Exhibit "A" and depicted on Exhibit `B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. THE EASEMENT hereby granted is for the purpose of providing a public pedestrian pathway easement for multiple-use non-motorized recreation, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, said easement unto said Grantee, its successors and assigns forever. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees that it will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the Grantor shall repair and maintain the pathway improvements. THE GRANTOR hereby covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the easement hereby granted become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020 then, to such extent such easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto subscribed its signature the day and year first hereinabove written. GRANTOR: STATE OF fDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on (date) by _ (name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a re pre. r)tative capacity, or strike the fallowing if signing in an individual capacity] on beh ' of (name of entity on behalf of whom record was exec , in the following representative capacity: Zority such as officer or trustee) (stamp) Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 6et. Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020 CALIFORNIA ACKNOWLEDGMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189 A notary public or otrier officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached,and not the truthfulness,accuracy,or validity of that document. State of Calif rnia 1 County of On 1 before me, S Ct Q PL14 Date Here Insert Na an it! of the O ' er personally appeared �t O�� Name(s)ofy Signer ( } yy�rj I ijFr> lr� fr- l �i v,\ 1F11:y Tee -r4vld prinfli-,4 �1 �A�� �,Ol who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose na e(s) isAre subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. VANESSAS. HODGEMAN Z Noca:r Pub is Cahforn" WITNESS my hand and official a s - San Diego County � Commission=2282318 My Comm. Expires Mar 22,2023 Signature Place Notary Seal and/or Stomp Above Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Completing this information can deter alteration of the document or fraudulent reattachment of this form to an unintended document. Description of Attached Documeint Title or Type of D current: Document Date:. ~1 _ Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Corporate Officer—Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Partner— ❑ Limited ❑ General ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Individual ❑ Attorney in Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: ❑ Other: Signer is Representing: Signer is Representing: :D2019 Nationai Notary Assocla[lon M1304-09 (11120) GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 6-21-2022 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-21-2022 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-21-2022 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 Pedestrian Pathway Easement REV. 01/01/2020 r ACCURATE ., : � � o SURVEYING & MAPPING Z��< s£R V I Job No. 22-158 Pathway Easement Description An easement over and across a portion of Lots 8 and 9 of Heppers Acre Subdivision as recorded in Book 19 of Plats at Pages 1298 and 1299, Records of Ada County, said parcel is located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found 4 inch aluminum cap monument at the corner common to Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, T3N, R1W from which the found 3 inch brass cap monument in asphalt at the quarter corner common to Sections 11 and 12,T3N, R1W bears N 00' 32' 39" E a distance of 2645.87 feet; thence N 00' 32' 39" E along the section line for a distance of 447.74 feet;thence N 88' 31' 38" E for a distance of 40.02 feet to a found 5/81h inch iron pin with a cap stamped PLS 11463 at the southwest corner of said Lot 9 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 00' 31' 39" E along the easterly right-of-way of N. Linder Road for a distance of 198.36 feet to a found % inch iron pin with a cap labeled PLS 11779 at the northwest corner of said Lot 8; Thence N 89'41' 22" E along the line common to Lots 8 and 9 for a distance of 14.00 feet; Thence S 00' 31' 39" W for a distance of 198.08 feet; Thence S 88' 31' 38" W along the line common to Lots 9 and 10 for a distance of 14.01 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Easement contains 0.064 acres, or 2,776 square feet, more or less. 11 � 3 fiq�r of 0"� 1520 W. Washington St., Boise, ID 83702 Phone: 208-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com EXHIBIT MAP 14' WIDE PATHWAY EASEMENT ACROSS A PORTION OF LOTS 8 & 9, HEPPERS ACRE SUBDIVISION, BOOK 19 OF PLATS, PAGES 1298-1299, ADA COUNTY RECORDS L YING WI THIN THE SW 114 OF THE SW 114 OF SEC710N 12, T.3N., R.1 W., B.M. CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO 114 CORNER W PINE AVE. N NO s 11 12 �� s o .c a11463 � s64•22 0 PLS O OF �QP� SCALE: 1"=40' 17779 L2 � 'AN J.DP�G 0 LEGEND N. CINDER RD, Z - - SECTION LINE O PARCEL LINE F�T 7 EASEMENT E FOUND 3" BRASS CAP ao MONUMENT IN ASPHALT NJ "07 '� Q m m 6M FOUND 4" ALUMINUM CAP i o J MONUMENT IN ASPHALT �o • FOUND 518" IRON PIN, N w m �J Ln �N WITH PLASTIC CAP, AS NOTED LL'm W ^� O (� o o FOUND 112" IRON PIN, � , i ap Z Q o Z WITH PLASTIC CAP, AS NOTED cn N J Q CALCULATED POINT O � � m 0 Og W O PLATTED LOT NUMBER O �7 QL 1so P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING z � w N. LINDER RO. z i i --14' WIDE PATHWAY EASEMENT LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 88'31 '38" E 40.02' PLS I L2 N 89'41 '22" E 14.00' _ T1E. 11463 X L3 S 89'41 '22" W 14.01 ' L1 �0 L3 40' �`� rf��o ACCURATE d Fr SURVEYING & MAPPING s 1520 W.Washington St. SEC TIOBoise, Idaho 83702 CORNER 1 1 12 W. FRANKLIN RD. ! (208)488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com 14 13 DATE:JUNE, 2022 JOB 22-158 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Meridian Middle School Cafeteria Addition Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement 1 of 1 ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-057566 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 06/22/2022 08:06 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE ESMT-2022-0188 Meridian Middle School Cafeteria Addition Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement 1 of 1 SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS Easement Agreement, made this 21 stday of June 2022 between West Ada School District ("Grantor") and the City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation("Grantee"); WHEREAS, the Grantor desires to provide a sanitary sewer and water main right-of- way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer and water is to be provided for through underground pipelines to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipelines from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantor, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantor does hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right-of-way for an easement for the operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer and water mains over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of sanitary sewer and water mains and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right-of.-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after making repairs or performing other maintenance, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to undertaking such repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees that Grantor will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTOR covenants and agrees with the Grantee that should any part of the right- of-way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTOR does hereby covenant with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that Grantor has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that Grantor will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. THE COVENANTS OF GRANTOR made herein shall be binding upon Grantor's successors, assigns,heirs,personal representatives,purchasers, or transferees of any kind. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: Dr.Derek Bub, Lperintendent STATE OF IDAHO ) ) ss County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 5�3 2L (date) by 'Dr.D.t rtk. Rub (name of individual), [complete the following if signing in a representative capacity, or strike the following if signing in an individual capacity] on behalf of-o i,4 Sc1w)'b,s1Yij*L (name of entity on behalf of whom record was executg4,4 she following representative capacity: Sk>e r'j et-k n, (type of• 't�gt '1►�s officer or trustee) •��4ivo��Flo.2p���•Q�•0 .ti � % IS f pUBLIC '•,���P": �::::::�•��p••�� No ry Signature �9 Q• M Commission Expires: ••.,,•� of 19��•.•• y r Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert E. Simison, Mayor 6-21-2022 Attest by Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-21-2022 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada ) This record was acknowledged before me on 6-21-2022 (date) by Robert E. Simison and Chris Johnson on behalf of the City of Meridian, in their capacities as Mayor and City Clerk, respectively. Notary Signature My Commission Expires: 3-28-2028 Sanitary Sewer and Water Main Easement REV.01/01/2020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION %= TH E ® LAND Page 1 OF 1 GROUP March 8, 2022 Project No.: 121036 SEWER—WATER EASEMENT CITY of MERIDIAN WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(MERIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL) An easement located in the Northeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12,Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the North One Quarter corner of said Section 12, (from which the Center One Quarter corner of said Section 12 bears South 00°35' 21"West, 2652.93 feet distant); Thence on the north-south mid-section line of said Section 12,South 00°35' 21"West,307.22 feet; Thence leaving said mid-section line, North 89°24'39" West, 64.00 feet,to a point on the westerly right of way line of West 81h Street and the POINT OF BEGINNING: Thence South 00'35' 21" West, 20.00 feet; Thence North 89° 14'05" West, 170.25 feet; Thence South 37'34' 59" East, 66.56 feet; Thence South 82°34' 59" East, 5.86 feet; Thence South 07'25'01" West, 20.00 feet; Thence North 82'34' 59" West, 14.14 feet; Thence North 37'34' 59" West,77.92 feet; Thence North 89° 14' 05" West,99.44 feet; Thence South 00°45' 55" West, 15.46 feet; Thence North 89' 14' 05" West,20.00 feet; Thence North 00'45' 55" East, 15.46 feet; Thence North 89' 14' 05"West, 11.57 feet; Thence South 64°42'30" West, 118.69 feet; Thence North 25' 17' 30" West,20.00 feet; Thence North 64'42' 30" East,40.71 feet; Thence North 00'45' 55" East, 26.29 feet; Thence North 89° 14'05" West, 139.53 feet; Thence North 00°45' 55" East, 20.00 feet; Thence South 89' 14' 05" East, 537.16 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described easement contains 0.39 acres (17,210 Ft2) more or less. PREPARED BY: The Land Group, Inc. o� Michael S. Femenia 13 00 a OF 4' 41, S 03/08/2022 462 East Shore Drive, Suite 100, Eagle, Idaho 83616 208.939,4041 thelandgroupinc.com Re Location: g:t2021\1210361cad\survey\exhihtts\121036 ex sewer-water easement ctty of meddian.dwg Last Plotted 6y:mike lemenia Date Plotted: Tuesday,March 62022 at 03:04 PM 0 y z L1 y y N 3 C S M z d !C V z m O w .�'« CD W co pop o CD c Cr m co s m y 5. y O Cn rF r N �I I '1 = 0 CD ( V'—i A W N Z O G Cl d C Cja O CD r^ o �I I - CO oar a CID o D m N CL. y II N o m -� n >Jf o yCID p w D CD Cn CD m c� -. .* moto v a �' y � < w cn n o CD cn o �. M z �1 j I f co c co c A, r CL 2 � m m M CP m .fir W rt 1.1/ Cr � L12 M '-` g. CA z CD .n o rn CD o �\ I O S \Y S \ = C9 O. I l I d � r z z z z o PROF o o o m m 1 r SsfO o z Cn 0' c a Fr z ~ z I c C>a c> r m m m CD 1 cny ° O Z C" f cn o cn Z 1 C7 r j I_p C m N N O O CC7I IV S 1 0 CO cn rh O lJ w N m cn C cop) r 4�, rn W 41 O o p n CID xr V N o z �1 0j m m m C I / a I/J� r O Q] O Q'I Cz O N j Z C O (D = L4 r 2 w o o o M CD N III co C1i W N 1 W W o Cn L1 R/W - R/W— `o m SL c') cn N WEST 8TH STREET o N N �o _ 234 " 307.22' o w S00°35'2121 W 2652,93' 0 Sewer - Water Easement (City of Meridian) 0-i'=- THE ri r -� West Ada School District LAND Meridian Middle School = GROUP E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Alamar Subdivision (H-2022-0004) by Noble Rock Development, Inc., Located at 4380 W. Franklin Rd. (Parcel #S1210346603), Near the Northeast Corner of N. Black Cat Rd. and W. Franklin Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI N,­ AND DECISION&ORDER , In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential)zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 50 building lots(32 single family attached lots and 18 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots,and 2 other lots(common driveways) on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district.,by Jeff Wrede,Noble Rock Development,Inc. Case No(s). H-2022-0004 For the City Council Hearing Date of. June 7,2022 (Findings on June 21,2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § I 1-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Alamar Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0004) - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-613-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-613-713). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-513-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Alamar Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0004) -2- use not to exceed one (1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted.With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11(UDC 11-5B-6F). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter.When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67,Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Alamar Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0004) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of June 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E.Simison 6-21-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 6-21-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-21-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Alamar Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0004) -4- EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT �u HEARING June 7,2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council mu U"' FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 - SUBJECT: H-2022-0004 Alamar Subdivision A LOCATION: The site is located at 4380 W. Franklin Road(Parcel#S1210346603),near the -_ Mpg northeast corner of N. Black Cat Road and W. Franklin Road,on the north side of Franklin Road, in the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3N, Range 1 W. woo— L PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of approximately 8.23 acres of land with a request for the TN-R(Traditional Neighborhood Residential)zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 51 building lots(30 single family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots, and 2 other lots(common driveways)on 5.63 acres in the proposed TN-R zoning district. NOTE: After ongoing discussions between Staff and the Applicant regarding the qualified open space location,the Applicant has revised the project and lose one(1)building lot in order to gain the required qualified open space within the project area. Furthermore,this change has resulted in the Applicant making a slight modification to the distribution of housing hypes—according to the revised plans,the Applicant is now proposing 18 detached lots and 32 attached lots totaling 50 building lots instead of 50. The loss of one(1) building lot and shuffling of the housing types results in the addition of approximately 4,350 square feet of qualified open space. The revised qualified open space complies with the minimum 15%required in the TN- R zoning district. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—8.23 acres;PP—5.63 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium-High Density Residential(8-15 du/ac)within the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) Existing Land Use(s) Vacant County residence = IF Proposed Land Use(s) Attached Single-Family Residential(SFR)and Detached SFR. Page 1 Description Details Page Lots(#and type;2ldg../common) 51 building lots(30 single-family attached,21 detached single family);and 6 common lots. Physical Features(waterways, Purdam stub drain runs along the north boundary of the hazards,flood plain,hillside) site; Purdam Gulch Drain runs along the west boundary but is not located on the subject site. Density,Gross 9.06 du/ac Neighborhood meeting date December 2,2021 and March 17,2022 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City of Meridian B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) No as of April 20 2022-yes—May 9,2022 • Requires ACHD Commission No Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via a new connection to W.Franklin Hwy/Local)(Existing and Road at the south property boundary.Access to Franklin Proposed) is intended to be temporary until such time a future connection to the extension of W.Aviator Street is constructed,a planned collector street that should abut the north boundary of the subject property. Access to the lots within the subdivision are proposed via the new local street. Traffic Level of Service Franklin Road(0' of frontage)—Better than"E"(474/575 VPH) Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is proposing to extend the new internal local Access streets within the site and stub them to the cast and north boundaries with Phase 2 of the development. See the attached preliminary plat. Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road abuts the south property boundary and is an existing arterial constructed with 5-lanes and at its full width. Proposed Road Improvements ACHD—CIP Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Franklin to Cherry between 2031-2035. Black Cat is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from Overland to Franklin between 2036-2040. Franklin Road is listed in the CIP to be widen to 5-lanes from McDermott Road to Black Cat between 2026-2030. Distance to nearest City Park(+ Fuller Park(21.96 acres)—approximately 1.7 miles by size) vehicle. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station 2.5 miles from Station#2 • Fire Response Time Falls just outside of the 5-minute response time goal • Resource Reliability 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility As submitted,plat does not meet all requirements—Site needs secondary emergency access to construct homes behind the first phase 24 lots). • Additional Because project is at a dead-end road with no secondary Comments/Concerns access,only Phase 1 will be allowed to be constructed until a Fire Department approved secondary access is constructed. Page 2 Description Details Page Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Impacts/concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Water Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 2 • Water Quality Concerns Water main will be a 1000 foot dead end until future development extends the main.A hydrant will be required at the end of the main to improve flushability. • Project Consistent with Water Yes Master Plan • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 3 C. Project Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map Legend TMJ,Eff �; � Lend ® ®Project LocationEMEF.Medium Project Location u Den sity� �mRResidential General r' Industrial M ®gh Density T:� ^r dentiaP - C-ommercial r Low Density ' Ernployrnent MU-Res - Mixed Employment MU-Corn Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend � n R-� 0 Legend M��U� 0 Project Location �„-8 O Project Location � R 15 ® R ; ! City Limits RUTL Planned Parcels _ _______________ -- R11 M` Ml R- E R-15 C-N LC2 R-1F5 Ml RUT R- �0000 au n. M-E III. APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant: Jeff Wrede,Noble Rock Development,Inc. - 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162, Boise,ID 83713 B. Owner: Jeff Wrede,Marala Investments,LLC- 13601 W. McMillan Road, Ste. 102-162,Boise,ID 83713 Page 4 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 5/20/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/11/2021 5/27/2022 on site Nextdoor posting 4/5/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. ANNEXATION/COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The MHDR designation allows for a mix of dwelling types including townhouses,condominiums, and apartments. Residential gross densities should range from 8 to 15 dwelling units per acre and is noted with a"target"density of 12 du/ac. These areas are relatively compact within the context of larger neighborhoods and are typically located around or near mixed use commercial or employment areas to provide convenient access to services and jobs for residents. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate connectivity with adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and a project identity. Per the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP),MHDR designated areas should include a mix of housing types such as row houses,townhouses, condominiums, alley-loaded homes, and apartments with higher densities near MU-C and Employment designated areas transitioning to smaller-scale and lower density buildings as the distance increases from higher intensity uses. The Applicant is requesting Annexation and Zoning of three parcels totaling 8.23 acres of land with a request for the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R) district and a Preliminary Plat to construct a mix of single-family dwelling types, single-family detached&attached units. The Applicant is proposing to annex the federally owned land west of the subject site that contains a segment of the Purdam Gulch Drain that is not part of the project area. The Applicant is proposing 51 total residential units on two parcels totaling 5.63 acres in the requested TN-R zoning district which constitutes a gross density of 9.1 du/ac; this density complies with the minimum density required within the future land use designation and is at the lower end of the allowed range. Further,the two proposed uses and site design are not currently seen within this area of the City or Ten Mile Plan but are two aspects desired by the Ten Mile Plan. In addition to the subject project, surrounding development should be taken into account,to the northwest of the site,Hensley Station is currently under construction as a medium-high density townhouse subdivision and Aviation Subdivision was recently approved by Council which will bring Aviator Street extension even closer to the subject site;to the east of the subject site additional high- density residential projects are currently underway,Ascent Townhomes and Entrata Farms. In addition, south of Franklin Road is a larger area of the Ten Mile Plan with a mix of residential, commercial, employment, and industrial zoning. This site is part of a large area of MHDR that is slowly redeveloping from both the west and east of this site. Despite the subject site not being directly adjacent to existing or approved development,the subject site design and proposed uses are ones that are desired within this area of the City. Specifically,the Applicant's proposal of two different housing types, detached sidewalks, and garages set back behind the living area are desired within this area of Meridian and propose a project design consistent with many comprehensive plan policies. Page 5 Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Specific general comprehensive plan policies are analyzed below. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to the proposed use and development of this property(staff analysis in italics): • "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D) The proposed development contains two types of housing units (attached and detached single-family) that will contribute to the variety of residential categories in the Ten Mile area and within the requested TN-R zoning district as desired. • "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public facilities and services."(3.03.03F) City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. • "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) Two (2)housing types are proposed in this development, as noted above, which contributes to the variety of housing types in this area. Furthermore, the Applicant is proposing the entire project with detached sidewalks and parkways and each unit is shown with the garages set behind the living area, as desired within the Ten Mile Plan. • "Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land." (3.07.00) The proposed site design provides a maximum use of the land with the proposed residential dwelling types and should be compatible with planned development on adjacent properties that are also designated for MHDR uses. The project does abut three (3) existing I-acre County residential properties to the east and until such time as these properties redevelop, there could be conflict between the two land uses as multiple structures are shown adjacent to these existing homes. However, the Applicant has held two neighborhood meetings on the property and only one of the current owners have attended while voicing minimal concerns. • "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A) The proposed plat depicts relatively smaller areas of open space spread throughout the site. Notably, the main open space area is in the center of the development and is approximately 6,000 square feet with a bicycle repair station noted as the amenity. There are other, smaller open space lots at the north end of the site that are shown to contain storm drainage facilities but still provide open grassy areas (these are not proposed as open swale drainage ponds). Further, the Applicant is proposing detached sidewalks throughout the entire site that connect to the existing sidewalk along Franklin Road, an arterial. This should provide safe and easy access to this arterial sidewalk network and to the nearby charter school to the west. An open space exhibit was not submitted with the applications but it appears the Applicant has proposed approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space; this area does not meet the minimum 15%requirement which amounts to at least 36,700 square feet. However, if the Applicant is able to obtain irrigation district approval and provide a pathway along the west boundary and Page 6 other internal pathway connections to it, this area of the plat would become qualified open space and the Applicant would exceed the minimum area required by approximately 10,000 square feet. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections. • "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A) The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are proposed to be provided to and though this development in accord with current City plans. • "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter, sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks is required to be provided with development as proposed. In addition to the general Comprehensive Plan,the following sections of the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan(TMISAP) should also be used to analyze the project(Staff analysis is in italics): Connectivity(3-17): Connectivity to adjacent parcels is proposed by extending a stub street to the north boundary which would connect to the planned W. Aviator Street extension and to the east boundary through the 1-acre parcel that is part of this project. This connection to the east boundary aligns with a stub street further to the east within the Ascent Townhome project—Staff anticipates the approximate 50 feet of the Zimmerman parcel that separates the two will be utilized as a public road once a future cross- access agreement is made with that property owner. NOTE:the Zimmerman parcel has been sold to a developer and this area of their plan has been discussed with that Applicant;they agree a portion of this area of their existing access should be utilized to allow the public road connection between the subject project and the Ascent Townhome project currently under construction for the purpose of additional connectivity in this area.Although staff cannot require the connectivity now, with the annexation of the Zimmerman property staff will require the ROW dedication to allow the two roadways connect.If the applicant can facilitate the connection sooner and reach a written agreement to allow the connection,staff would be supportive as this would eliminate the need for the temporary access to Franklin Road in favor of an emergency access as desired by the City.Furthermore, the proposed detached sidewalks throughout the site provide the needed connectivity between existing and planned sites and sets the stage for neighborhood designs desired within the Ten Mile area. Access Control(3-17): In order to move traffic efficiently through the Ten Mile area, direct access via arterial streets is prohibited except for collector street connections. The subject site proposes a temporary access to W. Franklin Road, an arterial, as no other public road access is available at this time. The proposed stub street to the north boundary will connect to the W.Aviator Street extension, a collector street, should the Zimmerman parcel redevelop as anticipated. Because the proposed access to Franklin is only temporary, the project complies with this policy.As noted above, if the applicant can facilitate the connection of the eastern stub street with the Ascent Subdivision, the temporary access to Franklin wouldn't be required. Complete Streets (3-19): The TMISAP incorporates the concept of"complete streets,"meaning all streets should be designed to serve all users, including bicycles and pedestrians unless prohibited by law or where the costs are excessive or where there's clearly no need. The proposed development includes detached sidewalks and parkways throughout the entire site for pedestrian use and on-street parking along the new local street. Further, the proposed home designs depict garages set behind the living area and shared driveways that minimize curb cuts within the site (35 driveways for 51 units). This design sets the stage for future development of the surrounding area as this is a desired site design in the Ten Mile Plan. Page 7 Streetscape(3-25): All streets should include street trees within the right-of-way. The proposed development incorporates tree-lined streets with detached sidewalks throughout the site. DESIGN: Street-Oriented Design—Residential Buildings(3-33): Usable porches should be a dominant element of these building types. Porches should be located along at least 30%of the front fagade of the buildings (the fagade facing the primary street)although a higher percentage is recommended as is porches on one or more facades as well. When possible,garages should be loaded from a rear alleyway.Where garages must be accessed from the front,the garages must be located no less than 20' behind the primary fagade of the residential structure. The proposed residential units are all front-loaded but show a garage that is set back from the living area fa(ade facing the internal local street. The submitted elevations and conceptual floor plans are not dimensioned but the garages appear to be considerably behind the living area facades. This design provides for a more porch dominated street fagade compared to traditional single-family residential, as desired. Staff is including a DA provision to ensure this type of design is maintained for the project. Buildings to Scale(3-34): The key elements to consider are the continuity of building sizes,how the street-level and upper-level architectural detailing is treated, elements that anchor and emphasize pedestrian scale,roof forms,rhythm of windows and doors, and general relationship of buildings to public spaces such as streets,plazas, other open space and public parking. Human-scale design is critical to the success of built places for pedestrians. Staff believes the proposed 2-story homes and submitted conceptual building elevations demonstrate compliance with this policy. However, to further the neighborhood and street-oriented designs desired in the Ten Mile Area, Staff is recommending additional decks are added on the second stories of some of the homes. This addition furthers the concept of living area closer to the street which helps to activate the sidewalks and create more of a community identity for the project. Neighborhood Design(3-36): In the Ten Mile area, all residential neighborhoods should be developed in consideration of traditional neighborhood design principles and concepts,which include mixed housing stock, architecture and design, streetscapes and streets.A mix of housing stock is proposed consisting of single family attached and detached dwellings which contribute to the diversity of housing stock in this area. The public street proposed within this development provides a fair framework for future connectivity that can provide short block lengths and minimize curb cuts on the public streets. The proposed block lengths are relatively short and provide for safe pedestrian connectivity due to the detached sidewalks and parkways. The proposed parkways and conceptual floor plans also add to the project's consistency with the neighborhood design element of the Ten Mile Plan. As noted above, Staff finds the project to be generally consistent with both the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan and the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan,per Staffs recommended revisions. 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 VIII.A1. 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP) The proposed preliminary plat consists of 51 building lots(30 single-family attached lots and 21 detached single-family lots), 6 common lots,and 2 other lots(two common driveways)on 5.63 acres of land in the requested TN-R zoning district. The minimum building lot size proposed is 2,038 square feet Page 8 with an average lot size of 2,762 square feet. According to the submitted plans,the plat is currently proposed to develop in two phases due to the available access to the site being only from Franklin Road at this time. The phasing plan depicts construction of 22 building lots in the southern half of the site with three open space lots(including the largest centralized open space lot)in Phase 1 with the public roads terminating less than 150 feet from the internal intersection—thus,20 of the 21 detached single-family lots and two single-family attached lots are proposed in Phase 1. Phase 2 then depicts the remaining building lots to the north and east of the centralized intersection to be constructed along with some remaining open space lots along the north boundary. Further,Phase 2 depicts the north-south local road within the site terminating at the north boundary over the Purdam Gulch stub drain with a slight curve to the northeast to match the property line. Staff has had multiple discussions with this Applicant and the Developer of the Zimmerman property to the north in regards to the proposed termination of the north-south local street within this development. The issue that has been brought up is the preferred alignment of this street at the north property line and consequently where it would connect to the extension of W. Aviator Street,the collector road required to be developed with the project to the north. Staff notes it has been the City's practice to require an Applicant change their road alignment based upon conceptual drawings of a project that has not yet submitted to the City. However, Staff has included a DA provision to allow this Applicant the flexibility to revise the road alignment and lot layout with the future Phase 2 final plat should they be able to work out a mutually beneficial agreement with the adjacent property owner; this is predicated on IF the property to the north receives approvals from the City.This recommended provision does not require this Applicant revise their plat at any point but its intent is to provide flexibility to the Applicant to make any necessary revisions to the plat without having to go through the hearing process for subsequent changes that do not increase the number of building lots or drastically change the project design but help the overall road network in this area of the City. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: Map imagery depicts an old residence and accessory buildings on the southern half of the subject site; no other site improvements appear to be in place. All existing structures are proposed to be removed upon Phase 1 development. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the requested TN-R zoning district. Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with these standards, including dwelling types, inclusion of parkways, and initial review of building setbacks outlined on the submitted preliminary plat. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): AGHD has not yet submitted a staff report for-the subjeet pr-oje Access for the project has been briefly discussed in the comprehensive plan analysis section above those comments are in conjunction with those in this analysis section.Ultimate access to the project site is from a future local street connection at the north property boundary to a future extension of W. Aviator Street on the adjacent property to the north/northeast.Additionally, future access should occur to the east via a local street connection to W. Atomic Street in the Ascent Townhome project on the east side of Zimmerman Lane (not part of this project area). Until Aviator Street is extended and constructed north of the subject site OR W.Atomic Street is extended,temporary access to W. Franklin Road is required for public street access to the site. Because no other public roads are available to serve the subject site, development code permits this temporary access to Franklin. However,permanent access to Franklin Road is not desired by the City or ACHD in this location so as soon as an additional public road access is available,this access to Franklin shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Page 9 Department approved bollards. Staff has included a DA provision to address the timing for the closure of this access. Vehicular access for the proposed dwelling units is via driveway connections to the new local streets within the project. The local street is proposed with 5-foot detached sidewalk and 8-foot parkways strips; the street is proposed as a 33-foot wide local street within 37 feet of right-of-way and is consistent with ACHD policy. The Applicant has proposed shared driveways for the single-family attached units to minimize the number of curb cuts on the local street and has included two common drives within the east parcel to better maximize the available land and provide access to six units(four access one common drive, and two access the other). There is no secondary access to the site because the proposed local streets within the site do not connect to additional public roads. This is an additionalfactor in the Applicant's decision to propose the project in two phases and keeps the Applicant from putting sprinklers in each unit because the Fire Department requires a secondary access for each access that has more than 30 units taking access from it. As discussed above, there is an anticipation of a project being constructed on the property to the north/northeast that would extend Aviator along the north property line and offer a secondary public street connection to satisfy the Fire Department requirement. However, regardless an additional public road access being to the north to Aviator Street or the east through Ascent Townhomes, Staff is recommending the temporary access to Franklin convert to an emergency-only access to add an additional Fire approved access for this project and area of the City. Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8): There are no regional pathways depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this property. However, Staff believes the Applicant should work with the irrigation district to install a micro-path through the common lot along the project's west boundary containing the Purdam Drain easement OR work with the district to utilize their gravel access road as a walking path for the development and include some landscaping along the east side of this common lot. The addition of a meandering 5-foot wide pathway and landscaping in this open space lot could connect in multiple places throughout the site and allow for a looped walking trail. Further,this revision to the project would make this area of the site qualified open space and allow the Applicant to meet and exceed the minimum amount required for the project;without it,additional area will need to be added in other places which will likely require a loss of building lots. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets that loop through the site (not shown with any names at this time)with 8-foot parkways throughout. In addition,the Applicant is showing the existing 5-foot wide sidewalk on the north side of Franklin Road with a segment near the west boundary as being attached and the remaining length being detached from the roadway. This does not meet ACHD nor UDC standards for sidewalks along collector streets. Overall, the proposed sidewalk networkfor this development meets UDC requirements. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17): 8 foo 6-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local streets in the project site.All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3A-17.E.2 for a 6-foot wide parkway—these additional standards include the requirement for a root barrier system and Staff will verify this with all future final plats.With the future final plat applications,the Applicant should add data to the plan to demonstrate compliance with these standards. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. Franklin Road,landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-313-7C.A 25-foot wide common lot is shown at the south boundary of the project site meeting UDC standards. However,the subject property boundary does not directly abut Franklin Road because ACHD owns land that goes beyond the pavement and includes the sidewalk along this frontage. Page 10 Therefore,the actual buffer along Franklin is at least 38 feet deep instead of just 25 feet. According to the submitted landscape plan,the required buffer area is landscaped in accordance with code. Therefore, the proposed project complies with these standards. The Applicant is also proposing 86-foot wide parkways throughout the site in accordance with the requirements of the Ten Mile Plan and the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is showing compliance with the required landscaping standards in UDC 11-3B-7. According to the submitted landscape plan, some trees are included in the common open space areas where there is no storm drain retention areas. These retention areas are shown to be vegetated with grasses which complies with UDC 11-3A-11 and is allowed to qualify towards the minimum qualified open space for the project. Staff is recommending the most central tree in the centralized open space lot (Lot 12, Block 1) on the west side of the project be removed so a larger area of usable grass can be proposed in this lot. Further analysis on landscaping and open space qualification is in the next section below. Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The area of the preliminary plat is 5.63 acres within the requested TN-R zoning district. According to the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3, a minimum of 15%qualified open space should be provided for projects over 5 acres within the TN-R district.As noted above,the Applicant did not submit a separate open space exhibit so Staff had to dissect the submitted plans and the applicable areas that qualify. Based on the plat area of 5.63 acres, the minimum amount of qualified open space required to meet UDC 11-3G-3 standards is approximately 36,786 square feet.According to Staffs analysis of the submitted plans, the Applicant is proposing approximately 32,500 square feet of qualified open space, this area does not meet the minimum 15%requirement. This includes the proposed parkways, arterial street buffer to Franklin, the central open space lot(portion of Lot 12,Block 1), and other smaller areas of open space throughout the site.As discussed throughout this report, there is potential of the entire Lot 12,Block I counting towards the qualified open space if additional pedestrian facilities are added to this lot. Specifically,Staff recommends adding a 5-foot wide micro path from the detached sidewalk along the local street in two locations;within the central open space lot and in the open space area in the northwest corner of the site. Further, additional pedestrian facilities would need to be added to this lot within the drain easement area to create a looped system for the project. These cumulative revisions are required in order for this easement area of Lot 12 to count towards the qualified open space.If these revisions cannot occur, the Applicant will need to add approximately 4,300 square feet of additional qualified open space in the project—because of the site design, this would likely require the loss of building lots. Based on the size of the plat, one(1)point of site amenity is required to meet UDC 11-3G-4 standards. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is proposing a bicycle repair station within the central open space lot(Lot 12,Block 1). This amenity is noted as being worth one(1) amenity point per UDC Table 11-3G-4. The proposed amenity meets the minimum UDC requirements. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, I1-3A-7): All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7. According to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is showing 6-foot tall vinyl fencing along the project boundary on the east portions of the site and a 5-foot tall wrought iron fence on the rear property lines of the lots abutting the Purdam Drain easement along the west boundary. Both of these fence types and their locations comply with UDC standards.No fencing appears to be proposed along the Franklin Road street buffer; should fencing be proposed at a later date,it cannot exceed 6 feet in height per UDC 11-3A-7. Parking: On-site parking for each unit is required per the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 based on the number of bedrooms per single-family residence. For the detached single-family homes,two car Page 11 garages with two(2)parking pads per unit are shown on the submitted conceptual elevations and floor plans in accord with UDC standards for up to 4-bedroom homes. The single-family attached homes are depicted with a single-car garage parking pad for each unit.Therefore,it appears as a two-car garage and parking pad from the street view. Because of this proposed design,the future attached units cannot contain more than 2 bedrooms to comply with UDC minimum parking standards. Staff finds this as a positive for the project because there is a shortage of smaller homes for sale within the valley and Meridian. In addition to the off-street parking shown, a number of on-street parking spaces are also available due to the proposed site design. Waterways: The Purdam Gulch Drain, an NMID facility,runs along the west boundary of the subject property but is not on the subject site. However,this project does contain a large portion of the east half of the required irrigation easement(50 feet to each side of the drain centerline)for this drain. Therefore, all of the proposed lots along the west boundary of the project are encumbered by approximately 9 feet of this easement. Per UDC 11-3A-6,no more than 10 feet of the irrigation easement shall be located on a buildable lot so the plat complies with this standard as proposed. Any encroachment within this easement will require an exclusive License Agreement with NMID and the future HOA will be responsible for maintenance of this lot. The common lot appears to show the required NMID access road which will be fully gravel with no vegetation,as discussed above. In addition to the Purdam Gulch Drain easement,the Purdam Gulch stub drain runs along the north property line of the site and is located within the project boundary. The Applicant is proposing to pipe this stub drain in its current location for better maintenance and to stub the local street within the site to the north property line for future connectivity to W. Aviator Street. The proposal to pipe this segment of the stub drain and place it within common lots complies with the UDC. Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions. Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15. Per the submitted plans, a PI system is proposed and will be analyzed by the applicable departments with each Final Plat. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual) (TMISAP Conceptual building elevations and first-floor floor plans were submitted for the proposed detached and attached single-family units, as shown in Section VII.F. The conceptual elevations do not list specific materials but appear to show a combination of lap siding and stucco field materials with porches and brick or stone accent materials along the front of the homes. In addition to the elevations,the submitted conceptual first-floor floor plans depict living area and garage on the first floor with the garages set back from the living area fagade closest to the street. The submitted document is not dimensioned but Staff infers that the garage doors should be at least 30 feet from the edge of the street with parkways, detached sidewalks, and parking pad between. Final design is required to comply with the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual and the design guidelines in the TMISAP as stated herein. Submittal and approval of an Administrative Design Review application is required prior to submittal of building permit application(s)for the single- family attached units. Should it be determined the detached units should also require design review, Staff recommends Council add a specific DA provision addressing the project as a whole. Page 12 VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the recommended conditions of approval in Section VIII of this report and per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Jeff Wrede,Applicant/Developer b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Jeff Wrede; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Functionality of the common drives and lot design proposed on the 1-acre piece of project; b. Amount of open space proposed and how the Applicant can get to the minimum qualified amount—a loss of building lots may have to occur; c. Clarification on the irrigation easement and its width,use, and access for this developemtn and future residents; d. Can building pads shown on plat fit with the wide irrigation easement?—Yes. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Ability to modify the phasing plan to allow additional lots within pahse 1 should a road connection occur to the east prior to the connection to the north. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. Applicant has requested an additional DA provision that specifically limits the age to be setback from the living area fagade no less than 16 feet. C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 7,2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Jeff Wrede,Applicant: Derritt Kerner,Applicant Engineer b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Jeff Wrede:Derritt Kerner: d. Written testimony: Laren Bailees DevCo—concerns over local and collector street network with adjacent properties that are developing or currently underdeveloped. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner £ Other Staff commenting on application: Kristy Inselman—ACHD- 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Setbacks discussed within the Ten Mile Plan as well as within the requested TN-R zoning district• b. Pedestrian network proposed within development and its ties to the qualified versus nonqualified open space: Page 13 C. Proposed use and timing of the access to Franklin Road—does this access need a turnaround if it becomes an emery only-access in the future, d. Aviator Street timing,anticipated location, and presumed connections to adjacent parcels including subject property—discussions between the City.ACHD,and property owners/developers: e. Proposed open space and lack of amenities—should additional amenities be added: £ Applicant's specific request for a new DA provision outlining the living area to garage facade setback: g. Applicant's request to modify or remove Staff s recommended condition re ag rding second story porches/decks- h. Flexibility built into Staffs recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval• 4. City, Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. Include new DA provision per Applicant's request for the living area to garage setback: b. Require additional amenity in one of the open space lots—either a dog park or children's play structure: c. Reduce the second-story deck requirement to 25%of the homes per Applicant's request. Page 14 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps ELS ENGEBRITSONLAND SURVEYS,PLLC 2251 S.Sumac Street,Boise,Idaho 83706 (208)859-6032-mike@elsurveys.com 10 March 2022 Amended Land Description Project No.201204 Marala Investments,LLC. Contains 358,362 square feet or 8.227 acres+l EXHIBIT A Property Annexation Parcel A tract of land located within the SE%of the SW%,Section 10,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County,Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW comer of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S'%corner of said Section bears S 89°15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW'%S 89*15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1116th corner,the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence northerly along the west line of said SE'%of the SW 114 N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1087.89 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line S 59°29'07"E a distance of 74.36 feet to a point; Thence N 59°04'26 E a distance of 103.00 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60°56'14"E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00°34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89*15'34"E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road easement known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00°34'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found witness comer bears N 89°15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said line N 89°15'34"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing S 00°34'27"W a distance of 33.88 feet to a point on the southerly line of said SE'%of the SW'%of Section 10; Thence westerly along said southerly line N 89°15'34"W a distance of 294.33 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 8.227 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. (See Exhibit B attached hereto and made part of) 8793 F:IELSIPROJECTS1202012012041ADMINILEGALS1201204 Updated AnnexDoc 031022.doc 9�Q CFO /O MAitBM ZOZL Page 15 ROS NO. 12250 P�S J U W OR O S 5929'07" E yyQtr' 74.36 4W i" r_ 92 P js n,"rN f 00 \990 VJ 4 F a N X `OyS �ma as w2 ZNm� NW �. loa I M O W N JO a°RP 1 1 �� ep4s JW ao° rn a I i" Wp W p 1 S 89'15'34" E_ Z W cn Q I I 232.80' o , Q � 1 i ^I �C1Z S�\FtF I c N O\1' °�I IN M \ aPti� �P INS :cc Z ^1 rn lap p�s p N 20 l o z ad '"�i a o i^Jy 5'( Cl. O W a W W m ��y6� I Z yoc0i "' 232.80' M� lu ti Q N viW 1 ova w oNON� N 89'15'34" W �M Z ~ �, ¢al n wm~"° a� QOgN Z �I a��a IM 000m� la �N 2 ��yw1. �1 1 o w o z o o W p� OI pQW� 10 W Q W O W�O IZ 3N 4a nNj I a g O �W� Qim WON I� zvx g�a y g ° za o CC 6~z ;80 I 2 I Lo ¢ uOj2¢ mm oco LU coRh W Q♦` I 13 O O UZ(Wi1R U O O •LU 4 1 I n j w J W I°)C) LLl u o Y N FS I I I� pQ� O O U i W O 1 m R U W Q W W 1 1 �6� 194.31'_ 1"o- I I I I 9 320. 33.88'194.33' 16 - ----- 15 294.33' 15 S 89°15'34"E 2640.54' I I 1 BASIS OF BEARING W. FRANKLIN ROAD ROS NO. 12258 Page 16 ELSENGEBRITSON LAND SURVEYS, PLLC. 2251 S. Sumac Street, Boise, Idaho 83706 (208) 859-6032-mike@eisurveys.com 11 March 2022 Project No.201204 Marala Investments, LLC. Amended Boundary Alamar Subdivision Contains 245,100 square feet or 5.627 acres+1- PROPERTY LAND DESCRIPTION Alamar Subdivision A tract of land located within the SE'/4 of the SW'/4,Section 10,Township 3 North, Range 1 West,Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at a found aluminum cap monumenting the SW corner of said Section 10,from which a found aluminum cap monumenting the S%corner of said Section bears S 89'15'34"E a distance of 2640.54 feet;thence easterly along the southerly line of said SW'/4 S 89°15'34"E a distance of 1320.31 feet to a found aluminum cap monumenting the W 1116rh corner;thence continuing along said Section line S 89°15'34"E a distance of 100.00 feet to a point;thence leaving said section line and running parallel to and 100.00 feet easterly of the westerly line of said SE'/4 of the SW%N 00°36'35"E a distance of 33.88 feet to a found aluminum cap on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence leaving said rights-of-way and continuing along said parallel line N 00°36'35"E a distance of 1038.98 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°36'35"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said parallel line N 59°04'26"E a distance of 61.30 feet to a point on the center line of the Purdam Drain; Thence along said center line S 60°56'14"E a distance of 160.88 feet to a point from which a witness corner bears S 00°34'27"W a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence leaving said Drain S 00°34'27"W a distance of 250.26 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 89°15'34"E a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin on the westerly rights-of-way line of a private road known as North Zimmerman Lane; Thence southerly along said rights-of-way S 00'34'27"W a distance of 187.11 feet to a point from which a found steel pin witness corner bears N 89°15'34"W a distance of 2.00 feet; Thence leaving said rights-of-way N 89°15'34"W a distance of 232.80 feet to a found steel pin; Thence S 00°34'27"W a distance of distance of 557.46 feet to a found steel pin on the northerly rights-of-way line of West Franklin Road; Thence westerly along said rights-of-way line N 89'15'34"W a distance of 194.31 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described tract of land contains 5.627 acres more or less and is subject to all existing easements and rights-of-way. �7 8703 � F::ELSIPROJECTS1202012012041ADMINILEGALS1201204 Amended Alamar Sub 031122.doc �' ?fir of i/ MA Are.Af za z L Page 17 R 0 S N 0. 1 2 2 5 0 W � �yQQ Ns ss•2s•or'� , � �'I w 74.35 "P��,T� wm a cov o ��"� � ti� � i �1'• � \�9Sp9Q' Z�o o c�N Uri iai q st ? N Ira • zNm� �� 3� i O ry N 6 I ti a, CD N of PQ I I Qs W s� 1 �O o I iV) o Rt Q o I S 89"15'34" E Lj 232.80' 0 Q I I U CO o. co n LLJO � r OI �� �I J55C• 5 pr Wa QmCO O �oI �I N z ��tj6o Iq " 23_2.80' _ 4,. n N Er, m Q Lu P N z w I � �1 q N 89'15'34" W 2 � X Qz V- m "'� O N Z w� o � z Q � 3 N co I o�� I ¢e ni Lu Q� �Oa¢a 01�UQ QQ IW-Ll Z� Z�II r oo zqWd¢al qarow�oh Oz—11II I- �Q�cv�N¢ 1rE1IIIII OQrnV �o Elo .�rRa j c¢zmi awzmc¢`zn v�vzow1� p o�a v�ai`N�rno_ Q i L CZS5 0 1 � mQ Lo¢m Q4 -z' zW ? LO C) c 1 ioocQ-i o I 1 Q)N I^ O O • 4 [� U cccr- IN z w (�O I 1 � 1 1"�) Cw'3 N ags 1 1� PQPa w O o U � W PQ 1 oR 2 T W ¢ W W I �� �_ 194.31'_ 9 -41 1 f o31 �11700.00' 33.88' 194.33' 33-88 7025.90'ld 16 15 S 89"15'34'• E 2641)54' 15 1 I I BASIS OF BEARING 3 W. FRANKLIN ROAD R 0 5 N 0. 1 22 5 8 Page 18 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: March 18,2022) � I a E J � -rt l i_ �71 -i — •-I � I _ 6 ...e J I� �' j1 arc mod 11 e• �I Jp L 9 .y �I I y e.l 71 a IT � I I el �I I' 1L--� I I V L--__)i. r� s e' III '' '•:�'cs— d ;yam m In �. Page 20 C. Landscape Plan(dated: Mar-ehMa0,2022) � .gH p d r y �g t n •.x� � m �a �aHw � m n 0 HUM Ifij ■O s�$ X Q 43E0 W F:�4WLIN E�/E��A=o. tNG:VEER- !'Al:GLL \'-- VLyllHv.I� DER �JLIu C1vIr 23A0 W FRn NkLI1�'FCA➢ /!Lr��in•4 SL.�_R�1 VISI��� �F V2_E ❑ R;TT 11YIER --- izso:ri u��F�Lan 3c,sTE t -ise z7o AICzT.y E7TH ET 'sip ss67ao:��fe003 .A rV S.�AF� r'!.4 rV 3-SE,.L 837` B E, a 83702 ME2I3iAN, BAH 208-95C-723a 208-?42-3277 Page 21 D. Phasing Plan(dated: N4afeh 15 Mqy 30,2022) • q� ALL INFRASTRUCTURE TO BE COMPLETED VITH PHASE L aa,`a a �T •`aa DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE II VILL COINCIDE WITH THE `. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THIS VILL PROVIDE A SECONDARY FIRE ACCESS IN ADDITION TO THE r�aab ►►• TEMPORARY ENTRY ROAD AT FRANKLIN.. '►►0� a►a+� THE TEMPORARY ENTRY FROM FRANKLIN ROAD WILL NOT BE ► REMOVED UNTIL THE ROAD CONNECTION TO THE NORTH AND A • Lar1 �+ ROAD CONNECTION TO THE ASCENT SUBDIVISION AT THE EAST ARE COMPLETED, LOT 2 LOT 24 PHASE II -23 lOf 4 .._ LOT 22 PHASE I 27 BUILDING LOTS _ l6T 5 PHASE II 23 BUILDING LOTS LOT 20 STUB STREET LOr7 LOT 12 LOT 6 lAT 1H lOf 11 �6qL-OT4 LOT9 PHA ADJACENT PROPERTY LOT 17 (SWWN FOR REFERENCE) lAf 10 IOT 12 lAf 7LOT 16LOT 11 LOT 15RLOIX _ _ r r Rl1121L ROW I;ONECTIOR a W IL911•TIT SULOfY190M r.r• 1 STUN STREET LIrr 14 LOTH LOT IS PHASE 1 -7 � �• O � �• _ �` LOT IH I = a rr aQ lAf 4 Ug IT --T--- —. c� i. —• o c LOTS I I w ( ! rr Q rw■ LOT is 0 I I LOT IH lOT.3 LW 20 I I rr i LOT 2 i ,■. ( — ('� LOT21 i 1pY y w• ,� wr■ LOT 22 I I = IOT a1 I i � � C' 02 0 r v �+ —r ■ TEMPORARY ACCESS T13 ASC7ENT SURRIVISM FRANKLIN ROAD ACCESS TO FRANKLIN ROAD Page 22 E. Conceptual Building Elevations(dated: March 15,2022) 111■10 ■■Nmill I 111■11■■■■■JI IIL u■■■ ■m uruw■ 1 - __C� j Al I - ■1,,"III�'■1,, IIII�—IIII L■,, 1II ® © ] FM Fe•i � ,�j Wilm. I 1 1 u .•3}• " IIIY 11.�■ Ilrl1 1111:41711 Y.�.. =�;1 11''■1.■■■ �■J,,-IIIr71,, 1LJ [7 m-wiffi.mm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W � � ■ �11 I11 ■ ■1 11■■ i■■I�■III _ o --mo �1 1 w - L1dr - - f�'•r� . _ 7ti4 _. ti•. .F' Jv 1y2.1 ..j+J Page 23 F. Open Space Exhibit OPEN GRASSY AREA '� OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT: 5.63 ACRE"15%=36,786 SF 5,889SF QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE AREAS: STORM DRAIN AREA 11-3—B.1.c OPEN GRASSY AREAS =12,420 4,494SF 11-3—B.1.c PROTECTIVE BUFFER ON DITCH 0 11-3—B.1.e ARTERIAL BUFFER (50*: 4,116SF•50% = 2,058 11-3-8.4 PARKWAYS EXCLUDING DRIVEWAYS 18,896SF— 51485F=13,748 11-3—B.5 STORM DRAIN (11-3-8.11) = B,628 TOTAL' 36,854 PARKWAYS 18,896SF AMENITIES: 1 POINT REQUIRED BICYCLE REPAIR STATION AT CENTRAL OPEN GRASSY AREA OPEN GRASSY AREA 6,531SF _L[_J1_l111 J_L!_lJ STORM DRAIN AREA 4,134SF Y L L _ L ARTERIAL BUFFER 41163F m 50R=2058SF Page 24 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer 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 substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, and conceptual building elevations and floor plans included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein, except that phase 1 may be modified to include additional building lots on the 1-acre east le of f the project should a public road connection to W. Atomic Street occur. b. Final alignment at the north property line of the north-south local street proposed with the subject applications shall be determined at the time of the second final plat submittal to allow the Applicant flexibility to work with the adjacent developer to the north/northeast—the Applicant shall not be permitted to increase the number of buildable lots with any road alignment revisions. c. Future development of the residential units shall be generally consistent with the required design elements outlined in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP) and include second story decks on at least hag 25%of the future residential units to better comply with the design standards. d. The access to W. Franklin Road is approved as a temporary access until such time an additional public road access is available to the project site(connection to W. Aviator Street or W.Atomic Street); at that time,this access shall be closed OR converted to an emergency-only access with Fire Department approved bollards. e. No final plat shall be accepted by the City until the Annexation and Zoning ordinance and Development Agreement are executed. £ All garages shall be set back at least 16 feet behind the living area facade,per the Applicant's request and consistent with the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAPI. Preliminary Plat(PP) Conditions: 2. Apphea-at shall obtain approval from NN11D to iasta4l a mier-e pa4h thfough the eemmen lot along the eepy of the exeeu4ed lieense agfeemefft to the Plaming Division with the first final-plat submittal i square feet of additional qualified open spaee to the pr-qj eet in aeeer-d with UPC 11 3 G 3. 3. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-213-6 for the TN-R zoning district. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 5. Future development shall comply with UDC I I-3A-7 and UDC I I-3A-6 for any future fencing constructed within the development. Page 25 6. The Applicant shall obtain Administrative Design Review approval for the single-family attached units prior to building permit submittal—this shall be submitted with the first final plat application due to the inclusion of two single-family attached lots in Phase 1. 7. 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. 8. The submitted preliminary plat, dated March 15,2022, shall be revised as follows with the first final plat submittal: a. Revise the plat to include the required revisions to meet the minimum open space requirements as outlined in Condition VIII.A.2 above. 9. The submitted landscape plan, date Mar- '5 revised on May 30,2022, shall be revised prior to the first final plat submittal,unless otherwise noted: a. Depict the revisions outlined in Condition VIII.A.2. b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-3B-7C for the proposed parkways. c. Add an additional amenity to the development to include either a children's play structure or a doe nark meeting UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-3G-4 standards. d. Remove the most eepAr-al tFee shown in the eepAer-of t4e eentfalized open s-paee lot within 1=0 10. 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 11-313-14. 11. Prior to building permit submittal for any structure in each phase,the Applicant shall record the associated final plat for that phase. 12. Applicant shall remove any existing structures on the subject sites with the first phase of development. 13. Applicant shall 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. In accordance with the approved plans and UDC 11-3A-6,the Applicant shall tile the Purdam Gulch Stub Drain along the north property boundary at the time of final plat submittal for the relevant development phase. Page 26 B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. To meet the City to and through policy, developer shall be required to continue a sewer main extension from manhole SSMH C1 to the eastern property boundary and install a cleanout for future extension. 2. A fire hydrant is required at the dead end main at the north side of the subdivision due to water quality concerns. The hydrant tee should have a blind flange on the north leg,place the tee as far south of the gravity irrigation pipe as possible to allow for future crossing and vertical offset without having to remove the tee. 3. The water tee to the east near 11+00 requires two valves,with one of those valves being located on the north leg. 4. Provide a fire hydrant at the end of the 8 inch water main to the east on the south end,which shall have two valves. Configure this with a tee and blind flange for future connection. 5. It appears that water and sewer mains run through a landscaped area with a fence. This landscaping and fencing must be reconfigured so there are no permanent structures over City mains and/or easements. 6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing&Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences. Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system,nor the trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines. Standard Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water Page 27 for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner 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. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with Page 28 the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. 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.meridianciU.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT(MFD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251688&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX D. ADA COUNTY https:llweblink.meridianciU.orelWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251863&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254211&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252443&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=263133&dbid=0&repo=Meridian CitX H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255719&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX I. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258750&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E) Page 29 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; City Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN--R)zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan (TMISAP), if all conditions of approval are met. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment and request for different types of residential dwelling types will contribute to the range of housing opportunities available within the City and specifically within this area. City Council finds the proposed development is generally consistent with the purpose statement of the residential district included as part of the application. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and welfare; City Council 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 City Council 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 proposed addition of differing dwelling types within a neighborhood zoning district and the general site design, City Council finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat: 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; City Council finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the specific area plan (Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area 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; City Council 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; Page 30 — Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, City Council 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; City Council 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 V and VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, City Council is not aware of any health,safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property.ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road layout and street connections. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 31 v IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H- 2021-0070) by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Located Near the Southwest Corner of S. Linder Rd. and W. Victory Rd., Including 2365 W. Victory Rd., 3801 S. Linder Rd., and Parcels 51226142251, R0831430030, R0831430022, and R0831430010 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, E FINAL DECISION,DECISION,AND ORDER I D A H O Date of Order: June 21, 2022 Case No.: H-2021-0070 (Burnside Ridge Estates) Applicant: Kimberly-Horn and Associates, Inc. In the Matter of. Request for(1) for annexation&zoning of 121.29 acres of land from RUT in Ada County to the R-2 (11.76 acres) and R-4 (109.53) zoning districts and (2) a preliminary plat consisting of 299 total lots (275 single-family residential lots and 24 common lots) on 119.31 acres of land. Pursuant to testimony and evidence received regarding this matter at the public hearing before the Meridian City Council on June 7, 2022, as to this matter, the City Council enters the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, final decision, and order. A. Findings of Fact. The City Council finds that: 1. The facts pertaining to the 121.29 acres of land ("the Property"), the Applicant's request, and the process are set forth in the staff report for Case No. H-2021-0070, which is fully incorporated herein by reference. 2. The Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian. 3. The Applicant is requesting annexation of the Property in order to develop a residential subdivision. 4. The proposed annexation is a Category A annexation under Idaho Code section 50- 222(3)(a). 5. The Property is not located in an area that the City has prioritized for near-term growth. 6. The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on City services, including, but not limited to, public safety services. 7. The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on local roads. 8. Based on the foregoing, the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. B. Conclusions of law. The City Council concludes that: 1. The City Council takes judicial notice of Idaho Code section 50-222, which governs annexations by cities. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 1 2. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Local Land Use Planning Act ("LLUPA"), codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of the Unified Development Code of the City of Meridian(UDC), all current zoning maps, the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, and all minutes and maps concerning the priority of growth in the City of Meridian's area of city impact. 4. In order to grant an annexation and rezone, the City Council must make certain findings as delineated in UDC section 11-5B-3, including a finding that the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. UDC § 11-5B-3(E)(5). 5. Because the City Council found that the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian, the requirements set forth in UDC section 11-5B-3 have not been satisfied, and the proposed annexation shall not proceed. 6. A city's decision to deny a Category A annexation is not subject to judicial review under Idaho Code section 50-222(6). Black Labrador Investing, LLC v. Kuna City Council, 147 Idaho 92, 97, 205 P.3d 1228, 1233 (2009). 7. The purpose of the UDC is to "[c]arry out the policies of the comprehensive plan by classifying and regulating the uses of property and structures within the incorporated areas of the City of Meridian[.] UDC § 11-1-2(B) (emphasis added). Because the Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, and because the proposed annexation shall not proceed, the City Council is precluded from granting the Applicant's request for a preliminary plat. 8. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6503, the City of Meridian has properly exercised the powers conferred by LLUPA. C. Order. Pursuant to the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the City Council hereby denies Applicant's request for annexation of the Property. Further, because the Property is not located within the incorporated area of the City of Meridian, the City Council hereby denies Applicant's request for a preliminary plat. D. Final decision. Upon approval by majority vote of the City Council, this is a final decision of the governing body of the City of Meridian. E. Judicial review. Pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code section 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code section 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 2 F. Notice of right to regulatory takings analysis. Pursuant to Idaho Code sections 67-652 1(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. IT IS SO ORDERED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, on this 21 st day of June, 2022. Robert E. Simison 6-21-2022 Mayor Attest: Chris Johnson 6-21-2022 City Clerk FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,FINAL DECISION,AND ORDER Case No.H-2021-0070(Burnside Ridge Estates) Page 3 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Grayson Subdivision (H-2022-0014) by Schultz Development, LLC, Located at 1710 E. Amity Rd., Near the Northeast Corner of E. Amity Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI ' N,­ AND DECISION&ORDER a In the Matter of the Request for Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district,by Schultz Development,LLC. Case No(s). H-2022-0014 For the City Council Hearing Date of. June 7,2022 (Findings on June 21,2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022, incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Grayson Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0014) - I - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-6B-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Grayson Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0014) -2- determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11(UDC 11-513-6F). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67,Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Grayson Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0014) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of June 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-21-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 6-21-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-21-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Grayson Subdivision—FILE#H-2022-0014) -4- EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E IDIAN�. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J A H HEARING 6/7/2022 Legend �� DATE: 117'�� ElProject Location TO: Mayor&City Council ON � FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner ,:. � ��. 208-884-5533 - FR SUBJECT: H-2022-0014FFF 111 Grayson Subdivision LOCATION: Located at 1710 E.Amity Road,near the northeast corner of E. Amity Road and S.' Locust Grove Road, in the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 29,Township 3N, ��� Range 1 E. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation and Zoning of 3.39 acres from RUT to the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 15 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 3.1 acres of land in the requested R-8 zoning district,by Schultz Development, LLC. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—3.39 acres; PP—3.1 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Existing Land Uses County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 18 total lots— 15 residential building lots and 3 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 15 single-family units Density Gross—4.84;Net—7.1 Open Space (acres,total None required—Approximately 12,000 square feet [%]/buffer/qualified) proposed(half of the arterial buffer,micro-path lot, and parkways) Neighborhood meeting date December 9, 2021 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City Page 1 B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Not at this time Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,E. Grayson Street (Arterial/Collectors/State stubbed to the east property boundary; it is proposed to be extended into the Hwy/Local)(Existing and site and terminate in a hammerhead-type turnaround by encumbering a Proposed) building lot. Stub I Grayson Street is proposed to be stubbed to the west property line for future Street/Interconnectivity/Cross connectivity. Access Existing Road Network No Proposed Road The Applicant is required to extend Grayson Street into the site and dedicate Improvements additional right-of-way for a future Amity Road widening and intersection improvements at the Locust Grove and Amity intersection to the west. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.4 miles from Fire Station#4;project area will eventually be serviced by Station Fire Station 7, currently under construction. • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Station 7 is constructed,response times will be reduced in this area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 78%(below the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions but proposed design of a hammerhead-type turnaround will likely be denied by ACHD. In anticipation of this, an alternative design with an offset cul-de- sac was submitted. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Directly adjacent Services • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 4 • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Water Quality None Concerns • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 1 1 1 wu`ATn■ 10 F Mom T■1 fin■ �.nIu =� ♦ I -- 1111C ai mnw�=nu �p=n � I �11�1 �Y nn �11 - EI♦i �i_�// �..■ .*AM IT-Y��'� _ ''! ..• AN` _ plE1 •��=,111� � � ■fit � _ �i. �; l�•.i i .c IIIIIIIIII �. � C j III ��ENNNINNNN 1 w �� :i� - • - • s r � 1111111 �� '•� ' I' Noll ' 1 1 r 1 1 11 1 IN 1 EE i `` �N7 7 ■•���` _ r��1.i.in �_ �1.�.■1■ �� O■i .. i� 7■INS-.. n _ :% :'-- - Dr • • -• '• - �1 :'% � p._� -fir, nuns■nn1 - nd n■n=� n1! mn=� n.� �nnnu ul nun'1'■ ■1 n■■�■EII � N■1 •■■��■Iln- I�N.N.(�:: ■■n • , `nllli�p� I�N.N. ■nnn p.`m n��� ■■■■ �11�i � !'I.nr..i ■■■■ SIP��f— IIG�'11rA�l ii �J ,�_, ��111 :_.�._ `II�IIrA�� {,.I �__;___II,11 •'._ - ' IIIM JS Jill iiiiiiii Noll ME monsoon >s� -'ill Jill rum ��► MEN in fi nml f uml milli I► ♦ III► ♦' /1' IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 4/5/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/4/2022 5/20/2022 Site Posting 4/8/2022 5/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /g compplan) Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public services. The subject 3.1 acres currently contains a number of buildings and non-functional vehicles through the property. The property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the east and north, Estancia Subdivision. The subject site has an existing local street(E. Grayson Street)stubbed to its east property line through Estancia so the Applicant is proposing to take access from this location which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Directly to the west of the subject site is a smaller county residential parcel that would be required to take access through this site should it ever request annexation into the City. Because of this, the Applicant has included an anticipated redevelopment plan for that property on the submitted preliminary plat at the request of Staff— the dashed lines on this plat are only representative of a potential option and that property(1670 E.Amity) is not part of this application. The Applicant is proposing 15 building lots on 3.1 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 4.84 units per acre and is well within the allowable range of the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 5,489 square feet which is nearly 1,500 square feet above the minimum lot size for the requested R-8 zoning district. The adjacent Estancia Subdivision is of lower density and has larger building lots than what are proposed with this project. There are no more than 2 building lots proposed adjacent to any single existing lot along the north boundary and the Applicant has placed their drainage lot in the northeast corner of the project adjacent to two Estancia lots. Furthermore, there are 6 building lots within Estancia along the north boundary where the Applicant has proposed 7 building lots and 1 common lot with this project. Staff does not find the difference of one(1) building lot along this shared property line to be significant enough to recommend any lot count revision. Consistent with the existing Estancia development, the Applicant is proposing to continue the parkways and detached sidewalks into this development to match that design characteristic. The Applicant is also proposing a micro path at the southwest corner of the property to add a pedestrian connection to the required arterial sidewalk. Outside of the 18 feet of additional right- of-way required to be dedicated to ACHD, the Applicant is proposing the required street buffer and depicts a 5-foot detached sidewalk along Amity. The sidewalk along Amity should be constructed as a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway per the Meridian Parks Pathway Coordinator so Staff has included this revision with the future final plat application. Page 4 In addition to these elements, the proposed termination of the Grayson Street extension should be discussed. Specifically, this Applicant has proposed to stub Grayson to the west boundary as required by ACHD and the UDC but is showing a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround that encumbers a building lot, Lot 7, Block 1. Typically,ACHD has not allowed this type of turnaround in recent years, even on a temporary basis. The Fire Department and Planning Staff support the proposed design as it meets Fire requirements and does not make two future lots non- buildable for the near future. However, Staff anticipates ACHD will not approve this temporary turnaround. So, the Applicant has provided an exhibit showing Lots 7&8, Block I encumbered by an offset cul-de-sac as an alternative temporary turnaround should ACHD not allow the hammerhead. See snip below and Exhibit VII.E for this proposal: G OPTION "A" OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. Because the proposed development extends parkways and detached sidewalks and a logical site design,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval. Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed to be annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Page 5 Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.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:llwww.meridianciU.or /g compplan): The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation. "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). The proposed project offers a density similar to the Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is generally denser due to smaller lot sizes. However, this policy calls for a variety of housing products in every part of the City and the proposed plat accomplishes this without cramming incompatible building lots on the subject 3.1 acres by proposing slightly smaller lots than what exists in Estancia. "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer, police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01 G).All public utilities are available for this project site due to the existing stub street on its east boundary.Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for future Amity Road improvements. The future Fire Station 7 will place this project further within the Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this development. Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.0ID).Proposed project is extending the detached sidewalks along Grayson Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the arterial street buffer and detached sidewalk along Amity. Staff finds the proposed pedestrian facilities show compliance with this policy. "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and complementary in design and construction." (2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Estancia Subdivision to the north and east but is not maximizing the allowable density. Specifically, the north property boundary is shared with 6 existing building lots and the Applicant is proposing 7 building lots and one common lot adjacent to these 6 homes. Staff finds this difference in lot number and size to be marginal and therefore cohesive with the existing neighborhood. Furthermore, the Applicant is extending the detached sidewalks and parkways into the development and adding an additional micro path connection to Amity for better pedestrian circulation in the area. Because of the proximity of the Estancia open space and an assumption future residents would naturally utilize this existing open space area, Staff is hopeful the subject development can be made a part of the existing Estancia homeowners association to spread the maintenance cost of said open space for additional users. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a drainage lot in the northeast corner of this development which has the potential for some green space within this development. Staff recommends a small shade structure and seating area is added to this lot in order to provide some usable open space within the subject 3 acres. "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is proposing to extend Grayson Street into the site and stubbing it to the west boundary for future Page 6 connectivity to the underdeveloped county parcel at the northeast corner of Amity and Locust Grove. Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: According to GIS imagery,there appears to be a couple residential structures multiple out- buildings, and dozens of dilapidated vehicles on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via a driveway connection to E. Amity that will also be closed upon development. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 6,169 square feet and a minimum lot size of 5,489 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 4,000 square feet and minimum street frontage requirement of 40 feet by proposing lots with a minimum of 50 feet of frontage. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. However, any lot(s) encumbered by the temporary turnaround/cul-de-sac would be platted and labeled as non-buildable on the plat until such time as Grayson Street is extended to the west. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. 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 all UDC requirements except for Grayson Street being a dead-end street and greater than 500 feet in length. Per UDC 11-6C-3B.4, City Council may approve a dead-end street up to 750 in length where there is a physical barrier such as a steep slope, railroad tracks, an arterial roadway, or a large waterway that makes extension impractical. In the case of the subject site and underdeveloped county parcel to the west, the site is bordered by two arterials in Amity and Locust Grove. Furthermore, the intersection of Amity and Locust Grove just to the southwest of this development is planned for a roundabout which has specific designs and will not allow for additional connections to these arterial streets for either of these parcels. Therefore, the subject site is encumbered by a `physical barrier"as outlined in code and the project requires a City Council waiver for Grayson Street to be a dead-end street longer than 500 feet. Staff notes that the length of Grayson Street from the existing intersection in Estancia to the west boundary of the subject site is approximately 550 feet. F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval therefore Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards. The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles with field materials of lap siding and fiber cement board and differing accent materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Staff finds the conceptual elevations should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array of potential home designs for this subdivision. Furthermore, half of the proposed development has the rear of homes adjacent to Amity Road, an arterial street. In these cases, Staff includes a DA provision that the rear and/or side elevations of any two-story home incorporates articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g. Page 7 projections, recesses, step-backs,pop-outs), bays, banding,porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject arterial street. Staff has included this provision as noted. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via extension of E. Grayson Street(an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site at the west boundary for future connectivity.As discussed above,the Applicant is proposing to provide a temporary hammerhead-type turnaround instead of a temporary cul-de-sac. Staff supports this temporary turnaround design in order to save space and minimize the waste of asphalt within this development but anticipates ACHD will not approve this type of temporary turnaround.If ACHD does not approve the hammerhead design as recommended by Staff,the applicant shall restrict Lots 7 and 8 as non-buildable lots as proposed and place a note on the final plat stating these lots will be developable with the extension of the public street. Further,according to the proposed plat,Grayson is proposed as 33-foot wide local street with 5- foot detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways;this street design complies with all UDC standards. 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 single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In addition,there is opportunity for on-street parking where there are no driveways because Grayson is proposed as a 33-foot wide street section. The submitted landscape plan best shows the areas within the development where on-street parking could occur(see Exhibit VII.C). I. Sidewalks/Parkways(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks and 8-foot wide parkways are proposed along the E. Grayson Street extension,consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The proposed parkways meet the minimum width requirement but do not show the correct number of trees per UDC 11-3B-7. Further analysis is in the Landscaping section below. J. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8): Per the Pathways Coordinator and the Master Pathways Plan, a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the E.Amity Road frontage. This required pathway should be located within the required landscape buffer and outside of the ACHD right-of-way. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path within a 15-foot wide common lot in the southwest corner of the project to provide a connection from the internal sidewalks to the pedestrian network along Amity. The Applicant has proposed a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the Amity Road street buffer which does not comply with this requirement. Therefore, Staff is including a condition of approval for the Applicant to revise the landscape plans to depict the required regional pathway within this buffer. Furthermore, this pathway should be at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25 foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right- of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC 11-3B-7C.Ia. The proposed micro path and common lot comply with UDC standards. Further, the proposed landscaping within this lot also comply with the minimum UDC requirements. Page 8 K. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along E.Amity Road, an arterial street, landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. In addition,the proposed parkways are required to be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7 and the proposed micro-path is required to comply with the landscape requirements in UDC 11-3B-12. The Applicant is showing a 25 foot wide common lot with 16 trees, multiple landscape beds, and other vegetative ground cover along E.Amity; this proposed landscaping complies with UDC requirements. The micro path lot is 15 feet wide and is depicted with two (2) trees which exceeds the minimum ratio in code of 1 tree per 100 linear feet as the pathway lot is approximately 100 feet long. As noted above, the proposed 8-foot wide parkways do not appear to depict the correct number of street trees. Each parkway is approximately 420 feet long which requires a minimum of 12 trees on each side of Grayson Street. The submitted landscape plans depict 8 trees within each parkway so an additional four(4) trees are needed on each side of the street. Staff is including a condition of approval consistent with this requirement. NOTE: In lieu of analyzing the common open space in a specific section because the project is below the 5 acre minimum to require common open space, Staff has analyzed this within the Comprehensive Plan analysis in Section V.A and V.B above.Within this analysis, Staff recommended a seating area be added to the drainage common lot in the northeast corner of the site for the purpose of providing some passive open space component to the development. Staff has included a condition of approval consistent with this analysis. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. The Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl fencing along the rear lot lines adjacent the Amity Road landscape buffer and the subdivision boundary and is proposing 6-foot tall steel tub fencing on the west property line of Lot 8,Block 2 adjacent to the micro-path common lot. In addition,the Applicant is proposing to protect the existing 6-foot tall wood fence along the north property line. The proposed fencing meets or exceeds all UDC requirements. Staff notes, the proposed steel tube fencing along the micro path lot is not required by code because the micro path is one (1) lot deep and is fully visible from a public street. Per UDC I I- 3A-7, 6-foot tall privacy fencing is allowed on both sides of this micro path if the Applicant or future homeowner desires it. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section V111 of this report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 28, 2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Matt Schultz,Applicant; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting: Matt Schultz; d. Written testimony: None Page 9 e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission. a. Location of existing cell tower(not located on subject propertyt b. Will open space be shared with adjacent and existing subdivision to the east,both proposed open space lot in this project and open space lot in Estancia Sub. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. The Meridian City Council heard these items on June 7,2022.At the public hearing.the Council moved to approve the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Matt Schultz.Applicant. b. In opposition: None C. Commenting: Matt Schultz: d. Written testimony: Concerns over existing fence along shared boundary at north property line of subject site as well as concerns over losing a view looking south. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. Is Applicant goingplace the fence along the shared northern boundary—Applicant agreed to replace the fence segments that are in need of replacing=: b. The encumbrance of two lots for the temporary turnaround allow the project to move forward. 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation: a. None Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map ID5G IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570 Fax: (208)884-5399 Grayson Subdivision City of Meridian Annexation Description Project Number 21-547 February 10,2021 Situated in the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a brass cap marking the southwest corner of Section 29,Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian,which bears SOO°30'07"W,2651.95 feet from the west quarter-section corner of Section 29; Thence S89143'41"E,238.00 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the Point of Beginning: Thence N00°27'04"W,350.30 feet to the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision as filed in Book 97 of Plats at Pages 12,189 through 12,194,records of Ada County, Idaho; Thence S89°44'09"E,421.65 feet along the south boundary of Estancia Subdivision; Thence S00'30'07"E,350.36 feet along the west boundary of Estancia Subdivision to the south line of Section 29; Thence N89'43'41"W,421.96 feet along the south line of Section 29 to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above-described parcel contains 3.39 acres,more or less. ANC SG 1,3 4 OF Page 11 to cnP :� PROF � o Basis of Bearings o �. ___ S00'30'07"E 2651.95' __� �•� S. Locust Grove Rd. Ln i— 0C) N I tND o W ao N w m 4�- o Unplatted 0 Cog 3 o I N00'27'04"W 350.30' G) Cn - C D o 0 ;q Q. M 0 0 Z Co A Co J a o w a o C.J - m m � �\ O cy my " - � fTl-tOP {L �°\ m Dj j n\� y Mio o C � [ J N \ 6) cD a C11 3 a � 1p m w A O S o � a N -1 7 1 a I 500'30'07"EI 356.36' a� p' � a 7 <:g I O W N °c n� CD O rn Co Q 7 O O l a T Q I N (A a I o S. Alma Ave. Z 0 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/17/2022) PRELIMINARY-LAT 51-10'N1NG GRAYSON SUBDIVISION LADAA COUNTY 7MER�o AN, IDAHO FEBRl1ARY,2 2022 (9 a F s a� Ek I - ° �zo RM Kim Wn- I, 33'TYPICAL STREET SECTION WIT- . n. .u.. w - T_ T fun m, I o ����1®� �asanrEvR Ti �� ,YuR �r aw"Kp— �eem € a e u�nx'i�w a°94 2 mw.eue �e s P1.0 Page 13 MAW AEEL,EI15E OM S ALIi4 ME YARIE7EI L PAGE keDI M.D 93042 49%5 DENISIM ME REFIDWI,ID 8 2 CEHMVE71i OIRA L DW Rg■ALL i I RECHER 9R1'N1 4IN]IEi SHERRI A CMH IMR 1015 1 AREL IR,.1'E ML9f$f 101 E MWLYF Sr 1725 E DAUL9i Sf 1743 E MLEY Si 1751 E DWAN SE �'R i�PIRfl1 IM E DRIM Si YFidW, Ril42 MORIDOL 10 13M YEREIRN,ID S3RA2 WMDIAR•ID B3642 AERCIAM,p mm 1x A 0 11056442 L Dft u s 2 DOWN JOHN 11R91i'f191 421.53' 4M 5&uA AVE -- MEMID141,ID&M42 71A,' J A 60or --dSR � 56.G / SOA' DUNG 6`P AAW 0.1� !L0%I 1 4 �/��x/�_ 415'g 7 4 O O 1 mm BNIVI Alp SF ,Q u4 4711 8 NLN AYE 1 21 AC MW SF "71 SF - 6An SF 035 SF _ 1477 5F " MEMM%ID 0 0.14 At 0.14 AC 0.1i At (W At: 0.14 AL .m r7 lUFN--A I 7'9Ll NNk u J 1 IXGMG R'PI WH TFi)AAAS PA4L A — --- — -- --L— —1� --J 771 kR--lfl --L— — 1 1670 E AWRY RD R0.b' SG i5_ . 11 YEFIoIa.ID 83541 0 — E CAA'S0N py — 5 --T— —T-- —� = =— �*-- —� — —r --1-- 1677 5F `'� L 2 WFA LA FMW)Hr � P114 AC •S1IM SF o� 7� 71K7 SF w SF 3"1 SF 5'm SF � -9 cm SF IgrsF30v1 s1EEvaEA 1 NKMER ASC A0 4 L12 AL - 2 AC 0.1E I m 1112 AC AO m 0.12 AC 0.12 AC ce 0.13 AL 1913 E CRR730Y Sf 1847 E GRA150M b c o $ &' 8 $ IE]IM*D d3642 MERIRRR7.IR&W 9 ^x61t O 7 Cl 1.R' SOLI SD.D' 10 M=9f 4GOE 2 • ¢~ •g A24 ABC g,E _ :mtr4Y4tY 4ztsf ICi� � d3 ■ EX M 12 1AA1E4 111N EP � EP Page 14 C. Landscape Plans(date: 3/9/2022) ......... iV-1d),HVNILNI-17]6d -i -138d Cd AiIAV 3 O�Zl NOISIAi(isnS NOSE NVId 3dVOSONVI AHVNIVII K C9 alNVIGIH-IIN tq A M a — , " NU N PU p, U v A�, Lu .U-,c.-I uM 2 LU2 of *`4q:L7Lj pN jrR;i z MUM uh z ,k ",%Jn'A� 44, z 7�, Lu w -�4 LU z 2 Lj _j5 4 i cc) P: I LU -0 N ,imm "i, ,�,j IL IL EL V uj-9 iNiR F LL cc < F- Ogg z Lu 0 T Y mm, P: Q Er V, Page 15 IRRIGATION NOTES: PROJECT CALLOUT LEGEND LANDSCAPE LEGEND INFORMATION Vvo may, == --------------- M o xnlo w s.unn reaw..s O7 - -,•r_a raeE� — rizsrtsLoa TntL�rrcL�x!R snnms �o�anrartoa ,slo w 6 rn wcw.F. E rz Oe rwrs Fare om is sr 1� w� r nF na V////AI �Fm _.c«Ibl,wueh-Ic—1 urvs5,nN.vwe c�.c,v.Lw,.1 1 �J Nl1i A�trrxra<Ar<cr va�. /. " L _ K � J 1 � r � e 4�+1 .4+` —AO EST GRAYSON m 3 t 3 �h E O� 5 .3: 0 3 9 �m o s ws u Po 3 �ro 6 as x C B — — E AMITY RD T PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN ^` x Page 16 D. Conceptual Building Elevations REEPPErEw— ■rr rani�ir■■I �,-1L7 �� ...... ...... ...... ...... WOOL I JIwwluW111I �I MEN SEEN vw, I T F Page 17 a Photo Similar _ _ 4640 Ii, aim � �'■ Ak- a A J TLitI 1 R 'n Page 18 E. Temporary Turnaround Options—West terminus of E. Grayson Street extension o O O OPTION "A" OPTION "B" 48' RADIUS TEMP PAVEMENT E GRAYSON ST. 0 0 Page 19 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS A. PLANNING DIVISION 1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer 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 substantially consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from E. Amity Road(Lots 1-8,Block 2) shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation (e.g.projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies, material types,or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are exempt from this requirement. c. A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The applicant is seeking a Council waiver for E. Grayson Street to be a dead-end street greater than 500 feet in length,per UDC 11-6C-3BA. 3. Per Exhibit VILE attached hereto, E. Grayson Street shall terminate along the west property boundary as either a temporary cul-de-sac or hammerhead type turnaround—if a hammerhead type turnaround is approved by ACHD, Lot 7,Block 1 shall be a non-buildable lot until such time as Grayson is further extended; if a cul-de-sac turnaround is required,Lots 7 & 8, Block 1 shall be non-buildable lots until such time as Grayson is further extended. 4. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 17,2022,is approved as submitted. 5. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 9,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict the correct number of street trees within the parkway per UDC 11-3B-7. b. Add seating and a shade structure within the drainage common lot(Lot 1, Block 1). c. Depict the required 10-foot wide regional pathway within the Amity Road landscape buffer and place it at least four(4)feet north of the ultimate right-of-way line to allow for landscaping on both sides of the pathway and ensure the pathway is detached from the roadway and allow the 25-foot buffer to be measured from the ultimate right-of-way instead of the back of the pathway,per UDC 11-3B-7C.Ia. d. Common Lot 1,Block 1 shall meet minimum standards in UDC 11-313-11. e. Common Lot 9,Block 2 shall be landscaped as proposed. Page 20 6. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 7. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. 8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 9. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1I- 3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 10. 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. 11. 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 11-613-7. B. PUBLIC WORKS Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. The walking path from the proposed development to Amity Road will require a 20-foot-wide water main easement,which shall be free from any permanent structures or encumbrances. 2. Relocate the fire hydrant at the west end of the site so it is located at the furthest east property boundary line. The line serving this hydrant shall be 8" diameter; this hydrant will be used as a blow-off until future extension of the main occurs. 3. Minimum slope for a dead-end sewer main is 0.6%. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting,LLC indicates some very specific construction considerations. The applicant shall be responsible for the adherence of these recommendations. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked Page 21 EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x I I"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed,and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner 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. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. Page 22 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an 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. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at htip://www.meridianciiy.orgzpublic works.aspx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255656&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky D. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT-PATHWAYS https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255690&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky E. MERIDIAN PARKS DEPARTMENT—TREE MITIGATION https:llweblink.meridianciV.orelWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ky F. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:11web1ink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255804&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr--1 Page 23 G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https://weblink.meridianciV.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=256396&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC ity H. NAMPA/MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=258 729&dbid=0&repo=Meridian C i &cr=1 I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) Xe staff repart at this tint https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=260206&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; City Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-8 zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design 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; City Council finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; City Council 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 City Council 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. City Council 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: Page 24 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed plat 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; City Council 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, City Council 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; City Council 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, City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 25 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Ferney Subdivision (H-2021-0103) by Engineering Solutions, LLP, Located at Parcel #S1109438871, Near the Half-Mile Mark on the North Side of E. Franklin Rd., Between S. Eagle Rd. and S. Cloverdale Rd. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW C�f[EFI DIAN:-~' AND DECISION&ORDER In the Matter of the Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of two(2)building lots on 4.93 acres of land in the requested I-L zoning district,by Franklin Storage,LLC. Case No(s).H-2021-0103 For the City Council Hearing Date of: June 7, 2022(Findings on June 21,2022) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7, 2022,incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022, incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified as Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 17,2019,Resolution No. 19-2179 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision,which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Ferney Subdivision—FILE#H-2021-0103) - 1 - 7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's request for Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022,attached as Exhibit A. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two(2)years of the approval of the preliminary plat or the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat(UDC 11-6B-7A). In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of two(2)years,may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval(UDC 11-6B-7B). Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A,the Director may authorize a single extension of time to obtain the City Engineer's signature on the final plat not to exceed two(2)years. Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension,the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again(UDC 1I- 6B-7C). Notice of Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-5B-6.G.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1)two(2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two (2)years as FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Ferney Subdivision—FILE#H-2021-0103) -2- determined and approved by the City Council may be granted. With all extensions,the Director or City Council may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11(UDC 11-513-6F). Notice of Development Agreement Duration The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request. A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the modification. A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval period. E. Judicial Review Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d),if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight (28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as provided by chapter 52,title 67,Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA. F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory takings analysis. G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of June 7,2022. FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Ferney Subdivision—FILE#H-2021-0103) -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 21 st day of June 2022. COUNCIL PRESIDENT BRAD HOAGLUN VOTED COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LUKE CAVENER VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER LIZ STRADER VOTED MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-21-2022 Attest: Chris Johnson 6-21-2022 City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 6-21-2022 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER FOR(Ferney Subdivision—FILE#H-2021-0103) -4- EXHIBIT A STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY N -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 6/7/2022 Legend DATE: Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner 208-884-5533 ------ SUBJECT: H-2021-0103 L Ferney Subdivision ID llJ ,.--� LOCATION: The site is located near the half mile mark on the north side of E. Franklin Road,between S.Eagle Road and S. ® '' Cloverdale Road,in the SW '/4 of the SE r m' '/4 of Section 9,Township 3N.,Range 1E. -=- 029�.m°'� I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 5.64 acres with a request for the I-L zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of two (2)building lots on 4.93 acres of land in the requested I-L zoning district. NOTE: The Applicant is seeking a Council Waiver to reduce a required landscape use buffer per the specific use standards for the proposed use of self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4-3-34). Analysis is provided throughout the report below. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—5.64 acres;PP—5.143 acres Future Land Use Designation General Industrial Existing Land Use Vacant Proposed Land Use(s) Future self-storage facility and Flex Space building Current Zoning RUT in Ada County Proposed Zoning I-L Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 2 industrial building lots Physical Features(waterways, Evans Drain runs along norther boundary of property hazards,flood plain,hillside) (minimal flood hazard). Neighborhood meeting date November 22,2021 History(previous approvals) Subject site was denied annexation and zoning approval in 2020(H-2020-0033)because no development plan accompanied annexation request but the Applicant withdrew the application before Findings of Denial were approved by the Council. Page 1 B. Community Metrics Description Details Pa e Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two(2)driveway accesses to Franklin Rd. currently exist; Hwy/Local)(Existing and Main access will be provided via proposed extension of E. Proposed) Lanark St(an industrial collector roadway)and one emergency-only access is proposed to Franklin to comply with code. Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross E.Lanark is proposed to be stubbed to eastern property Access boundary with attached sidewalks. See analysis in Section V below for more information. Existing Road Network W.Franklin Road is built to its ultimate configuration. 5- travel lanes,bike lanes,curb,gutter and detached sidewalk. Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ There is existing attached sidewalk.A landscape buffer is Buffers required along Franklin frontage. Fire Service • Distance to Fire Station Approximately 2 miles from Fire Station#1 • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes • Resource Reliability Fire Station#4 reliability is 76%(below the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths,and turnaround dimensions. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent • Project Consistent with Yes WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Water • Distance to Services Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 5 - • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan • Water Quality Concerns None • Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 C. Project Area Maps Future Land Use Map Aerial Map 0 Legend Project Location Project Location MU-R,Gs": General Civic Industrial - Lul �4 L�STK Commercial - - MU-C Office a . Zoning Map Planned Development Map Legend R=4 �.. R=B e A- Legend � � 0 R-1 T Project Location 0El Project Location I y City Limits IJ L-O Planned Parcels ; L-O I-L M-1 T ' C-G L=F� Ml _ Rll� t� C-ICIaaL-O M-1 ' �J -2 R L-+ ao � L-O A �m IIL APPLICANT INFORMATION A. Applicant/Representative: Becky McKay,Engineering Solutions,LLP— 1029 N. Rosario Street,Meridian,ID 83642 B. Owner/Developer: Greg Ferney,Franklin Storage,LLC—4549 N. Mackenzie Lane, Boise, ID 83703 C. Contact: Same as Applicant Representative Page 3 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper notification published 4/19/2022 5/22/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 4/18/2022 5/20/2022 Public hearing notice sign posted 4/25/2022 5/25/2022 Nextdoor posting 4/18/2022 5/18/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan) General Industrial—This designation allows a range of uses that support industrial and commercial activities. Industrial uses may include warehouses, storage units, light manufacturing, flex, and incidental retail and offices uses. In some cases,uses may include processing, manufacturing,warehouses, storage units,and industrial support activities. Sample zoning include: I-L and I-H. The subject property is noted as Industrial on the future land use map (FL UM) and shares this designation with multiple properties to the east and west along the north side of Franklin Road. The Applicant is proposing to annex the property into the City with the I-L zoning district and propose two different uses on the property, self-storage and flex space—both of these uses are listed above as anticipated uses in this designation and the proposal for the I-L zoning district complies with the industrial future land use designation. The subject property has a planned extension of an industrial collector street(E. Lanark) that will bisect the property into two parcels which accounts for the main reason a preliminary plat is required and was submitted. According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is proposing the self- storage buildings on the front parcel(approximately 2.89 acres) and a flex space building on the back parcel along the railroad corridor(approximately 1.75 acres). Further analysis on the proposed uses are in subsequent sections below. In terms of nearby and adjacent development, there is existing industrial zoning to the west with developing flex and other industrial type buildings. The parcel directly abutting to the east is still a county RUT parcel that contains a single-family residence and still maintains some farm animals. Directly east of the county parcel is an ACHD facility that is currently under construction. Therefore, the county parcel to the east would be surrounded by industrial uses until such time that parcel redevelops. Because of the existing residential use to the east, this Applicant is required to provide a landscape buffer to that use. Staff has had conversations with that homeowner and they anticipate selling the property in the next five (5)years once their parents decide to leave that home. The applicant is seeking a Council waiver to reduce the buffer along the parcel as the City anticipates this property will redevelop with industrial uses in the future. Based on the proposed uses and plat,Staff finds the subject development to be consistent with the comprehensive plan. Specific policies are analyzed below in the next section. The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.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 VIII.A1. 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 Page 4 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.orglcompplan): Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies are applicable to this development; Staff analysis is in italics: "Plan for industrial areas with convenient access to state highways or the rail corridor,where appropriate."(3.06.02D). The subject property abuts the railroad corridor along its north boundary. The subject development preserves this property as an industrial use along the rail corridor despite not utilizing that service at this time. Staff finds the most important factor being that this development does not eliminate that option nor proposes a use that is non-compatible with the rail corridor. "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).As noted above, the Applicant is required to provide a landscape buffer along the east property boundary as an existing county residence is present on the parcel directly to the east. This is a requirement of the specific use standards for the proposed self-storage use;specifically, that the use is required to be wholly enclosed which should help minimize the impact to the existing homeowner. The Applicant is depicting a buffer along this entire boundary but is proposing a reduced buffer width because the property to the east is anticipated to be redeveloped with an industrial use similar to what exists in this area. Within the reduced buffer, the Applicant appears to depict code compliant landscaping and elevated building design facing the existing residence. To help ensure this buffer closest to the existing residence(the southern quarter of the site) provides adequate screening, Staff is recommending the Applicant include additional trees for the first ISO feet of this buffer to show the trees touching at maturity. Staff believes with this additional landscaping, the proposed development offers compatible site design, buffering, and screening to the existing development to the east. "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 the existing network abutting the site to the west and south, per Public Works comments. Subsequently, all public utilities will be extended at the Applicant's expense in order to connect to the existing services within the right-of-way. Further, the site is within the Fire Department response time goal of 5-minutes. Franklin Road is widened to its ultimate width in this location adjacent to the site and the Applicant is required to extend Lanark Street through the site to its east boundary. The subject development is only allowed an emergency access to Franklin because access to Lanark will be available. The required access to the public street network helps appropriately disperse vehicle trips for the subject site and the nearby uses as well. "Preserve the industrial base within designated industrial land use areas by discouraging non- industrial uses and focusing on light manufacturing, distribution, flex-space, and base- employment." (3.07.01D). The subject development does not propose non-industrial uses by proposing self-storage and flex space which are uses supported by the future land use designation as a whole and by this specific policy. "Require appropriate landscaping,buffers,and noise mitigation with new development along transportation corridors(setback,vegetation, low walls,berms, etc.)."(3.07.01 Q.As noted above, the Applicant is required to provide landscaping adjacent to the existing residence to the east but additionally the Applicant is required to provide a 35 foot landscape buffer along Franklin, an entryway corridor. Furthermore, the required E.Lanark extension is a collector Page 5 roadway which requires a minimum 20 foot landscape buffer with detached sidewalks. The Applicant is depicting both of these buffers and, as shown, should provide noise mitigation and buffer the transportation corridors from the proposed development. With the recommended revisions,Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. C. Annexation: The Applicant is proposing to annex approximately 5.64 acres of land which is larger than the property size of 4.93 acres. This discrepancy is due to the Applicant being required to annex land to the centerline of adjacent right-of-way. In this case,this area includes Franklin Road right-of- way south of the property and railroad right-of-way north of the property. With previous applications north of the subject site,Applicants did not annex to the centerline of the railroad right-of-way which was a mistake and the City did not catch it. In light of this, Staff is asking the Applicant to revise their annexation and zoning request to include the full railroad right-of-way instead of just to the centerline. Staff has included this comment within the conditions of approval. D. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Main access to the project is proposed via two driveway connections to the extension of E. Lanark, an industrial collector street.According to the submitted plat that depicts the proposed layouts for each use, each property is proposed to have one driveway connection to Lanark in alignment with each other located approximately 45 feet west of the east property line(measured from property line to center of driveways).No other access is proposed for the flex building on the north property. The south property containing the self-storage use is proposed to have an emergency only-access to Franklin Road; a secondary access is required to satisfy the specific use standards of the proposed use. Lanark is stubbed to the subject property's west boundary and is required to be extended into and through the property. Lanark is not able to be extended further than the subject property so the Applicant is required to terminate Lanark in a temporary cul-de- sac near the east boundary, according to the ACHD staff report. However, because the timeline of extension is not known and temporary cul-de-sacs require a large amount of area, the Applicant has proposed an alternative temporary turnaround by incorporating the needed space for a hammerhead type turnaround within the Lanark right-of- way and the driveways proposed to Lanark. This alternative was proposed after the ACHD staff report was issued so Staff is not aware ifACHD will approve this alternative. The Applicant should continue working with ACHD on the type of temporary turnaround allowed. The Meridian Deputy Fire Chief have given their approval of the alternative temporary turnaround shown on the submitted plat with the requirement that Lanark be signed "no parking"on both sides; the Applicant has agreed to this. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed alternative to be sufficient for approval by the City but understands revisions may occur to satisfy ACHD. These revisions would not affect the layout but would only increase the amount of asphalt on the property. Because the Applicant has to obtain final approval from ACHD on the proposed alternative turnaround and Staff includes a general provision to comply with ACHD conditions of approval, Page 6 Staff does not find it necessary to include a specific condition as part of this application and will confirm the outcome of the temporary turnaround at the time of final plat submittal. No other accesses are proposed or required with the submitted plat or proposed uses and each access complies with UDC requirements. E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements: No existing structures or site improvement appear to be present on the subject site. Two curb cuts exist to Franklin Road and both are proposed to be removed in lieu of the emergency access to Franklin for the proposed self-storage use. The Applicant is required to construct vertical curb, gutter,and repair any sidewalk while closing the two existing curb cuts. F. Proposed Use Analysis: The Applicant is proposing two industrial type uses, self-storage and flex space. Both uses are permitted use in the requested I-L zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2C-2. Self-service Storage Facilities are subject to specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-34 and Flex Space is subject to the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-18. Although self-storage is an anticipated use on the subject property, Staff has expressed that more flex space and less storage is preferred in order to help provide more employment opportunities and contribute to the overall need of flex space in the Valley. Commission and Council should also determine if the proposed mix of uses is preferred by the City. According to the submitted plans,Staff finds the proposed self-service storage facility complies with all specific use standard except for the requirement to screen the property and the minimum 25 foot buffer to any residential use.It is unclear on the submitted plans whether any fencing is proposed. The Applicant should clarify this and provide an exhibit showing the type of fencing/wall proposed to satisfy this requirement.As noted above, the Applicant is proposing a 15 foot buffer adjacent to the residential use along the east boundary. Reducing a landscape use buffer requires a City Council waiver and is not eligible for Alternative Compliance,per UDC 11-5B-5.According to the resident's child to the east, it is not anticipated for their parents to be in this location long-term and this property is also shown as industrial on the future land use map.Staff is recommending denser landscaping is proposed along the first I50 feet of this buffer measured from the back of the required street buffer(185 feet from back of sidewalk). Further, the Applicant is required to provide a solid fence/wall to satisfy the specific use standards. With Staffs recommendation, the specific use standards, and the fact the property to the east is planned to be an industrial zoned property,Staff is supportive of the reduced buffer. Future development applications that show the floor plan of the proposed flex building will determine compliance with the flex space specific use standards in UDC 11-4-3-18. Staff typically verifies code compliance for flex space buildings at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC)which is a required approval prior to submitting for building permits. Staff notes, all buildings on the subject property will be required to obtain CZC and Design Review approval prior to building permit submittal. G. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed building lots meet all UDC dimensional standards for the requested I-L zoning district for setbacks,building height, and proposed use. All subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). This applies to the subject development because a preliminary plat was submitted. Staff finds the proposed plat complies with the standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3. Page 7 H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11- 3C-6B for nonresidential buildings based on the gross floor area of the flex building and the area of the office for the self-storage facility at the ratio of 1 space per 2,000 square feet. Staff will confirm code compliance with this code section at the time of CZC and Design Review submittal. However, initial review of the submitted landscape plan depict parking in excess of code requirements on each site and for both uses. I. Sidewalks&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17& UDC 11-3A-8): 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along the E. Lanark Street extension per UDC 11- 3A-17C. There is existing 7-foot attached sidewalk along the Franklin Road frontage that is proposed to remain. The proposed sidewalks comply with UDC requirements and the existing sidewalk along Franklin is required to be maintained or repaired should it sustain damage during construction. A multi-use pathway segment is shown within the railroad corridor north of the subject property. Per the Meridian Parks Department,the City is requiring a 14-foot wide pedestrian easement along the north property boundary for the preservation of a potential regional pathway segment along the rail corridor consistent with the Master Pathways Plan.According to the submitted plat, the Applicant is showing the required 14 foot easement along the north property line. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A minimum 35-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Franklin Road, an arterial street and labeled as an entryway corridor. This buffer is required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. According to the submitted plat and landscape plans, a minimum 35- foot landscape easement is depicted adjacent to Franklin,measured from the back of sidewalk. The submitted landscape plans confirm the minimum width of the landscape buffer but do not appear to show code compliant vegetation. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, no more than 65%of the landscape buffer area shall be comprised ofgrasses and additional landscape design is required along entryway corridors. Therefore, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet UDC standards. For example, as outlined in code, landscape features may include berms of no less than four to one (4:1)slope at a three- foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls (no greater than three (3)feet in height), decorative open vision fencing(no greater than four(4)feet in height), or a dry creek design with river rock, boulders, etc. are acceptable to meet this standard. Staff has included a condition of approval to comply with this standard. However, there are existing power poles along the Franklin frontage so the Applicant will be limited to Class I trees only; this does not preclude the Applicant from meeting the maximum ground cover percentage noted above. A 20-foot wide landscape buffer is required on both sides of the E. Lanark Street extension,an industrial collector street—the submitted plat depicts at least a 20 feet wide easement on both sides of this road extension measured from approximately the middle of the detached sidewalk. Therefore,the parkway strips between the sidewalks and back of curb for Lanark are not shown as part of the landscape easement. Staff has concerns with the parkways strips not being included within the landscape buffer easements along Lanark and the lack of any vegetation shown within these parkways on the submitted landscape plans. Staff recommends the landscape buffer easement be extended to the back of curb to comply with the UDC and to revise the landscape plans to show additional grasses within the parkway strip. Further, the landscape buffers along Lanark do not show the required vegetative ground cover, similar to the Franklin buffer. Therefore, Staff is also including Page 8 a condition of approval to add additional vegetative ground cover beyond grass to comply with UDC 11-3B-7C.3. K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and those areas applicable to the specific use standards for the proposed self-service storage facility(UDC 11-4- 3-34). No fencing is shown on the submitted landscape plan but fencing is required per the specific use standards for the proposed self-service storage facility use adjacent to the existing residential use to the east. Staff is including a condition of approval to include code compliant fencing along the entire east property boundary. L. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual): The applicant has submitted conceptual elevations of the proposed storage buildings and flex space building. All new nonresidential buildings require Administrative Design Review(DES) approval prior to building permit submittal. DES was not submitted concurrently with these applications so the Applicant will be required to submit for this with the future Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) application. The conceptual elevations submitted depict 17 foot tall storage buildings at their highest and a 21 foot tall flex building. The storage buildings vary in overall size but appear to show varying roof profiles and finish materials facing relevant areas (roadways and the residence to the east). However, it is not entirely clear if the paneling shown facing the residence is metal or otherwise, metal paneling will not be allowed as a future field material. Overall, Stafffinds the conceptual elevations should comply with the relevant standards but will review it in more detail at the time of CZC and Design Review submittal. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6): The Evans Drain runs along the north property line with a majority of its easement on the subject property.No floodplain exists on the subject site nor along the Evans Drain in the vicinity. According to the submitted plat,this drain is proposed to be piped compliant with UDC 11-3A-6. Because this area of the plat is adjacent to a vehicular use area around the Flex building, parking lot landscaping is required per UDC 11-3B-8 and should include trees and other vegetative ground cover. The submitted landscape plans do not depict any trees within this area as the irrigation easement does not allow trees. Further, the Applicant will need to obtain a license agreement with the irrigation district in order to construct what is shown on the landscape plans. Staff does not find what is proposed on the landscape plans to comply with the minimum code requirements discussed. The Applicant should submit for Alternative Compliance with the future final plat to propose an equal or superior means of complying the landscaping outlined in UDC 11-3B-8 within or adjacent to the Evans Drain easement. VI. DECISION A. Staff: Staff recommends approval of the Applicant's request for annexation&zoning with the requirement of a Development Agreement and the preliminary plat request with the conditions noted in Section VIILA per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. Page 9 B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on May 5,2022.At the public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of Commission public hearing_ a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative; Jeff Hatch,Applicant Architect; b. In opposition:None C. Commenting. Becky Mckay; Jeff Hatch; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony a. Support of project and synopsis of previous application in 2020—by Jeff Hatch 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission: a. Applicant's request to reduce landscape buffer to the east and discussion on landscaping along Franklin that needs to be revised to meet code. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. None 5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None of the revised plans have been submitted consistent with the conditions of approval. C. The Meridian Citv Council heard these items on June 7,2022.At the public hearing,the Council moved to approve the subject Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests. 1. Summary of the City Council public hearing: a. In favor: Becky McKay,Applicant Representative: Greg Ferney,Applicant. b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Becky McKay. d. Written testimony.None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: None 2. Key issue(s)of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by City Council: a. None 4. City Council change(s)to Commission recommendation. a. Council approved the Applicant's waiver request for the reduced buffer along the east rope Page 10 VIL EXHIBITS A. Annexation&Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map ACCURATE _�`�'� SURVEYING & MAPPING XFRVICE Job No.19-274 Land Description Annexation/Rezone A parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North,Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the found aluminum cap monument at the Quarter Corner common to Sections 9 and 16,T3N,R1E as perpetuated by document 113006165,Records of Ada County,from which the found aluminum cap monument at the corner common to Sections 9,10,15 and 16, T3N,R1E as perpetuated by document 11084522,Records of Ada County bears 5 89'20'44"E a distance of 2702.61 feet;thence S 89'20'44"E along the section line for a distance of 639.62 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence N 00'34'57"E for a distance of 1148.13 feet to the centerline of the railroad right-of- way; Thence S 88"27'42"E along said centerline for a distance of 214.12 feet; Thence S 00'34'S5"W for a distance of 1144.83 feet to the section line; Thence N 89'20'44"W along said line for a distance of 214.10 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel contains 5.635 acres,more or less. ND 15 � O 11463 yAreoxvo"" t A�AN J.DAB i 1520 W.Washington St., Boise,ID 83702•Phone.200-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com Page 11 EXHIBIT MAP ANNEXA77ON AND REZONE FOR HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE A POR77ON OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SEC77ON 9, T.3N., R.1E., B.M. COUNTY OF ADA—STATE OF IDAHO _ S 88'2742'E -T RAILROAD o 214.12' Ct o o RIGHT—OF—WAY O ROW ~ROW ROW ROW�- BASIS OF BEARING S 89 20'44" E BETWEEN FOUND MONUMENTS AT THE THE SOUTH 114 CORNER AND SOUTHEAST SCALE: 1"=200' CORNER OF SECTION 9 COMMON TO SECTIONS 9 & 16. LEGEND ANNEX AND REZONE BOUNDARY LINE PARCEL LINE Row RIGHT-OF-WAY W - - - SEC77ON LINE FOUND ALUMINUM CAP z N $ Q IN ASPHALT Q o nj Q • FOUND 518'IRON PIN, WITH PLAS77C CAP, PLS 7861 OM OR AS NOTED (Ll o o 0 FOUND 112" IRON PIN, WITH � 51109438871 WITH PLAS77C CAP, PLS 7881 LINE TABLE 224,0441 S.F. O SET 518'IRON PIN NTH 5.143f AC. 2'ALUMINUM CAP, PLS 12720 LINE BEARING DISTANCE A CALCULATED POINT L1 IS 00.34 57 W 42.00 L2 IN 00'34 55 E 42.00 114 CORNER SECTION CORNER CP&F No, 113006165 CP&F No. 11084522 3" ALUMINUM CAP 1N 2 112" ALUMINUM MONUMENT WELL, CAP IN ASPHALT, PLS 1029 ROW ROW PLS 13551 9 639.6: � 214.10' 206_2.919' K 16 N 89 2044" W 2702.61' 16 15 BASIS OF SE4MMG W. FRANKLIN RD. L ANp F _ 11463 5"&V" OF 97� ,OPT W 1520 W. Washington ti G u1 c Boise, Idaho 83702 qAN J.D (208) 488-4227 www.accuratesurvegors.com DATE: JAN. 2022 JOB 19--274 Page 12 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: December 21, 2021) Woo d v, I K-n BLOCK 2 r LF tg q ---------- !Man Page 13 - � 1 44 5 a i f � cs i ry awn€ w _ ......... ...�. ....., ....-.-. 3 =tik d ss x�uv��•a �, .Ls xaVKvi�!-�.-� '$1 N. s � ry ` ll ..... ...... .. � � s I I I I � I I I I �N I . i ......... I - •CLLl3V]]S�135 3YLf1f- � syixrt ��� 'au nrr�h►v[e-s s.u� ua� Page 14 C. Landscape Plan(stamped date: March 16,2022) VlN0.5CAPE NOTES- IRRIGATION NOTES PROJECT INFORMATION LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS LANDSCAPEeeLEGEND GALLODT NOTES�. IE P; . .: ..-.:e.. �.::..s. fIANT SCHEDULE 'f iEf{ TO s...�.r.r © ,.,. ....w .... ...,, a uls i�� w — z i I ql Sc aulLoiNG _ uJ -— auILOIN — G5 . N suaaNc n C� o LANDSCAPE PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN ^^`..., L-1 .0 Page 15 (7VOb7lVd 0 E.Zi'pIZ 3.Z6,�Zo885 Epi _ O I•o m %3a W J9 _ � 1S�Rlb'Nb'7 3 I �1 ti 3 I p o z , I- I l� ry 0 I Z Z Z O 7D m m � I m I I 0 z I ¢ 111 IL - U �V N � .0I'LIZ M.YG,OZo6B N _ _ Z (78 NI7,/NVd-4 'M � ¢ J Page 16 A Conceptual Building Elevations(full file linked here) KEYNOTES E%TERK) FINISH �° •":, ©es"reca—...E SPECI FI CA TIC Ns V MEA_FRIM 6 FINISH EILMEi115 P --wLsnm —TER,FAscIA. J mac.coP�vc uP. CO.OR',CHh?CO—PAY IRE FINISHE'rurv.- Mr ENIPRE=1iHfE P E MEA_PAN_i,^.1bOI PBO 1 cRa rrecvm Lcu;� [l m3c_rlA.m�niwnLLsnva_ CO:JH:S.V)11 I F',VN O cr-rw�.I�o mTe�amnrve_ .M3:MEA_-INSH EL-EN1S —LPA INTE-0NOOE$T-COLL— - - �,o;xrvaLvvl,vtnvs.n, CU6RUWN STUNS RE FINI?HED1 LWALL rAVC_ .3311'.,,. n11FINE v1 MA PRE=INLi'STERLIRTICALMEre.L PANEL var r�rv»nEmm�ar.,urtea •A9CI-1-1-LRJ-I6 PM1NEL OR 1 1 A.-.P..... . ear - ®w CO�R',RROti'`'N STONE �s3• fy:'-•''�' .M S:v=RIICPL fiiLIFL WALL PRE-IWISLED MEA_JU'NNSPUJT, MRGI C.ILR•RROWN STONC '-��z __ 5".Sl I1CL'.0 YVT LL F NLH STUCCO FIM1I.iH CO_3R,NCHI 5ONE S2',STI111 RTNCIY::F VISH slue o FI,RN �>r;.) =) Y•) 'a> IX�'� CO OR,S iFLE" rx—F� MRI'M7 LROCFP hELS rn.onwrrr ,.iwu<r is wNSR J=' ';�) - n wx.k lAC U K t G OF FAM O(CII.1L N raW� CRrA1 _ 2—REIJ ENIS.NL mC"L'RER y °..o sas r.a s�ro r,r„sn ...Ze CI COU R'.CY.:?CO.v._GRM1Y 0 Q ry C• 'r f `H M hN C R R—SANTE. O PR JfT_FI FACE CMU. SOUTH ELEVATION-BUILID ING II IaNu<NI, u N ORTH ELEVATION BUILDING I � LL H a co tea,HE in o acxe.i-vo Rcal F''-�c kEIALTCVEE RHEA EOM F t YJ � Sc—PER PE!-mE M;�h L=.SEEP l,NS3 SCHELIILE. Z f Fad%SL�F%nOi?F T Fr,N I: � IA"'I J CCL02 MATCH AC ACENTN'A L Y u.wMx�i PANEL FI NISE_ -. , am LE M. EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING 1 ..-"" EXTERIOR WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS Page 17 KEYNOTES O eraarre cucuno n,_e. - V - Ti GENERAL NOTES -� �° W SOUTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 NORTH ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 E3 I-E,V-1 ,l E.r-o Q o 13� 71p --Yu an l9 Z a w EAST ELEVATION- BUILDING 3 c w Z q LL - �uY tin xrr:,, � f � l.o.Aw PnYE 6w WEST ELEVATION - BUILDING 3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-4.2 Page 18 KEYNOTES A9--T--1 I-E 0 1 N4,4A GENERAL N CTFS T7 y NORTH ELEVATION-BUILDING 5 SOUTH ELEVATION BLI ILDINU 5 L9 o IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII Hill ul FF I YFF] z EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 5 LL EAST ELEVATION BUILDING 5 ELEVATCKS A-4.4 Page 19 KEYNOTES J ca art caomrorece. �JG.: _ J .s s�cccvcccrr w;rvo. =ir._zL, ,1 °a�«x6ruEcm lai cavre. , GENERAL NOTES - ;.3 4' ♦n nx FnuF i.n �v.FavF a iP BUILDING#5 ° n BUILDING#1 ° m NORTH ELEVATION - LANARK ST. FACADE ❑ R k Ill a Z o Y Ex LL BUILDING#2 Y BUrIYLDING#3 BUILDING#4 SOUTH ELEVATION - FRANKLIN RD. FACADE IXH1OR EEVA1pIy5 A-4,6 Page 20 KEYNOTES L)4�Tr2,� GENERAL NOTES . ...................... p Em Ld NORTH ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION-FLEX EX BUILDING 19 < Lrl E; fT I I I i I T I I I I I I I I I z se zi WEST ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING d� LI EAST ELEVATION-FLEX BUILDING 1EVAEONS A-4.5 Page 21 VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS A. PLANNING DIVISION Please submit a revised annexation legal description and exhibit map 15 days prior to the City Council hearing that includes the full width of the railroad right-of-way north of the subject site. 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; a final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and AZ ordinance has been approved. 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 the subject site shall be substantially consistent with the proposed concept plan,preliminary plat,landscape plan,and conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein. b. Prior to issuance of any building permits,the applicant shall subdivide the property in accord with UDC 11-6B. c. The uses allowed on this property are those listed in UDC Table 11-2C-2 for the I-L zoning district. d. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of application submittal. e. Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards outlined in UDC 11-4-3-34 and UDC 11-4-3-18 for the proposed uses of Self-service Storage Facility and Flex Space Building,respectively. f. The Applicant shall comply with the Commercial architectural design standards in the City of Meridian's Architectural Standards Manual(ASM)at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review submittal for the elevations facing Franklin and the east elevations of the two storage buildings adjacent to the existing residence on Parcel S 110943 8907. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated December 21,2021, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15)days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Show the required landscape easements adjacent to E. Lanark Street to include the parkways along Lanark and start at the back of curb. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.D, stamped on March 16, 2022, shall be revised as follows at least fifteen(15) days prior to the City Council hearing: a. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, depict no more than 65%of the landscape buffer area to be comprised of grasses for all required landscape street buffers(adjacent to Franklin and Lanark). Page 22 b. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3 for development along entryway corridors,depict additional landscape features within the 35-foot buffer along E. Franklin Road. c. Include additional trees and show they will touch at maturity along the east property boundary for a minimum of the first 185 feet measured from the back of the existing sidewalk for additional screening. d. Depict the proposed type of fencing on a sheet within the landscape plans to ensure compliance with UDC 11-3A-7 and the applicable specific use standards. Chainlink fencing with or without slats does not qualify as a screening material in accord with UDC 11-3B-5M. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 5. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-613 for nonresidential uses in the I-L zoning district. 6. Prior to City Engineers signature on a final plat,the applicant shall submit a public access easement for the multi-use pathway segment along the north boundary to the Planning Division for approval by City Council and subsequent recordation. The easement shall be a minimum of 14' in width(10' pathway and 2' shoulder on each side). 7. Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A- 12. 8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC I I- 3A-15,UDC 11-313-6 and MCC 9-1-28. 9. 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 11-313-14. 10. 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. 11. Applicant shall tile all irrigation facilities within the development area per UDC 11-3A-6, unless waived by City Council. 12. At the public hearing on June 7,2022,the City Council approved the Applicant's waiver request to reduce the required land use buffer along the east nronertv line to less than 15 feet wide. B. Public Works Department Site Specific Conditions of Approval 1. City utility easements must be clear of any permanent structure including but not limited to buildings, carports,trees, shrubs,fences,infiltration trenches, light poles,etc. There appears to be a fence separating the property from Franklin Road which will need to be removed to allow for a water crossing and easement. 2. The water main in East Lanark Street must end in a blow-off for future extension. 3. Sewer must be extended to the southern boundary at Franklin Road. Page 23 4. Easements must be a minimum of 20-foot-wide per utility, or 30-foot-wide for combined utility easement, as long as the minimum separation is maintained between water and sewer mains. The depicted easement going south is currently shown as 25-foot-wide,which does not meet this requirement. 5. No permanent structures can be within a City utility easement including but not limited to buildings, carports,trash enclosures,trees,bushes, fences, light poles,infiltration trenches, etc. 6. Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches. General Conditions of Approval 1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5. 3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval. 4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval. 5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC. 6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42- 1207 and any other applicable law or regulation. 7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are Page 24 any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used,or provide record of their abandonment. 8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections(208)375-5211. 9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits. 10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat. 11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner 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. 12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter. 13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material. 17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an 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. 19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.orglpublic_works.askx?id=272. 21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an Page 25 irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. 22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211. C. Ada County Highway District(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=260239&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty D. Nampa&Meridian Irrigation District(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=258728&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC RY IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E): Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; City Council finds annexation of the subject site with an I-L zoning designation is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan General Industrial FL UM designation for this property(see Section Vfor more information). 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds that a map amendment to the I-L zoning district is consistent with the purpose statement for the industrial districts in UDC 11-2C-1. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends the Commission and Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,school districts; and City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Page 26 5. The annexation (as applicable)is in the best interest of city. City Council finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6): In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan (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; City Council 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, City Council 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; City Council 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, City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 27 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Addendum No. 20 to Agreement for City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services Dated November 1, 2002 Between the City of Meridian and City of Boise ADDENDUM NO. 20 TO AGREEMENT FOR CITY PROSECUTOR/CRIMINAL LEGAL SERVICES DATED NOVEMBER 1,2002 THIS ADDENDUM No.20 is entered into this 7th day of June 2022,by and between the City of Meridian(hereinafter"Meridian")and the City of Boise (hereinafter"Boise")to amend and extend the Agreement for City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services dated November 1,2002 ("Agreement"). RECITALS WHEREAS, on November 1, 2002,Meridian and Boise entered into the Agreement for Boise to provide certain legal services to Meridian; and WHEREAS,the Agreement was extended and modified by Addendums approved in fiscal years 2003,2004,2005,2006,2007,2008,2009,2010,2011,2012,2013,2014,2015,2016,2017,2018,2019, 2020,2021,and 2022; and WHEREAS,Meridian and Boise desire to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional one(1)year term, and modify terms of the Agreement regarding payment, services provided,and notice, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing,Meridian and Boise agree to amend the Agreement as follows: AGREEMENT 1. Section 2.3 of the Agreement("Primary Legal Services")is amended to read as follows: The term"PRIMARY LEGAL SERVICES"includes the following: 2.3.1 Primary Legal Services • Prosecutorial screening of police-generated misdemeanor reports and citations routed for review. • Timely filing decisions and notification to Meridian Police Department upon request. • Prosecution of infractions and misdemeanors occurring within Meridian City limits or pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding between the Meridian Police Department and the Boise Police Department. • Coverage of additional caseloads in any new criminal courtrooms assigned by the Trial Court Administrator. • Access to the On-Call Warrant Team for procurement of arrest or search warrants 24 hours a day, seven days a week. 2.3.2 Primary civil legal advice and guidance to the Meridian Chief of Police and Meridian Police Department: • Routine review and approval of Meridian Police Department's public records requests. Meridian Addendum No. 20 Page 1 • Legal training for Block Training,Advanced Academy, and POST, as mutually agreed upon. • Regular(generally monthly)case law updates including Idaho,Ninth Circuit,and U.S. Supreme Court. 2. Section 3 of the Agreement is modified to read as follows: SERVICES PROVIDED BY BOISE. Pursuant to the terms of this Agreement,the Boise City Attorney's Office agrees to provide the Primary Legal Services set forth in Section 2.3 of the Agreement to the City of Meridian for a flat annual fee,billed in monthly installments, as provided in Section 4 of the Agreement. 3. Section 4 of the Agreement is hereby modified to read as follows: 4. PAYMENT FOR SERVICES. Meridian agrees to pay Boise for the services rendered pursuant to the terms of this Agreement as follows: 4.1.As compensation for all Primary Legal Services, including out-of-pocket expenses incurred by Boise in performing the Primary Legal Services,Meridian shall pay Boise the total sum of seven hundred thirteen thousand five hundred and seventy-one ($713,571.84)annually, in monthly installments of fifty-nine thousand four hundred and sixty-four dollars and twenty-five cents($59,464.32). 4.2.Meridian shall pay monthly installments for Primary Legal Services on or before the 20' day of the month following the provision of such services. 4.3.In the event,and Meridian's request,Boise provides legal services beyond the Primary Legal Services set forth in this Agreement,Boise shall provide Meridian with a monthly itemized invoice for such services. Provided Meridian receives the invoice by the 5t1i of the month,Meridian shall remit payment to Boise on or before the first business of the following month. 4. In accordance with Section 9 of the Agreement, Section 5 of the Agreement is amended as follows: TERM. The term of this Agreement is renewed and extended to continue to September 30, 2023,the end of Meridian's FY23 fiscal year, subject to renewal or extension as set forth in this Agreement. 5. Section 11.4 of the Agreement is modified and amended to provide that any notice to Meridian shall be addressed to: Mayor, City of Meridian Meridian City Hall 33 E. Broadway Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 6. Except as modified by this Addendum No. 20,the original Agreement for the City Prosecutor/Criminal Legal Services between the City of Meridian and the City of Boise dated November 1,2002,which incorporates Addendums Nos. 1,2, 3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,and 19 shall remain in full force and effect. IT IS SO AGREED. Meridian Addendum No. 20 Page 2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Addendum No. 20 on this 7th day of June 2022. CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: Mayor Robert E. Simison 6-21-2022 ATTEST: BY: Chris Johnson, City Clerk 6-21-2022 CITY OF BOISE BY: 4/1Z4' Mayor Lauren McLean 6-7-2022 ATTEST: BY: ' ` Lynda Lowry,Ex-Officio City Clerk 6-7-2022 — d � R Z Meridian Addendum No. 20 Page 3 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Resolution 22-2231: A Resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian Authorizing the City Clerk to Destroy Certain Semi-Permanent and Temporary Records of The City of Meridian; and Providing an Effective Date CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO.22-2231 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT,BORTON,CAVENER, HOAGLUN,PERRAULT, STRADER A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AUTHORIZING THE CITY CLERK TO DESTROY CERTAIN SEMI-PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY RECORDS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council have the authority pursuant to Idaho Code section 50- 907(7) to, by resolution, destroy semi-permanent and temporary records, upon the advice of the City Attorney, and with such disposition to be under the direction and supervision of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, upon the advice of the City Attorney, the City Clerk has identified certain semi- permanent and temporary records that may be destroyed pursuant to Idaho Code sections 50-907(2)and(3) because the time period for retention of such records has expired; and WHEREAS, the list of semi-permanent and temporary records ripe for destruction through December 31,2021 are identified in Exhibit A, attached. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY,IDAHO: Section 1. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized to direct and supervise the destruction of the semi-permanent and temporary records of the City of Meridian identified in Exhibit A,attached. Section 2. That the City Clerk is authorized to take all necessary steps to destroy the records as provided by this Resolution. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect iininediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 21 st day of June, 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho,this 21 st day of June,2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: (SEAL) By: B Mayor Robert E. Simison Chris Johnson, City Clerk RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CERTAIN RECORDS FOR DESTRUCTION PAGE 1 OF 1 CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY YEARS Legal Department Bankruptcy Records documenting notification Semipermanent Destroy records dated Notices and Case to the city that certain individuals IC§50-907(2)(a,g) on or before December Files have filed for bankruptcy, and used 31, 2016 after receipt of to determine if the individual owes Trustee Final Report or money to the city and to file notice an Order Dismissing or claim with the court. the Case. (See Civil Information may include: debtor's Case Files for litigated name, utility accounts information, claims and adversary prepared repayment plan and actions) related documentation. Civil Case Files Pending and closed cases filed by Semipermanent Destroy records dated and against the city, including all IC§50-907(2)(g) on or before pre-litigation, litigation, appellate December 31, 2011 documents (complaints, summons, after date of last action investigations, reports, attorney notes, discovery-related records, pleadings, affidavits, motions, deposition transcripts, disposition, orders and judgments, exhibits, appeals, and related records), and bankruptcy adversary action files. Departmental Reports prepared by the city Semipermanent Destroy records dated Reports attorney for the mayor and city IC§50-907(2)(e) on or before council. December 31, 2016 Land Use Appeals Appeals of land use decisions, Semipermanent Destroy records dated including staff reports, pleadings, IC§50-907(2)(g) on or before briefs, and related records. December 31, 2011 after date of last action Legal Opinions, Formal and informal opinions and Semipermanent Destroy records dated Memoranda memoranda rendered by the city IC§50-907(2)(g) on or before attorney for the mayor, city council, December 31, 2011 or city departments, examining legal questions relating to state/federal law/rules or local ordinances/policies. Privileged Records held in confidence by the Semipermanent Destroy records dated Administrative City Attorney's Office regarding IC§50-907(2)(g) on or before December Records confidential or privileged matters 31, 1946 including personnel investigations, settlements related to personnel matters. Settlement Settlement agreements and related Semipermanent Destroy records dated Records documentation from civil cases, IC§50-907(2)(g) on or before claims, mediation, and arbitration. December 31, 1946 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY YEARS Risk Management Claim Files Claims for damages filed by and Semipermanent Destroy records dated against the city, including claims IC§50-907(2)(a,g) on or before December caused by city 31, 2011 provided employees/equipment, including there is no litigation. Property Damage Records, Liability Claims Records, Public Injury Reports, and related correspondence. Insurance Policy Records documenting the terms Semipermanent Destroy records dated Records and conditions of city insurance IC§50-90 7(2)(g) on or before policies covering liability, December 31, 2016 property, motor vehicle, etc. Records usually include: policies, endorsements, rate change notices, agent of record, and related documents. CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Administrative Records Correspondence Records created or received in the course Semipermanent Destroy records f administering city policies,procedures dated on or before or programs,but these records do not December 31, 2016 provide insight into significant policy, procedure or program discussions or decisions. Operational Records AudioNideo Audio and video recordings of City Semipermanent Destroy records Recordings Council, Commission and Committee dated on or before Meetings. December 31, 2016 Contracts & Agreements with vendors and other Semipermanent Destroy records Agreements to parties for the acquisition, lease, lease- IC§50- dated on or before which the City is a purchase or sale of equipment, supplies, 907(2)(b) December 31, 2011 Party services or property, letters of credit, warranty surety agreements which have been approved at a City Council meeting, approved by the Mayor, or have been recorded with Ada County. Election— Includes the following records: polling Semipermanent Destroy records General/Regular places,judges and clerks, challengers and IC§50- dated on or before (Working Files) watchers, voting machines and vote tally 907(2)(g) December 31, 2016 systems, correspondence, and other records not specifically listed in this schedule. Election ballots, including voted ballots, Temporary Destroy records unused ballots, spoiled ballots,ballot IC§50- dated on or before stubs, absentee voting, and duplicate poll 907(3)(e) December 31, 2019 books. Passports— Daily transmittal spreadsheets that Transitory Destroy records Transmittals accompany passport applications mailed dated on or before to the Department of State Regional office. December 31, 2019 Permits & Licenses Records relating to city permits and Semipermanent Destroy records licenses issued in the City Clerk's Office. IC§50- dated on or before 907 2 d December 31, 2016 COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES,AND BOARDS RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Audio Recordings Audio recordings of commission, Semipermanent Destroy records committee, or board meetings. IC§§50- dated on or before 907 2 December 31, 2016 Minutes Summary or verbatim minutes of Semipermanent Destroy records commission, committee, or board IC§§50- dated on or before meetings; documents and other written 907(2)(g) December 31, 2016 or visual materials presented at meetings (e.g., handouts, photos, presentations, etc.). *Note: This schedule does not apply to City Council or Planning& Zoning Commission records, which are addressed in Clerk's Office Records Retention Schedule. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION I CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Administrative—All Divisions: (Community Development(CD)Departmental/Operational, Building Services, Economic Development, Land Development, Planning( Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) and C rrent/Long Range Planning) Committee/Ad-Hoc Agendas and meeting minutes/notes for Temporary Destroy records Team Records special groups convened by Community dated on or before Development for specific purposes such December 31, 2019 as understanding operational gaps, Code issues, and process delays. Correspondence Records created or received in the course Semi- Destroy records of administering city policies, pennanent dated on or before procedures, or programs, but these December 31, 2016 records do not provide insight into significant policy,procedure, or program discussions or decisions, including,but not limited to: citizen response letters, change of address notifications including corner lot change of address, and street name changes. Department Departmental records created or received Temporary Destroy records Guidelines, Policies, in the course of administering dated on or before Procedures, departmental policies,procedures, or December 31, 2049 Processes and programs,but these records do not Reports provide insight into significant policy, procedure,program, discussions, or decisions. Including, but not limited to: citizen response letters. Zoning Verification Documents, including,but not limited to: Semi- Destroy records Letter written requests for zoning analysis of a permanent dated on or before December 31, 2011 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD specific parcel/property and the responsive departmental opinion. Building Division—Commercial and Government Buildings Building Accela files related to commercial and Semi- Destroy records Applications for governmental buildings and projects, permanent dated on or before Commercial including, but not limited to: permit December 31, 2011 Projects and application, signs, inspection records, Government certificates of values,photos,building, Buildings mechanical, plumbing, fire, and/or electrical permits, letters, and correspondence. Building Division—Non-Commercial and Non-Government Buildings Residential Building Accela Files related to Non-commercial Semi- Destroy records Applications for and Non-governmental buildings and permanent dated on or before Non-Commercial projects, including, but not limited to: December 31, 2011 Projects and Non- permit applications, inspection records, Government photos, building, mechanical,plumbing, Buildings and/or electrical permits. Economic Develo ment - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Sub Recipient Documents, including,but not limited to: Semi- Destroy records Agreements and agreements, Consolidated Annual permanent dated on or before Supporting Performance Evaluation Report December 31, 2016 Documents (CAPER), sub-recipient agreements, from completion of environmental review records, PSAs program year's (and corresponding products), sub- HUD approved recipient reporting documents (activity CAPER reports, draw requests, labor files), etc. Land Development Division—Commercial and Government Buildin s Land Development Files or documents created and/or used Semi- Destroy records Commercial and in the land development phase of a permanent dated on or before Governments commercial project, including but not December 31, 2011 Project Files limited to: approval letters, QLPE letters, soil reports, and drainage calculations. Land Development Division—Non-Commercial and Non-Government Buildings (Residential) Land Development Files or documents created or used in the Semi- Destroy records Non-Commercial land development phase of a residential permanent dated on or before and Non- or commercial subdivision project, December 31, 2011 Government including, but not limited to: approval (Residential) Project letters, QLPE letters, soil report, and Files drainage calculations. Permits and Files or documents created and/or used Semi- Destroy records Inspection Records in the land developments phase of all permanent created on or —All Land Governmental, Commercial, or before Development Residential/Commercial Subdivision December 31, (Accela Record projects with Accela ID's (LD-DEV, 2011 ID's) LD-CLOT, LD-RSUB, LD-CSUB, LD- CAP, LD-MISC, LD-WSA). RECORD I DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD -Planning Division-Administrative Applications Sign: Planned Sign Documents, including,but not limited to: Semi- Destroy records Program; No longer approved application, and sign permanent dated on or before issuing,but still requirements for a specific project. December 31, have existing 2016 after records revocation from property owner FINANCE DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION I CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Administrative—All Administration,Arts & Culture, Billing, Budget, Controller, Purchasing) Correspondence Records created or received in the Semipermanent Destroy records course of administering city policies, dated on or before procedures or programs, but these December 31, 2016 records do not provide insight into significant policy,procedure or program discussions or decisions. Including but not limited to Citizen Response letters, billing adjustment requests, etc. Special Documents related to special or non- Temporary Destroy records Projects/Initiatives confidential one-time projects. dated on or before December 31, 2019 Accounting Accounts Payable Records documenting payment of city Semipermanent Destroy records bills, including reports, invoices, check IC§50- dated on or before stubs,purchase orders, payment 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 authorizations. Accounts Records documenting billing and Semipermanent Destroy records Receivable collection of monies owed to the city by IC§50- dated on or before vendors, citizens, organizations, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 governments, etc. Records include: reports, receipts, invoices, statements, etc. Information typically includes: receipt amount, date, invoice number, name, account number, account balance, adjustments, etc. Cash Receipts Receipt and supporting documentation. Semipermanent Destroy records IC§50- dated on or before 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Grant Records Records documenting the application, Semipermanent Destroy records evaluation, awarding, administration, IC§50- dated on or before reporting and status of grants applied 907(2)(g) December 31, for, received, awarded or administered 2011 from final by the city. Records include: grant closeout applications and proposals, summaries, objectives, activities,budgets, exhibits, award notices,progress reports, contracts, financial reports, and related correspondence and documentation. Liens Liens held by the city and any Semipermanent Destroy records corresponding release of liens. dated on or before Insert Code December 31, 2016 from lien release RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Sales & Use Tax Used to report and remit sales tax Semipermanent Destroy records Forms collected and due to the state. IC§50- dated on or before 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Travel Records Records documenting requests, Semipermanent Destroy records authorizations, reimbursements, and IC§50- dated on or before other actions related to employee travel, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 including expense reports and receipts, vouchers and related documents. Budget Financial Reports Reports documenting the financial Semipermanent Destroy records Quarterly condition and operation of the city, IC§50- dated on or before Published Reports include information on revenues 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 and expenditures in relation to the final budget. Financial Reports Reports and data used to document the Semipermanent Destroy records Year End financial condition and operation of the IC§50- dated on or before city, sub ledgers related to, but not 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 including the final Audit Report. Bank Transaction Records documenting the status and Semipermanent Destroy records Records transaction activity of city bank IC§50- dated on or before accounts, including account statements. 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Budget Records Records used in preparing and adopting Semipermanent Destroy records the city budget, including revenue IC§50- dated on or before projections, instructions, department 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 requests, worksheets, council-approved tentative budget and notice of budget hearing, adopted appropriations ordinance and amendments, and other information. Capital Asset Record of purchase, vendor invoice and Semipermanent Destroy records Records— related documents. IC§50- dated on or before Purchase 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Capital Asset Record of disposal, department request Semipermanent Destroy records Records—Disposal of disposal. IC§50- dated on or before 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 after disposal Gift and Records documenting gifts and Semipermanent Destroy records Contribution contributions to the city. IC§50- dated on or before Records 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 Chief Financial Officer Investment Reports, statements, summaries, Semipermanent Destroy records Records correspondence and other records IC§50- dated on or before documenting and tracking investments 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD made by the city, including the Local Government Investment Pool. Controller Accounting Transaction records within the Semipermanent Destroy records Software Records Accounting Software system: including IC§50- dated on or before —payroll, vendor listing, vendor 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 payments, vendor purchase orders, budget transactions, cash receipts, and general ledger. Departmental Reports documenting the financial Semipermanent Destroy records Reports condition and operation of the city, IC§50- dated on or before issued on a monthly, quarterly, annual or 907(2)(e) December 31, 2011 other basis, including quarterly published treasurer's report and year-end financial reports. Reports include information on revenues and expenditures in relation to the final budget. General Ledgers Records documenting the summary of Semipermanent Destroy records accounts reflecting the financial position IC§50- dated on or before of the city, showing debit, credit and 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 balance amounts per account,budget, fund and department, asset depreciation, and totals for notes receivable, interest income, amounts due from other funds, bank loans received, cash in escrow, deferred loans received, cash, revenue, accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. Journal Entries Records including detailed reports and Semipermanent Destroy records back up documentation for journal IC§50- dated on or before entries. 907 2 (a) December 31, 2016 Payroll Administrative Reports, statistical studies, and other Semipermanent Destroy records Reports records designed and used for budget IC§50- dated on or before preparation, projections, workload and 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 personnel management, and research and general reference. Deduction Records documenting employee Semipermanent Destroy records Authorization authorization for voluntary payroll IC§50- dated on or before Records deductions. Records may include: direct 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 bank deposits, insurance applications, after employee enrollment cards, deduction separation authorizations, approval notices, deduction terminations, and related records. RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Federal & State Records, in addition to those itemized in Semipermanent Destroy records Tax Records this section, used to report the collection, IC§50- dated on or before distribution, deposit, and transmittal of 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 federal and state income taxes as well as social security tax. Examples include: the federal miscellaneous income statement(1099), employers' quarterly federal tax return(941, 941E), tax deposit coupon(8109), and similar federal and state completed forms. Garnishment Records documenting requests and court Semipermanent Destroy records Record orders to withhold wages from employee IC§50- dated on or before earnings for garnishments, tax levies, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 support payments, and other reasons. after termination Usually includes original writs of garnishment, orders to withhold, federal or state tax levies, recapitulations of amounts withheld, and related records. Information usually includes: employee name and social security number, name of agency ordering garnishment, amount, name of party to whom payment is submitted, dates, and related data. Registers Year Payroll Registers: Registers or records Semipermanent Destroy records End serving the same function of IC§50- dated on or before documenting the earnings, voluntary and 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 required deductions, and withholdings of city employees. Information usually includes employee name and social security number, hours worked, rate, overtime, vacation value, various allowance, gross pay, federal and state withholding, voluntary deductions, net pay, and related data. Time Records Records documenting hours worked, Semipermanent Destroy records leave hours accrued, and leave hours IC§50- dated on or before taken by city employees. Information 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 usually includes: employee name and after employee employee number, hours worked, type separation and number of leave hours taken, total hours, dates and related data. W2s Annual statements documenting Semipermanent Destroy records individual employee earnings and IC§50- dated on or before withholdings for state and federal 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 income taxes and social security tax, also known as federal tax form W-2. Information includes: city name and tax RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD identification number, employee name and social security number, wages paid, amounts withheld, and related data. W4s Certificates documenting the exemption Semipermanent Destroy records status of individual city employees, also IC§50- dated on or before known as W-4 forms. Information 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 includes: employee name and address, after employee social security number, designation of separation exemption status, and signature. PERSI Records Records relating to PERSI, including Semipermanent Destroy records Employer Remittance Forms, invoices, IC§50- dated on or before correspondence, financial adjustments, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 etc. Unemployment Records documenting employee Semipermanent Destroy records Reports earnings on a quarterly basis. Used to IC§50- dated on or before document costs and charges in the event 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 of an unemployment compensation claim. Information includes: employee name and social security number, quarterly earnings. Purchasing Contracts Agreements with vendors and other Semipermanent Destroy records parties either in hard copies or contained IC§50- dated on or before on the Contract Management Database 907(2)(b) December 31, 2011 for the acquisition or sale of equipment, from the date of supplies, services or property, also substantial includes insurance certificates,payment completion and performance bonds pertaining to a solicitation or contract that Purchasing is facilitating. Lease Agreements Lease agreements for property or Semipermanent Destroy records equipment. IC§50- dated on or before 907(2)(b) December 31, 2016 Purchase Orders Requests and purchase orders for goods Semipermanent Destroy records or services purchased by the city. IC§50- dated on or before Information includes: department, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2011 delivery location, date, quantity, description,unit and total price, and authorizing signatures. Purchasing Records documenting competitive Semipermanent Destroy records Selection bidding and purchase of goods, services, IC§50- dated on or before and public works construction, and 907(2)(a) December 31, procurement of design professionals. 2011 from award Records include: published notices and date solicitations, specifications, bids, requests for qualifications, statements of qualifications, etc. RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Utility Billing Adjustment Records documenting adjustments to Semipermanent Destroy records Registers customer water, sewer, garbage or other IC§50- dated on or before city-provided service billings for debits, 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 credits, refunds, returned checks, and related reasons. Information usually includes: customer's name and address, type of adjustment,justification, amount changed, authorizing signatures and other information. (Records held within the billing software). Billing Directive Application completed by owner or Semipermanent Destroy records property manager to initiate Third Party IC§50- dated on or before billing for specified utility account. 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Information included: owner, property manager, tenant, move-in date, and service address. Billing/Payment Records documenting transactions on Semipermanent Destroy records Registers the water, sewer, garbage or other city- IC§50- dated on or before provided service account of each 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 customer. Useful for reference to assure accurate customer billings and posting of payments. Information often includes: customer's name, service address, meter reading, water usage,utility charges, payments, adjustments and related data. (records held within the billing software). Change Record Records documenting routine Semipermanent Destroy records information changes to customer IC§50- dated on or before accounts, including name and address. 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 (Records held within the billing software). Customer File General correspondence and forms Semipermanent Destroy records related to a specific utility account. This IC§50- dated on or before information would be in addition to that 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 found within the billing software. Documents in file may include and are not limited to: general letters,payment arrangement forms, third party billing docs, hard copies of customer history reports, leak adjustment requests, letters submitted to the City for customers. RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Disconnect Notice Notice to City Council to verify that no Semipermanent Destroy records to City Council customer currently slated for shut off IC§50- dated on or before due to non-payment has requested a 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 hearing with the Board of Adjustment. Notice includes number of customers slated for shut off and the value of the delinquent accounts. Disconnect Record Records documenting a customer's Semipermanent Destroy records request for disconnection of water, IC§50- dated on or before sewer, garbage or other city-provided 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 services. (Records held within the billing software). Meter Readings Document the readings of customer Semipermanent Destroy records water meters for billing purposes. IC§50- dated on or before Information typically includes: meter 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 reading, date read, account number, billing code, final reading, reason for turnoff, meter changes, and related data. records held within the billing software Renter Supplemental document completed by Semipermanent Destroy records Addendums the tenant to accept the third party IC§50- dated on or before billing for specified utility account. 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Information included: tenants name, service address, mailing address and hone number. Security Deposit Records documenting customer payment Semipermanent Destroy records Records of a security deposit to receive IC§50- dated on or before temporary dumpster services. 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 Information usually includes date, amount of deposit, customer's name, address, and account number, date account closed, refund date, amount of deposit applied, and related information. Shut Off Turn On Electronic spreadsheet used during shut Semipermanent Destroy records off day by water department field staff IC§50- dated on or before and MUBS. Tracks customers that are 907(2)(a) December 31, 2016 to be shut off,payments, and turn-ons as authorized. Record includes: Customer name, service address, meter id, time of shut off, time of payment, time of turn- on, fee waived if applicable and general notes. FIRE DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Car Seat Car seat inspection forms. Semipermanent Destroy records Inspections dated on or before December 31, 2011 Correspondence General administrative correspondence, Semipermanent Destroy records including records created or received in the dated on or before course of administering city December 31, 2016 policies/programs, but not related to significant policy/program discussions or decisions. Includes customer survey cards. Equipment and Records relating to equipment and vehicles Semipermanent Destroy records Vehicle Test, owned and serviced by the City documenting dated on or before Maintenance & maintenance and repairs of equipment, December 31, 2016 Repair Records vehicles and other assets with a useful life after disposal of generally more than five years. Includes the vehicle or until following: fire hose records (such as test date, administrative need date previously tested, apparatus number, ends,whichever is station number, hose diameter, conditions longer found, service date, defects corrected, etc.), annual ladder inspections and test results, tests done on SCBA's (including flow testing), etc. Vehicle maintenance records, inspections, pump testing and repair records of apparatus. Emergency medical equipment maintenance records used to verify regular maintenance of emergency medical equipment such as copies of contracts, maintenance schedules, test protocols, equipment inventory,performance test records, repair records, parts used and service reports. Per NFPA Standards 1901, 1961, 1852 and 1500. Buildings & Fire inspection records relating to buildings Temporary Destroy records Subdivisions— and subdivisions that have been demolished dated on or before Demolished or or are otherwise no longer in existence (never December 31, 2018 No Longer in constructed). from date of last Existence (never inspection constructed Meeting Final, approved Officer and Command Staff Semipermanent Destroy records Minutes meeting minutes. dated on or before December 31, 2016 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Narcotics Narcotic inventory and usage- hard copy, Temporary Destroy records Inventory& narcotics distributed to the engine companies. dated on or before Usage December 31, 2018 Public Records related to the design and Semipermanent Destroy records Education implementation of educational and other dated on or before Programs & outreach programs provided to the public by December 31, 2016 Publications the department. May include: class descriptions, instructional materials, course outlines, class enrollment and attendance records, reports, speeches, and publications. Public Record Public records requests and responses. Temporary Destroy records Requests dated on or before December 31, 2019 after last action Ride-Along Signed waivers for persons requesting a ride- Destroy records Forms along with the department. Ride Along Temporary dated on or before tracking records. December 31, 2019 Structure Burn Records related to structure burns. Semipermanent Destroy records Training dated on or before Records December 31, 2011 HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Affirmative Records documenting city compliance with Semipermanent Destroy records Action; Equal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal IC§50-90 7(2)(g); dated on or before Employment Employment Opportunity Act of 1972 and 29 CFR December 31, Opportunity the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1602,1602.14, 2016 from request Commission Records include: plans, policy statements, 1620.32 or personnel Reports reports, investigations, case files and related action,whichever information. Also includes EEO-4 reports is later submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) documenting compliance with EEOC requirements by cities with 15 or more em to ees. Benefits Records documenting notice to employees, Semipermanent Destroy records Continuation spouses and dependents informing them of IC§50-90 7(2)(g); dated on or before their rights to continue insurance coverage 29 CFR 1627.3 December 31, 1946 after termination or disability or family after employee leave and whether coverage was elected or separation, rejected. Continuation may be under expiration of COBRA or another provision. Notice is also eligibility, or sent to a third party administrator who completion of administers the extended coverage. Records litigation, may be filed with the Employee Benefits whichever is longest Records or Employee Personnel Records. Budget Prep Working documents utilized to build base Semipermanent Destroy records Records budgets and establish yearly budgets; dated on or before worksheets, enhancements, amendments, December 31, 2011 etc. Collective Records documenting negotiations between Temporary Destroy records Bargaining the city and employee representatives, IC§50-90 7(3)(d); dated on or before including contracts, reports, negotiation 29 CFR 516.5 December 31, 2018 notes, letters of agreement, arbitration findings, cost analyses, minutes, tape recordings, etc. Committee Agendas and meeting minutes/notes for Semipermanent Destroy records Records special groups convened by HR for specific dated on or before purposes such as Benefits, Compensation, December 31, 2014 and Wellness. Correspondence, Correspondence created or received in the Semipermanent Destroy records Administrative course of administering City policies and dated on or before programs. December 31, 2016 Department HR guidelines, including but not limited to, Semipermanent Destroy records Guidelines, Salary Administration Guidelines. dated on or before Policies, December 31, 2011 Procedures, from date guideline Processes, and in its entirety, or any Reports part thereof, is RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD officially replaced, updated City Standard Operating Policy/Procedure Semipermanent Destroy records Manual. dated on or before December 31, 2001 from date SOP Manual in its entirety, or any part thereof, is officially replaced, updated Records documenting and relating to HR Semipermanent Destroy records processes, including but not limited to, dated on or before recruiting/interviewing processes. December 31, 2016 from date HR process in its entirety or any part thereof, is officially replaced, updated Policies, reports, and documents regarding Semipermanent Destroy records the internal department operations and dated on or before procedures (e.g. Turnover, Recruiting December 31, 2011 reports, etc.). HR reports regarding department Semipermanent Destroy records performance or other management dated on or before presentations. Includes reports documenting December 31, 2011 trends, department or City performance in key areas as determined. Employee Benefits Records relating to city employee benefits Semipermanent Destroy records information such as: selection of insurance IC§§50-907(2)(g) dated on or before plans, retirement,pension, and disability and 45-610; 29 December 31, 1946 plans, deferred compensation plans, and CFR 1627.3; 29 after employee other benefit information. Records may CFR 1602.31; separation, include but are not limited to: plan selection IDAPA expiration of and application forms, enrollment records, 09.01.35.081 eligibility, or contribution and deduction summaries, completion of personal data records, authorizations, litigation, beneficiary information, notices of whichever is disability payment made, and related longest documentation. Employee Medical Document an individual employee's Semipermanent Destroy records Records medical history. These records are not IC§§50-907(2)(g) dated on or before personnel records and must be kept in a and 72-601; 29 December 31, 1946 separate location from employee personnel CFR 1602.31; 29 after employee records as required by the Americans with CFR 1910.1020 separation, Disabilities Act. Records may include,but expiration of are not limited to: medical exam records eligibility, or RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD (pre-employment,pre-assignment,periodic completion of or episodic), X-rays, and records of litigation, significant health or disability limitations. whichever is longest Employee Document of employee's work history. Semipermanent Destroy records Personnel Records Original employee personnel records are IC§§50-907(2)(g) dated on or before kept by Human Resources Department and 45-610; 29 December 31, unless otherwise specified. Records may CFR 1627.3; 29 1946 after include, but are not limited to: employment CFR 1602.31; employee applications, notices of appointment, IDAPA separation, training and certification records, records of 09.01.35.081 expiration of health limitations, drug testing, salary eligibility, or schedules, personal actions, performance completion of evaluations, awards and other special litigation, recognition, letters of recommendation, whichever is investigation information, disciplinary longest action, notices of layoff, letters of resignation, home address and telephone, emergency notification forms, oaths of office, grievance and complaint records, and relate correspondence and documentation. (See also Employee Benefits Records, Employee Medical Records, Recruitment and Selection Records, and Volunteer Records). Notes: (1)Meridian Police Department employee personnel records including original Internal Affairs files and training materials are kept by the Police Department according to the Police Department Records Retention Schedule. Upon employee separation, these records shall be forwarded to Human Resources Department. All other Police Department current employee original personnel records are kept by the Human Resources Department. (2)Meridian Fire Department employee personnel records including original training records and original records related to Union promotions are kept by the Fire Department. Upon employee separation RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD these records shall be forwarded to Human Resources Department. All other Fire Department current employee original personnel records including ICRMP and BEST training records and Union member promotion applications and PAR forms documenting a promotion are kept by Human Resources Department.. Employment Document to the U.S. Immigration and Temporary Destroy records Verification Naturalization Service that an applicant or IC§50-90 7(3)(d), dated on or before (I-9) of Job employee is eligible to work in the U.S. 8 U.S.C. § December 31, 2018 Applicants Information includes: employee information 1324a(b)(3) after date of hire or and verification data such as citizenship or (Immigration 1 year after alien status and signature, employer review Reform and employment is and verification data such as documents, Control Act) terminated, which establish identity and eligibility, and whichever is later employer's signature certifying that documents were checked. This category includes forms completed for all new hires, as superseded or previous forms completed on rehires. Forms Forms created for use by HR personnel to Transitory Until administrative facilitate work, including Performance need ends or record Review,job description template, PAR is superseded template, etc. Hazard Exposure Emergency response employees exhibiting Semipermanent Destroy records Records signs or symptoms possibly resulting from IC§50-90 7(2)(g); dated on or before exposure to hazardous substances are 29 CFR 1910.1020 December 31, required to be provided medical 1946 after examination and consultation. Records employee include: employee's name and social separation, security number; physician's written expiration of opinion, recommended limitations; results eligibility, or of examinations and tests; employee completion of medical complaints related to hazardous litigation, substance exposure; description of whichever is employee's duties as they relate to longest exposure; the employee's exposure levels or anticipated exposure levels; description of protective equipment used; and information from previous medical examinations of the employee which is not readily available to h sician and other information. Insurance Records documenting plan descriptions and Semipermanent Destroy records Policies/Plans: summaries of city insurance policies and dated on or before Employee Group plans covering employee group health and December 31, 2011 Health and Life life benefits, including annual certification Benefits records. RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Kinds and Levels Records documenting the description, Temporary Destroy records Chart classification and compensation of city jobs IC§50-90 7(3)(d); dated on or before and positions. Usually includes details of 29 CFR Part 1602 December 31, 2018 duties and responsibilities of each position and 29 CFR time percentage breakdowns of tasks, skills 1627.3 and abilities needed for each position, and related records documenting the development, modification or redefinition of each job or position. Leave Applications or requests submitted by city Temporary Destroy records Applications employees for compensatory, family and IC§50-90 7(3)(d) dated on or before medical leave, long term leave and other December 31, 2018 leave time. Information usually includes: employee name, department, date, leave dates requested, type of leave requested, and related data. These are not kept by Finance. Personnel Action Completed employee forms submitted to Semipermanent Destroy records (PAR) Forms HR upon initial hire,pay increase or IC§50-90 7(2)(g); dated on or before decrease, change of address, or change of 29 CFR Part 1602 December 31, 1946 supervisor. and 29 CFR after employee 1627.3 separation, expiration of eligibility, or completion of litigation, whichever is longest Position Records documenting the description, Temporary Destroy records Descriptions classification and compensation of city jobs IC§50-90 7(3)(d); dated on or before and positions. Usually includes details of 29 CFR Part 1602 December 31, 2018 duties and responsibilities of each position and 29 CFR time percentage breakdowns of tasks, skills 1627.3 and abilities needed for each position, and related records documenting the development, modification or redefinition of each job or position. Presentations Formal departmental presentations to Semipermanent Destroy records Council, other formal bodies. dated on or before December 31, 2016 Recruitment and Documents regarding the recruitment and Temporary Destroy records Selection Records selection of city employees and contracted IC§5 0-90 7(3)(d); dated on or before for Applicants who service providers such as attorneys, 29 CFR 1602.31; December 31, 2019 are Hired auditors, consultants, etc. Records may 29 CFR include, but are not limited to:job 162 7.3(b)(1)(vi) announcements and descriptions, applicant lists, applications and resumes,position advertisement records, civil service and other examination records, interview RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD questions, interview and application scoring notes, applicant background investigation information, polygraph test results, letters of reference, civil service records, staffing requisition forms, certification of eligibles, recruitment file (job announcement, position description, documentation relating to the announcement and test, and test items and rating levels), and related correspondence and documentation. Meridian Police Department employee Temporary Destroy records original background investigation records dated on or before are kept by the Police Department. Upon December 31, employee separation these original records 2019 after shall be forwarded to the Human Resources separation Department for proper disposition. Meridian Fire Department Union original Temporary Destroy records recruitment records including National dated on or before Testing Network testing, application, and December 31, 2019 interview notes, for applicants who are hired, are kept by the Fire Department until the expiration of the retention period at which time they shall be properly destroyed b the Fire Department. Recruitment and Documents regarding the recruitment and Temporary Destroy records Selection Records selection of city employees and contracted IC§50-90 7(3)(d); dated on or before for Applicants who service providers such as attorneys, 29 CFR 1602.31; December 31, 2019 are Not Hired auditors, consultants, etc. Records may 29 CFR include, but are not limited to:job 162 7.3(b)(1)(vi) announcements and descriptions, applicant lists, applications and resumes, position advertisement records, civil service and other examination records, interview questions, interview and application scoring notes, applicant background investigation information, polygraph test results, letters of reference, civil service records, staffing requisition forms, certification of eligibles, recruitment file (job announcement, position description, documentation relating to the announcement and test, and test items and rating levels), and related correspondence and documentation. Meridian Fire Department Union original Temporary Destroy records recruitment records including National dated on or before Testing Network testing, application, and December 31, 2019 interview notes, for applicants who are not RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD hired, are kept by the Fire Department until the expiration of the retention period at which time, they shall be properly destroyed b the Fire Department Special Projects Documents related to special, one-time Semipermanent Destroy records projects to include, but not limited to, dated on or before Employee Satisfaction Survey, Policy December 31, 2011 Review/Revision, Salary Structure Review. Surveys HR and other initiated internal surveys, Semipermanent Destroy records survey results (e.g. Salary Surveys, dated on or before Employee Satisfactions Surveys, Best Place December 31, 2011 to Work. Etc.). Training Records related to the design and Semipermanent Destroy records Programs/HR implementation of training programs IC§50-907(2)(g) dated on or before provided to employees by the City. December 31, Documents may include course 2016 from final descriptions, instructor certifications, presentation instructional materials, course outlines, and/or use class enrollment and attendance records, tests, test results, and related records. Training/Travel Records documenting attendance and Semipermanent Destroy records Records presentation by HR employees at dated on or before conventions, conferences, seminars, December 31, 2016 workshops, and similar training events. Includes training/travel requests, training materials, reports and related correspondence. Payroll Records documenting claims submitted by Temporary Destroy records Unemployment former city employees for unemployment IC§50-90 7(3)(d) dated on or before Claims compensation. Usually includes: claims, December 31, 2018 notices, reports, and related records. May also include records generated by the appeal of claim determinations. These are received by HR and kept in HR. Wellness Program Records related to the management and administration of the Wellness Program including: • Wellness Challenges - Semipermanent Destroy records Correspondence and other Challenge dated on or before documentation. December 31, 2016 • Wellness Committee Meeting Semipermanent Destroy records Agendas and Minutes dated on or before December 31, 2014 • Wellness Day Off—Incentive Semipermanent Destroy records Verification Forms for Day Off dated on or before Requests December 31, 1946 (retained in accordance with RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Employee Benefit records retention period) Workers' Medical records related to job assignments Semipermanent Destroy records Compensation that document work-related injuries and dated on or before Records and illnesses, including but not limited to, December 31, Claims hearing test records, hazard exposure 1991 after records, first- aid incident records, employment physician statements, release consent forms separation and related correspondence, and records documenting claims submitted by city employees for work-related injuries and illnesses. These records are kept separate from employee personnel files. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY(I.T.)DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Administrative Correspondence Records created or received in the course of Semipermanent Destroy records administering city policies, procedures or dated on or before programs, but these records do not provide December 31, 2016 insight into significant policy,procedure or program discussions or decisions. Operational Records Service All customer support tickets opened in Semipermanent Destroy records Management Tool service management systems. dated on or before IC�'SO-907(2)(g) December 31, 2011 (other) Department Policies, reports, and documents regarding Semipermanent Destroy records Policies and internal department operations and dated on or before Reports procedures, e. computer usage policy' IC fit. report) December 31 2016 p p g• p g p Y, password policy, service level goals, (dept. report) training materials, evaluations of materials. Outlook E-mail All e-mail messages, sent or received by Semipermanent Automatic Messages—City City staff using City's e-mail system. (E- destruction of IC DSO-907(2)(g) Staff mail messages may be preserved elsewhere emails greater than in digital or paper format for longer periods (other) 5 years old on a of time as the subject matter of such rolling basis messages may require.) MAYOR'S OFFICE RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Administrative Records Correspondence Correspondence created or received in Semipermanent Destroy records the course of administering city dated on or before policies/programs, but these records do December 31, 2016 not provide insight into significant policy/program discussions or decisions. May include citizen response letters, letters to homeowner associations and businesses. Operational Records Agendas & Agendas and minutes of Director Semipermanent Destroy records Minutes Meetings, Operational Meetings, dated on or before Mayor's Youth Advisory Council, December 31, 2016 Mayor's Senior Advisory Board, and Faith Ambassador Council Meetings. Applications Forms and materials submitted with Semipermanent Destroy records application for positions or awards dated on or before administered by Mayor's Office, December 31, 2016 including applications for scholarships, Promise partners, Mayor's Youth Advisory Council, volunteer positions, City commissions, and City committees or task forces. Memoranda Mayoral memos regarding Semipermanent Destroy records proclamations, meetings, or events. dated on or before December 31, 2016 News Releases A written or recorded record directed at Semipermanent Destroy records members of the news media for the dated on or before purpose of making a newsworthy December 31, 4996 announcement. Proclamations Proclamations issued by the Mayor Semipermanent Destroy records not read at City Council meetings. dated on or before December 31, 2011 Publications Informational or promotional Semipermanent Destroy records publications of the Mayor's office, dated on or before including newsletters, flyers, marketing December 31, 2016 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD materials, brochures, program materials. Special Projects Documents related to special or one- Semipermanent Destroy records time projects to include, but not limited dated on or before to: Strategic Plans. December 31, 2011 Videos Videos prepared weekly for Temporary Destroy records informational or promotional purposes, dated on or before e.g., City Council meetings, December 31, 2019 This Week in Meridian. PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Agendas & Minutes Agendas and minutes of weekly Semipermanent Destroy records and monthly MPR staff meetings. dated on or before December 31, 2011 Budget Preparation Working documents utilized to Semipermanent Destroy records Records build base budgets and establish dated on or before yearly budgets, including but not December 31, 2011 limited to enhancements, amendments, carry forward support, FTE anticipation, vehicle replacement, and quotes for service/maintenance. Correspondence Records created or received in the Semipermanent Destroy records course of administering city dated on or before policies,procedures or programs, December 31, 2016 but these records do not provide insight into significant policy, procedure or program discussions or decisions. Including but not limited to citizen response letters. Employee Time Completed logs of employees' Semipermanent Destroy records Logs and Reports timesheets, tasks, and location; dated on or before reports and analysis of related December 31, 2016 data. Facility Permits Permits and materials including, Temporary Destroy records but not limited to: Completed Park dated on or before Alcohol and Amplified Sound December 31, 2019 Permits related to individual's or organization's park picnic shelter reservation, short-term concessions permits and related materials from vendors. Facility Reservation Completed forms and related Temporary Destroy records Application and materials collected from dated on or before Materials individuals or businesses December 31, 2019 registering for a recreation class, team, or event and other required documentation, such as proof of insurance. Destroy records dated on or before Collected Certificates of Liability Temporary December 31, 2019 Insurance from individuals or vendors. RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Financial Aid Completed application forms and Temporary Destroy records Applications materials submitted to request dated on or before financial assistance for children's December 31, 2019 class or program(e.g., Care Enough to Share). Incident or Accident Citizen reports of incidents, Temporary Destroy records Reports injuries, or accidents incurred dated on or before during or related to a department- December 31, 2019 sponsored or department-provided class, camp, program, reservation, or activity. Indemnity Forms, Signed waiver/indemnity Temporary Destroy records Medical Release agreement related to individual's dated on or before Forms,Waivers or organization's participation in December 31, 2019 department-sponsored or department-provided class, camp, program, reservation, activity, transportation, or travel. Recreation Activity Log sheets completed by parents Temporary Destroy records Sign In/Sign Out to signify that minor has been dated on or before Sheets dropped off or picked up from a December 31, 2019 department-sponsored or department-provided class, camp, program, or activity. Log sheets completed by Temporary Destroy records participant confirming they have dated on or before attended a class or activity. December 31, 2019 Special Event Forms Completed forms from citizens Temporary Destroy records and businesses participating in a dated on or before special event, including but not December 31, 2019 limited to vendor and sponsor contracts and entries. Surveys Internal and external outreach Semipermanent Destroy records surveys and results,presentations, dated on or before neighborhood meeting minutes, December 31, 2011 correspondence, and summary reports to solicit citizen input on parks and recreation, customer service, and process improvement. Records of public input, including survey results, neighborhood meeting minutes, correspondence, etc. Team Rosters Record of all individuals Temporary Destroy records registered for a sports team. dated on or before December 31, 2019 POLICE DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Activity reports Daily, weekly, monthly or other Semipermanent Destroy records reports documenting the activities of dated on or before ees p Y ,em to including: type of activity, Idaho Code December 31 2016 OO employees involved, time spent on SO-907 2 e activity, work completed, equipment used, etc. May include Education& Prevention Training reports. Asset forfeiture Documentation pertaining to the Semipermanent Destroy records records seizure process and obtaining approval dated on or before through the courts. 90§SO- December 31, 2016 7(2)(a) after closure of case Code enforcement Records created by code enforcement Semi- Destroy records records" officers to document a violation or permanent dated on or before investigation into a suspected December 31, 2016 violation of city ordinance that does Idaho Code) after last action not become a crime report(DR). SO-907(2)(g) Crime analysis Records documenting police efforts to Temporary Destroy records statistics anticipate, prevent, or monitor dated on or before criminal activity. May include 90§SO- December 31, 2018 statistical summaries of crime 907(3)(d) patterns, modes of operation, analysis of particular crimes, criminal profiles, forecasts, movements of known offenders, etc. Crime reports Reports documenting a suicide, Prosecuted cases: (DRs) for Suicides, unattended death and/or criminal Unattended Deaths, offense and actions taken, including IC�SO- Destroy records and Major Crimes charges or arrests. Record typically 907(2)(e) dated on or before includes location of occurrence, date December 31, 1921 (murder, after final and time, handling officer, involved involuntary parties (suspects, victims,witnesses, disposition manslaughter, reporting parties, etc.) and their rape, sexual abuse personal information, summary of to a child, events and supportive documents (e.g., Non-prosecuted cases: terrorism) probable cause statements, witness Destroy records statements, runaway forms, release of dated on or before custody forms (juveniles), criminal RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD background information December 31, 1921 (ILETS/Triple III,Ada LE Lookup, after date of last ISTARS, JDOC), documents investigative action provided by citizens and victims, citations,property invoices, release of property forms, etc.). May include polygraph records (e.g.,pre- examination records, questions, statements of consent, analysis reports, results charts, conclusions, interviewee statements, related information);property and evidence control and disposition records (e.g., evidence photographs, receipt forms, evidence logs, property reports, destruction lists,property consignment sheets, seized firearm logs, homicide evidence inventories, etc.); and/or informant case files (reports, correspondence, payment records, fingerprint cards, signature cards, letters of understanding on informants' activities and related records). Crime reports Reports documenting a criminal Semipermanent Prosecuted cases: (DRs) and citations offense and actions taken, including for other crimes charges or arrests. Record typically IC�SO- Destroy records includes location of occurrence, date 907(2)(g) dated on or before and time, handling officer, involved December 31, 2016 parties (suspects, victims,witnesses, after final reporting parties, etc.) and their disposition personal information, summary of events and supportive documents (e.g., probable cause statements, witness Non-prosecuted cases: statements, tow slips, administrative Destroy records license suspension forms, intoxilyzer dated on or before slips,field sobriety tests forms, December 31, 2016 runaway forms, release of custody after date of last forms (juveniles), criminal investigative action RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD background information (ILETS/Triple III,Ada LE Lookup, ISTARS, JDOC), documents provided by citizens and victims, citations,property invoices, release of property forms,Leads Online printouts, shoplifting reports from store security officers, etc.). May include polygraph records (pre- examination records, questions, statements of consent, analysis reports, results charts, conclusions, interviewee statements, related information), abandoned vehicle reports,found property records, traffic collision reports,property and evidence control and disposition records (e.g., evidence photographs, receipt forms, evidence logs,property reports, destruction lists,property consignment sheets, seized firearm logs, homicide evidence inventories, etc.), and/or informant case files (reports, correspondence, payment records, fingerprint cards, signature cards, letters of understanding on informants' activities and related records). Digital media— Digital media attached to a crime Semipermanent Prosecuted cases: Type 1 report for a major crime. Includes video, audio, or other digital content IC,�SO- Destroy records created by a law enforcement officer 907(2)(g) dated on or before in the course of an investigation or December 31, 1921 response and attached to a crime after final report for murder, involuntary disposition manslaughter, rape, sexual abuse of a Non-prosecuted cases: child, or terrorism. Destroy records dated on or before December 31, 1921 RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD after date of last investigative action Digital media— Digital media attached to a crime Semipermanent Prosecuted cases: Type 2 report for a felony other than a major crime. Includes video, audio, or other IC�SO- Destroy records digital content created by a law 907(2)(g) dated on or before enforcement officer in the course of an December 31, 2016 investigation or response and attached after final to a crime report for a crime other than disposition murder, involuntary manslaughter, Non-prosecuted cases: rape, sexual abuse of a child, or Destroy records terrorism. dated on or before December 31, 2016 after date of last investigative action Digital media— Digital media related to an officer Temporary Destroy records Type 5X complaint. Includes video, audio, or dated on or before other digital content created by a law 90§SO- December 31, 2019 enforcement officer in the course of an 907(3)(d) investigation or response relevant to a complaint about such response or officer. Field interview An informational document written by Semipermanent Destroy records reports (FI cards) police officers relating to individuals, dated on or before events, or vehicles for which the 90 7(2)()(g) December 31, 2016 officer does not have probable cause 90 for enforcement. Typically includes name and current address of person contacted, physical description of person or vehicle, officer's name, location of contact, date and time, reason for contact, etc. Grant records Applications and required reporting Semipermanent Destroy records documents for grants to support law dated on or before enforcement initiatives and Idaho Code § December 31, 2011 programming (e.g., crime prevention, 50-907(2)(g) after grant closeout substance abuse programs, criminal justice, SWAT). RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD Health & Welfare Referrals of suspected child abuse, Semipermanent Destroy records Referrals adult abuse and daycare complaints. dated on or before IC§50- December 31, 2016 APS & Daycare 907(2)(g from closure of complaints referral or case. Internal affairs files Records documenting department's Semipermanent Destroy records investigation of an officer's role in an dated on or before incident for the purpose of evaluating 90 (2 50- December 31, 1946 compliance with department policy 45-61 ; and 29 CFR after employee and professional standards. Records 1627.3; 29 CFR separation or typically include investigative 02 completion of materials (video and audio recordings, 16 .31 related litigation, written statements, narratives, whichever is longest analysis),polygraph records (pre- examination records, questions, statements of consent, analysis reports, results charts, conclusions, interviewee statements, related information), and recommended disciplinary actions, if any. Intoxilyzer 5000en, Factory and State of Idaho certificates Temporary Destroy records Draeger 9510 and for instrument; log of each person that IC§50- dated on or before LifeLoc instrument takes the breathalyzer test and December 31, 2018 records verification testing. May include 907(3A and after certificate has suspect name, date, time, results, IDAP been issued operator name, calibration check 11.03.01.013.06 results, simulated temperature in range, comments, etc. Master name index Information on individuals who are Semipermanent Destroy records records field interviewed, individuals who are dated on or before arrested, suspects or accomplices in IC§50- December 31, 1921 crimes, victims, complainants, and 907(2)(g) witnesses to incidents. Information typically includes name, address, date of birth, race, sex, date and time of incident or contact, case number RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD (DR#), citation numbers and other identifying data. Radar equipment, Records documenting the calibration Temporary Destroy records certifications, and and maintenance of radar equipment dated on or before maintenance that may be useful in documenting the 90§SO- December 31, 2018 records accuracy of the readings. Often 907(3)(d) after equipment includes original factory certification retirement of calibration. Information relating to maintenance and repair may include a description of the work completed, parts used, date of service, equipment number, make, model, etc. Training materials Records related to training programs Semipermanent Destroy records provided to MPD personnel by dated on or before presenters including City employees, 90§SO- December 31, 2016 contractors, or other presenters. May 907(2)(g) from final include course descriptions, instructor presentation and/or certifications, instructional materials, use course outlines and handouts, and attendance records. Victim Witness Notations and documents Semipermanent Destroy records System documenting contact with victims and IC§SO- dated on or before witnesses. December 31, 2001 907(2)(g) after investigation closure or disposition of case, whichever is later Written warnings Written notice provided by MPD Semipermanent Destroy records officer to member of the public to dated on or before bring attention to a potential or actual 90§SO- December 31, 2016 violation. 907(2)(g) * Note: Where record is used for legal,training, or purposes other than those enumerated in retention period, that record shall be retained according to the retention period established for other records similarly used. ** Note: Where record is embedded with a crime report (DR), it shall be retained according to the retention period established for the crime report. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RECORD DESCRIPTION CATEGORY RETENTION PERIOD All Department Records Ada County Permits issued by Ada County Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Highway District Highway District(ACHD) to dig in or before December 31, ACHD Permits public utility easement. 2016 Alarm Monitoring/ Reports of monitoring fire alarms, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Test Results security alarms and sprinkler tests or before December 31, Reports for all relevant City-owned facilities 2016 including annual fire alarm testing, annual backflow testing, quarterly sprinkler testing in Sapphire suppression system, monthly fire pump runs, and monthly check on fire extinguishers and Sapphire. Budget Preparation Work documents utilized to build Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Records base budgets and establish yearly or before December 31, budgets, including vehicle 2011 replacement worksheets, enhancements, amendments and carry forward support. Correspondence, Correspondence created or received Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Administrative in the course of administering City or before December 31, policies, procedures, or programs. 2016 Departmental Department reports, performance Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Reports management presentations. or before December 31, 2011 Engineering Capital Engineering Capital &Enhancement Semipermanent Destroy records dated on and Enhancement Plan(ECEP)—5 year Capital or before December 31, Plan (ECEP) Improvement Plan Reports. 2011 Reports Meeting Minutes Internal meeting agendas, minutes, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on sign-in sheets or before December 31, 2016 Photos, Building Photos relating to repair and Semipermanent Destroy records requiring Maintenance replacement of City-owned engineering stamps dated equipment, material, and facilities. on or before December 31, 2019 after life of structure. Destroy all other records dated on or before December 31, 2011. Presentations Departmental presentations. Semipermanent Destroy records dated on or before December 31, 2011 Safety Audits Health and Safety audits. Temporary Destroy records dated on or before December 31, 2018 after most recent audit Safety/Health and Safety and health documents Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Testing including but not limited to training, or before December 31, auditory testing records, respirator 1946 fit test information. Safety Meeting Topics covered and sign-up sheet for Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Agenda/ Signup employees who attended the or before December 31, Sheets meetings. 2016 Training Records documenting attendance Semipermanent Destroy records dated on and presentation by City employees or before December 31, at conventions, conferences, 2016 seminars, workshops, and similar training events. Includes training requests, training and Continuing Education Unit(CEU)tracking reports, and related correspondence. Administration Area of Impact Records related to analysis of Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Records expansion of Public Works services or before December 31, into the Area of Impact such as 1996 those for Kuna, Kuna Treatment Plant, Meridian Heights Water and Sewer District, South Meridian Planning. Committee Records Agendas and meeting minutes for Semipermanent Destroy records dated on special groups convened by Public or before December 31, Works such as City Services Focus 2016 Group, Construction Best Management Practices Sub- Committee, Energy. Emergency Master Emergency plan records for City Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Plans Hall, Emergency Management, and or before December 31, Continuity of Operations. 2011 Events, Public Records related to planning Public Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Works Works internal and external events. or before December 31, 2016 Rate/Fee Records Records related to establishing Semipermanent Destroy records dated on utility rates and fees, including or before December 31, calculations, research and 2001 recommendations. Special Projects Documents related to special or one- Semipermanent Destroy records dated on time projects to include,but not or before December 31, limited to: Strategic Plans, Inventory 2011 Management, Project Information, Rail with Trail, Subdivisions, and Accreditation. Surveys Public Works initiated internal and Semipermanent Destroy records dated on external surveys and survey results. or before December 31, 2016 Capital Projects and Facilities Engineering Correspondence, Engineering transmittals (not Temporary Destroy records dated on Engineering project-related), serviceability or before December 31, letters, Letters of Interest. 2018 Fire Flow Requests Requests from customers for fire Semipermanent Destroy records dated on flow and responses from or before December 31, Engineering staff based on computer 1946 modeling. Sewer Modeling Requests from customers to run Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Requests sewer model for capacity and sizing or before December 319 and response from Engineering staff 1946 based on computer modeling. Environmental Environmental Awards presented to citizens and Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Awards Records businesses in recognition of or before December 31, environmental contributions to the 2016 community. This includes but is not limited to award nominations, certificates, photographs, and lists of recipients. Pretreatment Industrial Records related to the identification, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Pretreatment inspections sampling,permitting, or before December 31, formalized agreements and/or 2016 if at the end of the contracts between the City and IPDES permit cycle, or as individual facilities within the requested by state or business and industrial sectors that federal agencies must comply with the federal requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 403, General Pretreatment regulations. These records and supporting documentation typically include: Industrial waste questionnaires, permit applications,permits and fact sheets, inspection reports, Industrial user reports, monitoring data (including laboratory reports), required plans (e.g., slug control, sludge management, pollution prevention) , enforcement activities, and correspondence to and from the Industrial User. Permitted Facilities Records related to permitted Semipermanent Destroy records dated on facilities, including zero discharge or before December 31, permits 2011 Photos,Industrial Photos related to the identification, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Pretreatment inspections sampling,permitting, or before December 31, formalized agreements and/or 2016 if at the end of the contracts between the City and IPDES permit cycle, or as individual facilities within the requested by state or business and industrial sectors that federal agencies must comply with the federal requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 403, General Pretreatment regulations. Pretreatment Awards presented to businesses in Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Awards Records recognition of Best Management or before December 31, Practices (BMP) contributions to the 2016 Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility. This includes but is not limited to award nominations, certificates, photographs, and lists of recipients. Wastewater Air Permit All documents and reports related to Semipermanent Destroy records dated on the Air Permit. Can include reports, or before December 31, manuals, data, and calibration 2012 from the date of the information. monitoring sample, measurement, report or application; or from end of permit Biosolids All documents and reports related to Semipermanent Destroy records dated on biosolids production and disposal. or before December 31, Can include Sewer Sludge 2012 until end of the Application Site Logs and Sewage IPDES permit cycle, or Sludge Management Plans. longer as requested by state or federal agencies; Destroy discharge monitoring reports dated on or before December 3191992 after permit expiration Confined Space A written authorization prepared Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Entry Permit prior to employee entry into a Permit or before December 31, Required Confined Space. The 2016 from date issued Department's permit contains specific entry space, purpose and time conditions under which the entrance will operate. Discharge Records documenting effluent Semipermanent Destroy discharge Monitoring Records quality discharged from the City monitoring reports dated wastewater treatment facility. on or before December Includes permit required supporting 31, 1993 after permit documentation. expiration. Destroy all other records dated on or before December 31, 2012, until the end of the IPDES permit cycle, or as requested by state or federal agencies Equipment Records documenting the Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Maintenance & maintenance and calibration of or before December 31, Calibration Records equipment and instruments used to 2016 after equipment undertake and monitor wastewater removed from service, treatment operations. Useful to until the end of the IPDES verify equipment reliability and for permit cycle, or as reference by regulatory agencies. requested by state or Information includes: date, type of federal agencies equipment maintained or calibrated, tests performed, repairs needed, comments, and related information. Idaho Pollutant Records documenting the Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Discharge application for and issuance of a 40 CFR 122.41 or before December 31, Elimination System permit to the City under the Idaho 2012, until the end of the (IPDES) Records Pollutant Discharge Elimination IPDES permit cycle, or as System(IPDES)program which requested by state or allows discharge of specific federal agencies pollutants under controlled conditions. Records typically include: applications, permits, addenda, modifications, and related supporting documentation. Information includes: influent and effluent limits, chemical analysis records, water flow, test and recording requirements, definitions and acronyms, compliance schedules, and related data. Reclaimed Water Includes all records related to the Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Records (REUSE) reclaimed water permit. Can include or before December 31, permits, permit applications, 2012 beyond the period manuals,plans, agreements, data of the permit, or as and reports. requested by state or federal agencies Sewer Maintenance Records documenting the Semipermanent Destroy records dated on and Repair Records maintenance and repair of City or before December 31, sewers. May include summaries, 2019 requiring reports, and similar records usually engineering stamps after compiled from daily work records life of structure. Destroy on a monthly or quarterly basis. records dated on or before December 31, 2016 for other records or until asset is removed from service or the administrative need ends Sewer Smoke Test Records documenting smoke tests Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Records undertaken to verify hookup to main or before December 31, sewer lines, check condition of 2011 pipes, or determine effectiveness of backflow prevention devices. Information typically includes: maps or diagrams of lines tested, location of leaks detected, inspector's name, pipe size, and related information. Sewer Television/ Records from contractors Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Videoscan documenting television inspections or before December 31, Inspection Records used to locate problems and defects 2016 (External) in sewer lines. Often consists of, inspections of newly constructed lines. Valve Maintenance Records documenting the location, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Records specifications, maintenance, and or before December 31, repair of valves in the City sewer 2019 requiring system. Includes lists, charts, engineering stamps, after drawings, reports, logs, and related life of structure. Destroy records, valve location, other records dated on or identification number, run of pipe, before December 31, 2016 size, make, year installed, depth, or until asset is removed turns to open and normal position, from service or the narratives of valve maintenance and administrative need ends repair, test run,personnel completing work, dates, and related information. Wastewater Complaint letters, notes, or phone Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Customer calls and in-person complaints from or before December 31, Complaint Records customers or citizens 2012, until the end of the IPDES permit cycle, or as requested by state or federal agencies Wastewater Preventative maintenance schedules, Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Preventative work orders or before December 31, Maintenance Work 2012 or until the asset is Plan Records removed from service or until the period of reclaimed water permit plus two years, until the end of the IPDES Permit cycle, or as requested by state or federal agencies Water Backflow Tests Backflow assemblies test report Temporary Destroy records dated on or before December 31, 2018 Confined Space A written authorization prepared Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Entry Permit prior to employee entry into a Permit or before December 31, Required Confined Space. The 2016 from date issued Department's permit contains specific entry space, purpose and time conditions under which the entrance will operate. Construction Bacteria sample results taken for Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Samples water line/well construction or before December 31, 2016 Daily Chlorine Field notes from Chlorine residuals Temporary Destroy records dated on Residuals taken from various sample ports in or before December 31, the City waters stem 2018 Digline Marking Agreements between City and Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Agreement Excavators for marking facility or before December 31, 2016 Fire Flow Reports Actual fire flow data taken from a Semipermanent Destroy records dated on particular fire hydrant or before December 31, 1946 ISO Fire Hydrant Updates to our Insurance Evaluator Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Reports notifying them of new hydrants to or before December 31, Water System 2016 Leak Letters Letters that are mailed to customer Semipermanent Destroy records dated on informing customer of a possible or before December 31, leak are attached to the service order 2016 for leak check Meter Warranty A report on meter warranty Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Report or before December 31, 1996 Safety Inspections Inspections/Reports for Gas Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Monitors, Crane, Fall Protection, or before December 31, and Fire Inspection 1991 Service Orders Records including requests from Semipermanent Destroy records dated on customer,Utility Billing, or Water or before December 31, Division to perform work or get a 2016 read at an address as well as historical logs showing service order number Spring flush notices Flush notices mailed to customers Semipermanent Destroy records dated on (Mailers) for spring flush of water system/ or before December 31, Maps 2016 Turbidity Reports Logs used for entering wasted water Semipermanent Destroy records dated on flushed from the water system and or before December 31, not sold. Flush locations are listed. 1996 Water Quality information, including Nephelometer Turbidity TU readings, are documented. Water Meter Water meter reports including NC Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Reports list,billing status report, autoread or before December 31, master route report, billing pre-scan 2016 report, re-reads, and water meter testing results, Sensus analytics, RNI Reports Water Quality Any mailed correspondence with Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Correspondence labs, customers, regulators or before December 31, concerning sampling 2006 Water Quality Records documenting water quality Semipermanent Destroy records dated on Master Log calls from customers or before December 31, 1996 IDAHO STATUTE TITLE 50, CHAPTER 9, SECTION 50-907 TITLE 50 MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS CHAPTER 9 ORDINANCES -- CITY CODE—RECORDS 50-907. CLASSIFICATION AND RETENTION OF MUNICIPAL RECORDS. (1) "Permanent records" shall consist of. (a) Adopted meeting minutes of the city council and city boards and commissions; (b) Ordinances and resolutions; (c) Building plans and specifications for commercial projects and government buildings; (d) Fiscal year-end financial reports; (e) Records affecting the title to real property or liens thereon; (f) Cemetery records of lot ownership, headstone inscriptions, interment, exhumation and removal records, and cemetery maps, plot plans and surveys; (g) Poll books, excluding optional duplicate poll books used to record that the elector has voted, tally books, sample ballots, campaign finance reports, declarations of candidacy, declarations of intent, and notices of election; and (h) Other documents or records as may be deemed of permanent nature by the city council. Permanent records shall be retained by the city in perpetuity, or may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society's permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council. (2) "Semipermanent records" shall consist of: (a) Claims, canceled checks, warrants, duplicate warrants, purchase orders, vouchers, duplicate receipts,utility and other financial records; (b) Contracts; (c) Building applications for commercial projects and government buildings; (d) License applications; (e) Departmental reports; (f) Bonds and coupons; and (g) Other documents or records as may be deemed of semipermanent nature by the city council. Semipermanent records shall be kept for not less than five (5)years after the date of issuance or completion of the matter contained within the record. (3) "Temporary records" shall consist of. (a) Building applications, plans, and specifications for noncommercial and nongovernment projects after the structure or project receives final inspection and approval; (b) Cash receipts subject to audit; (c) Election ballots and duplicate poll books; and (d) Other documents or records as may be deemed of temporary nature by the city council. Temporary records shall be retained for not less than two (2) years, but in no event shall financial records be destroyed until completion of the city's financial audit as provided in section 67-450B, Idaho Code. (4) "Historical records" shall consist of records which, due to age or cultural significance, are themselves artifacts of historical value. Historical records have enduring value based on the administrative, legal, fiscal, evidential or historical information they contain. Historical records shall be retained by the city in perpetuity or may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society's permanent records repository pursuant to subsections 8. and 9. of section 67-4126, Idaho Code,upon resolution of the city council. (5) Each city council shall adopt by resolution a records retention schedule, listing the various types of city records and the retention period for each type of record. (6) The city may reproduce, retain and manage records in a photographic, digital or other nonpaper medium. The medium in which a document is retained shall accurately reproduce the record in paper form during the period for which the document must be retained and shall preclude unauthorized alteration of the document. (a) If the medium chosen for retention is photographic, all film used must meet the quality standards of the American national standards institute (ANSI). (b) If the medium chosen for retention is digital, the medium must provide for reproduction on paper at a resolution of at least two hundred (200) dots per inch. (c) A record retained by the city in any form or medium permitted under this section shall be deemed an original public record for all purposes. A reproduction or copy of such record, certified by the city clerk, shall be deemed to be a transcript or certified copy of the original and shall be admissible before any court or administrative hearing. (d) Once a semipermanent or temporary record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section: (i) The original paper document shall be considered a duplicate of the record, and may be summarily disposed of or returned to the sender; and (ii) The provisions of this section related to retention and destruction of semipermanent and temporary records shall apply only to the record retained in the nonpaper medium. (e) Once a permanent record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section: (i) The original paper document shall be considered a copy of the record and may be destroyed after compliance with the provisions of this subparagraph. Prior to destruction of original paper documents, the city clerk shall provide written notice, either by electronic or physical delivery, including a detailed list of the documents proposed for destruction to the Idaho state historical society. The Idaho state historical society shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice to review the list and respond in writing, either by electronic or physical delivery, to the city clerk identifying any documents that will be requested to be transferred from the city to the historical society for retention in the permanent records repository. Any documents that will not be transferred for retention in the permanent records repository may be destroyed. If the city clerk receives no written response within thirty(30) days after the notice was received by the historical society, then the records proposed for destruction may be destroyed. (ii) The provisions of this section related to retention of permanent records shall only apply to the record retained in the nonpaper medium. (f) Even if a historic record is retained in a nonpaper medium as authorized by this section, the original paper record shall also be retained by the city in perpetuity, or it may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society's permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council. (g) Whenever any record is retained in a nonpaper medium, the city clerk shall maintain, throughout the scheduled retention period for such record, suitable equipment for displaying such record at not less than original size and for making copies of the record. (h) Whenever any record is retained in a nonpaper medium, it shall be made in duplicate and the custodian thereof shall place one (1) copy in a fire-resistant vault or off-site storage facility, and he shall retain the other copy in his office with suitable equipment for displaying such record at not less than original size and for making copies of the record. (7) Destruction or transfer of records: (a) Permanent records shall not be destroyed, except for paper originals of permanent records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection (6)(e) of this section. Permanent records may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society's permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council. (b) Semipermanent records maybe destroyed only by resolution of the city council and upon the advice of the city attorney, except for paper originals of semipermanent records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection(6)(d)of this section. Such disposition shall be under the direction and supervision of the city clerk. The resolution ordering destruction shall list in detail records to be destroyed. (c) Temporary records may be destroyed only by resolution of the city council and upon the advice of the city attorney, except for paper originals of temporary records retained in a nonpaper medium as provided in subsection(6)(d) of this section. Such disposition shall be under the direction and supervision of the city clerk. The resolution ordering destruction shall list in detail records to be destroyed. (d) Historical records may not be destroyed but may be transferred to the Idaho state historical society's permanent records repository upon resolution of the city council. History: [50-907, added 2005, ch. 41, sec. 2, p. 164; am. 2016, ch. 226, sec. 1,p. 621.] E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Proposed Update to Meridian City Code Section 3-3-3(C), Regarding Limitation on the Fee Charged by a Vehicle Immobilization Company to Release an Immobilized Vehicle C� fIEN .D L4,, MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: June 7, 2022 Presenter: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Estimated Time: 30 minutes Allen Sparhawk, Deep Six Security Services Topic: Proposed update to Meridian City Code section 3-3-3(C), regarding limitation on the fee charged by a vehicle immobilization company to release an immobilized vehicle Recommended Council Action: Consider Mr. Sparhawk's request for an ordinance update increasing the limitation on the fee charged by a vehicle immobilization company to release an immobilization device from a vehicle; provide direction to staff. Background: In March of 2019, the City passed an ordinance regulating the immobilization of vehicles. The ordinance is codified in Title 3, Chapter 3, Meridian City Code. Section 3-3-1 of the ordinance defines "immobilize" as follows: to impound, incapacitate, or immobilize any vehicle, whether motorized or not,without the permission of the owner or agent of the owner of the vehicle, by the use of any device, wheel clamp, object, barrel, boot, mechanism, or method, whether attached to the vehicle or not, that does not allow the owner of the vehicle, or his or her authorized agent,to freely or lawfully move the vehicle from the place where it is immobilized. The ordinance requires all persons who immobilize vehicles in Meridian to be licensed, and to follow enumerated standards and procedures in the course of immobilizing vehicles and removing immobilization devices. The ordinance also specifies a limit on the fee that a vehicle immobilization company can charge for the removal of an immobilization device. Following the passage of the ordinance in 2019, there were three vehicle immobilization companies operating in Meridian. As of the date of this memo, there is one such company operating in Meridian (Deep Six Security Services). On March 8, 2022, City staff was contacted by Allen Sparhawk of Deep Six Security Services. Mr. Sparhawk requested that the City increase the limit on the fee that a vehicle immobilization company can charge for the removal of an immobilization device. PROPOSED VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION CODE UPDATE PAGE 1 The relevant provision, Meridian City Code section 3-3-3(C), reads: Limitation on fees. No person or entity may charge more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the release of an immobilized vehicle and/or the removal of a device used to immobilize a vehicle. Deep Six Security Services requests that this limitation be increased to one hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00). Mr. Sparhawk states that the primary reason for this requested increase is that costs have increased significantly for all aspects of operating his business, including: employee labor (both field and administrative), gasoline, materials (tools, cell phones, printed notices), wheel lock device maintenance and repair, vehicle maintenance, signage installation and maintenance, insurance,taxes and fees (e.g., payroll taxes, sales tax, vehicle registration), overhead (office space, utilities, computers, office equipment,website), and other expenses. Generally, service costs are increasing state- and nationwide due to increased costs of labor (7.3% growth in costs for Idaho service industry between 2019 and 2020;1 7.8% increase in compensation costs for service occupationS2), increased gasoline costs (e.g., 6.6% increase in February; 18.3% increase in March; 1% decrease in April3), and rising inflation (7% increase in 20214 and 8.5% as of April 20225). Given this data,there is support for an increase in the cap on the fee charged by a vehicle immobilization company to release an immobilization device from a vehicle. 1 Idaho Department of Labor,2020 Idaho Labor Market and Economic Report,section 2.0,p.23, https://www.labor.idaho.gov/dnn/Portals/0/Publications/Idaho Labor Market Report 2020.12df. 2 U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics press release,April 29,2022,httl2s://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nrO.htm. 3 U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics press release,March 10,2022,httl2s://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cpi.pdf. 4 U.S.Inflation Calculator,https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/. 51d. PROPOSED VEHICLE IMMOBILIZATION CODE UPDATE PAGE 2 W IDIAN� AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Police Department/Attorney's Office: Proposed Updates to Animal Impoundment Fees C� fIEN .D L4,, MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Agenda From: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Meeting Date: May 24, 2022 Presenter: Emily Kane, Deputy City Attorney Estimated Time: 30 minutes Topic: Proposed update to animal impound fees Recommended Council Action: Authorize staff to: 1) move forward with updating animal impound fees per Idaho Code section 63- 1311A; 2) update FY23 agreement with Idaho Humane Society ("IHS") for animal control and shelter services to authorize IHS to collect updated fees and remit them to City; 2) update FY23 IHS agreement to authorize IHS to collect boarding fees,vaccine fees, and veterinary care costs. Background: Historically,the City of Meridian has charged the following fees for animal impound: • 1950: $1.00 for each impound • 1975: $7.00 for each impound • 1980: $15.00 for a first impound, $25 second impound, $50 third, and $75 fourth or more • 1997: $23.50 for a first impound, $36 second impound, $75 third, and $96 fourth or more • 2011: $23.50 for each impound • 2013: $10.00 for each impound of a dog and $12.50 for each impound of a cat The impound fee has not been changed since 2013. This is the year that the City of Meridian first contracted with IHS for animal control and shelter services. IHS has provided these services to Meridian by contract since that time. In November 2021, City Council directed staff to work with Idaho Humane Society to, among other things, propose updated fees to better reflect IHS animal control services provided, and to offset the cost of impounding animals found in the City of Meridian. Due to the variables that make each impound unique, there is no definitive per-dog or per-animal cost for this service. The proposed fee increases incorporate assumptions based on an average impound. In many cases, the cost of services included in the impounding of an animal are greater than reflected in the proposed new fees. However, the proposed fees are designed to accomplish two objectives. First, pursuant to the criteria for setting fees set forth in Idaho Code section 63-1311, these proposed fees are reasonably related to, and generally do not exceed, the actual cost of the service being ANIMAL IMPOUND FEE UPDATE PAGE 1 rendered. Second, these fees, while a significant increase from the 2013 fees currently in effect, reflect an amount that will not deter an animal owner from redeeming the animal. With this criteria and methodology in mind, staff proposes the following updates to the Meridian Police Department fee schedule: Fee Description Current Proposed fee new fee Impound Fee to impound a Meridian dog at the IHS facility. $10.00 $50.00 fee - dog Includes these assumptions: 15 minutes of dispatch time;30 minutes officer travel time to location; 45 minutes officer time to capture dog, interview witnesses, and write report;30 minutes officer travel time back to IHS facility; 15 minutes officer time to unload and kennel dog; 15 minutes administrative time to process dog into shelter, attempt to locate and notify owner, and prepare records. Impound Fee to impound a Meridian dog at the IHS facility, where the $10.00 $75.00 fee - dog has bitten a person, and/or is reported to be vicious. vicious dog or Includes these assumptions: 15 minutes of dispatch time;30 bite case minutes officer travel time to location; 120 minutes officer time to capture dog, interview witnesses, collect evidence, and write report;30 minutes officer travel time back to IHS facility, 15 minutes officer time to unload and kennel dog; 90 minutes administrative time to process dog into shelter, attempt to locate and notify owner, and prepare records. Impound Fee to impound a Meridian cat at the IHS facility. $12.50 $15.00 fee - cat IHS does not usually pick up cats unless they are sick, injured, or as needed for public safety;87% of cats entering the IHS facility are usually captured by members of the public and dropped off. This fee reflects an average cost to account for both situations,given that both situations involve administrative time to process the cat into the shelter. Impound Fee to impound Meridian livestock at the IHS facility. N/A $150.00 fee - livestock Includes these assumptions: 15 minutes of dispatch time, 15 minutes x 2 officers to prepare livestock trailer for transport, 30 minutes x 2 officers travel time to location; 120 minutes x 2 officers time to capture animal, interview witnesses, and write reports;30 minutes officer travel time back to IHS facility,30 minutes x 2 officers time to unload and corral animal,30 minutes administrative time to process animal into shelter, attempt to locate and notify owner, and prepare records. ANIMAL IMPOUND FEE UPDATE PAGE 2 E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Parks and Recreation Department: Eagle Road Roundabout Landscaping Discussion Mayor Robert E. Simison E IDIAN*4-�- City Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault D A H 0 Luke Cavener Liz Strader MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Robert E. Simison and City Council FROM: Mike Barton,MPR Parks Superintendent DATE: June 3,2022 RE: Eagle Road Roundabout Landscaping Background On November 4,2020, Council approved a cost share with ACHD for interim treatment bark and eventual landscaping in the new roundabouts at South Eagle Road and Zaldia Drive, and South Eagle Road and East Amity Road. The roundabouts were constructed in 2020/2021. The roundabout at South Eagle Road and East Amity Road inadvertently received the standard construction finish of a 4-inch layer of rock. The roundabout at South Eagle Road and East Zaldia Drive did not receive the standard finish. We installed a layer of mulch at this location,per the cost share. A planting plan was developed that can be used in both roundabouts and the new roundabout at Eagle Road and Taconic. Action We are requesting direction on which option to include in the FY23 budget: 1. Leave the roundabouts as they are. Only maintain the roundabout at Zaldia; or 2. Move forward with the FY23 Budget Request of$150,000 to landscape 2 roundabouts; or 3. Move forward with the FY23 Budget Request of$75,000 to landscape one or the other roundabout. Eagle Road Roundabout Landscaping Discussion City Council Work Session June 21 , 2022 Mike Barton, MPR Parks Superintendent Roundabout Landscaping Discussion : • On 11 -4-2020, Council approved a cost share with ACHD for interim treatment bark and eventual landscaping in the new roundabouts at S Eagle Rd and Zaldia Dr and S Eagle Rd and E Amity Rd. • Roundabouts were constructed in 2020/2021 . • The roundabout at S Eagle Rd and E Amity Rd inadvertently received the standard construction finish of a 4-inch layer of rock. • The roundabout at S Eagle Rd and E Zaldia Dr did not receive the standard finish. We installed a layer of mulch at this location per the cost share. • Planting plan that can be used in both RABs and the new RAB at Eagle Rd and Taconic was developed. • FY23 Budget request of $150,000 to landscape both RABs has been submitted. rYrl,a�T .� fir.;' Y. D EERI4EL'L D E_ _ _ s. itCOMBE-OR i onoissarrc � a Eel f` ?_'z .�J +. i� — ,� 'f ` .' Y �� I��rr � E_RA U A Sr ��� � �""�N I'TON DR LLIJ EA LI]IA DID . E TLlS+1T �i - ,TU . X-- rr 2VF _I m_ ' .E FRATELL ST _ XJ�i r S Eagle Rd and E Zaldia Dr �,-!NO DR " iL MOUNT ETNA DR r , •!' qy�, r Ere S Eagle Rd and E Amity Rd E COX R DREG At S7 c r s _. - r' r k'LLAR DR r � � E EIItL uU oc PARKxNk o E SCRUBPINE ST s '#' E MACUMBO LN . . �. �f ��\. J / « � x �zrt■ � � �� rwmmm«R¥ rr S Eag[e Rd a n d E Amity Rd \Q/Rb Looking North ��■ - � n. m � � � � � - ` � E&¥, ,WAR DO 5\ ,� � • . . \ [ z �^ ( : � F■ j ( d - I W:j am:9T ' -Em_LG - \* » . _m,«U #n 12WCO , r : ^ | � r � ALL �2 �� .� III b - Ed. — � •'+F.+ . Irks i _ ate, #' "�� +�ti•F+ ,;` � � fr ' � _ �• _ _ �_ �+'';ri• 3. .�} .'f{i '�s ram, ; � � �+• � �� �, � �. - 'ate' '� �r ► f' •� 'IK -:i a -V ;-k r. d4.r �i. A' •' 'r wJ f' • a �;—. �i.*F +' _ r -. .I1 _r '. • I'.*��..i _ ti ti t. g r•�'J _ .� ' _ i'iu:�r•� Lr ;r�,.!k t.�E DEERWILL DR. E ' �� ". �! F � jx SA ICOMBEDR • 74 IF.rw J nd 1;� a {j-�"F -r i m E RA USA s, w° PLY IPT 11 Lu _ E ZALDIA DR O — -E TUSA P I 1' ' t.�yamJL _._.__: ,; E FRATELL 4�J� � "I" ;," I I;"I , Pew A, Firm. r -"ENO DR Ir if < I lotr. - - S Eagle Rd and E Zaldia St - Looking North + k f� • *-r ��� `�`r • ' • ;; i�i yip w� ~ �w ram•�v�� k'L _. _ i - Ow 41A. 0. 74 w •it c r T1�1 'b� .r � -or 41 s } � per - �.� ' 4r • WA WO e I Ly � r „ III x4. S Eagle Rd and E Zaldia St - Looking South - - - F AAO'OK A� RU5+-EV 5^5ALT L 67 �V -- - C-� fin0 0 o 0 oc) ,- 51TIM COMMON NAME B...I BLUE CHIP JUNIPER o o w BLLe OAT 6FZA55 i o � DN �AB � �vfrBA � 6F 6OLDFLAME I REA CEO t 0 o VP VA DERYV LF'S PYRAMID LIMBER PINE Mc-3 O , fP,!5 ' r � , ' a . a } 1 �J f 000 0 O l ' ,, ID o O (DOC) q O 1 0 0 L] O b FSCI IMCr QI\1FV CRUSHED f3A5A;LTLE C7END i sym COMMON NAME BJ BLUE CHIP -JUNIPER BO BLUE OAT 6RA55 130 x 1 + OF WHITE OONEFLO NER ft` F - x DN DIABOLO NINEBAR C5F COOL >FLAME 5P I REA ON * •Y• ' MCA MAIDEN CAA R CRUSSI AN 5A6E +' • 1 ' r _ _ ' ' • ', VP �fANDERINOLF'S PYRAMID LIMBER PINE r I I 4. 1 I I r - .. Mr - - - VANDERNOLF LIMBER PINE F P. 5HFZUE35 �•*. � _ _•+'� �r� � r yam_` F .4. NORTH Council Discussion / Direction - • Leave the RABs as they are. Only maintain the RAB at Zaldia. • Move forward with a Budget Request of $150,000 to landscape 2 RABs. • Move forward with a Budget Request of $75,000 to landscape one or the other RAB. Thank you ! E IDIAN 'aAHO AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Works: Vehicle Emission Testing Update C� fIEN DL4,,A H �. MEMO TO CITY COUNCIL Request to Include Topic on the City Council Workshop Agenda From: Laurelei McVey, Public Works Meeting Date: June 21, 2022 Presenter: Laurelei McVey, Public Works & Estimated Time: 15 minutes Emily Kane, Legal Topic: Vehicle Emission Testing Update Recommended Council Action: Seeking guidance on the intended direction regarding the future of vehicle emission testing in Meridian. Background: Currently vehicle emission testing is required in Ada County at three levels: (1) State of Idaho law; (2) federal requirement specified and agreed to in Northern Ada County Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan; and (3) city and county ordinances in Ada County implementing the Maintenance Plan requirement. During the 2022 Idaho Legislative session, Senate Bill 1264 was passed by the Senate and House and signed into law by Governor Little to strike the requirement of vehicle emission testing in Idaho from state law effective July 1, 2023. This action eliminates the vehicle emission testing program in Canyon County on July 1, 2023. That action does not impact the federal requirement contained in the Maintenance Plan nor the local ordinances requiring vehicle emission testing in northern Ada County. In December 2022,the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) intends to request the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) remove the federal requirement of vehicle emissions testing in northern Ada County. IDEQ will provide US EPA with data and analyses showing the removal of vehicle emission testing in northern Ada County will have negligible impacts upon ambient air quality levels, especially carbon monoxide, in the future. If the US EPA agrees with the demonstration and request to remove the federal mandate for vehicle emission testing in northern Ada County,the local ordinances will still be in effect,but can be repealed without impacting Ada County's standing relative to federal ambient air quality standards and associated maintenance plans. City Ordinance: The Ada County Air Quality Board needs to know whether Ada County and the cities within the county intend to keep or repeal their enabling local ordinances requiring vehicle emission testing within their jurisdictions if the US EPA removes the associated federal mandate for the program. Each jurisdiction's intended direction is needed to provide guidance into the FY2023 budget development process, including consideration of a short-term or long-term software vendor contract coming up for renewal in September 2022, and to provide direction to station owners. Questions related to this proposal should be directed to Laurelei McVey, Public Works, lmcvey@meridiancity.org, 208-985-1259.