Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2022-07-26 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) Approved Motion to approve request for the purpose of clarifying Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Borton 2. Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2022- 2026 Consolidated Plan Continued to August 9, 2022 Motion to continue to August 9, 2022 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 3. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 22-1988: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(C) Concerning City Council Seats; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(E) Concerning Staggered Terms; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(B) Concerning Duties and Powers of the Meridian Districting Committee; Adding Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(I) Concerning Modifications to City Council Seat Numbers; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; and Providing an Effective Date 4. Public Hearing for East Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0037) by Laren Bailey, Located at North of E. Lake Hazel Rd. between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. Continued to August 9, 2022 A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove single-level limitation on single family residences within Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). Motion to continue to August 9, 2022 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Borton 5. Public Hearing for Pickleball Court Subdivision (H-2022-0025) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 4050 W. McMillan Rd. at the northeast corner of N. Joy Street and W. McMillan Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 6. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Ave. (Parcel #S1210417400) Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.22 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 7. Ordinance No. 22-1986: An Ordinance (Ferney Subdivision – H-2021-0103) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Exhibit “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 6.304 Acres of Land from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 8. Ordinance No. 22-1987: An Ordinance (Grayson Subdivision – H-2022-0014) for Annexation of a Tract of Land 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 in Exhibit “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 3.39 Acres of Land From RUT to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 7:41 p.m. City Council Regular Meeting City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, July 26, 2022 at 6:00 PM Minutes ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE PRESENT Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault Councilman Luke Cavener Councilman Joe Borton Councilman Brad Hoaglun Mayor Robert E. Simison PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE COMMUNITY INVOCATION ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics ACTION ITEMS 1. Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021-0070) Approved Motion to approve request for the purpose of clarifying Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Borton 2. Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2022- 2026 Consolidated Plan Continued to August 9, 2022 Motion to continue to August 9, 2022 made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 3. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 22-1988: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(C) Concerning City Council Seats; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(E) Concerning Staggered Terms; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(B) Concerning Duties and Powers of the Meridian Districting Committee; Adding Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(I) Concerning Modifications to City Council Seat Numbers; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; and Providing an Effective Date 4. Public Hearing for East Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0037) by Laren Bailey, Located at North of E. Lake Hazel Rd. between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. Continued to August 9, 2022 A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove single-level limitation on single family residences within Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). Motion to continue to August 9, 2022 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Hoaglun Abstaining: Councilman Borton 5. Public Hearing for Pickleball Court Subdivision (H-2022-0025) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 4050 W. McMillan Rd. at the northeast corner of N. Joy Street and W. McMillan Rd. Approved A. Request: Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilman Bernt. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 6. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Ave. (Parcel #S1210417400) Approved A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.22 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Borton. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun ORDINANCES \[Action Item\] 7. Ordinance No. 22-1986: An Ordinance (Ferney Subdivision – H-2021-0103) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Exhibit “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 6.304 Acres of Land from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun 8. Ordinance No. 22-1987: An Ordinance (Grayson Subdivision – H-2022-0014) for Annexation of a Tract of Land 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 in Exhibit “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 3.39 Acres of Land From RUT to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilman Cavener. Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun FUTURE MEETING TOPICS ADJOURNMENT 7:41 p.m. Meridian City Council July 26, 2022. A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:02 p.m., Tuesday, July 26, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison. Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader. Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Joe Dodson, Crystal Campbell, Scott Colaianni, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis. ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton _X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt X Jessica Perreault _X_ Luke Cavener X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison Simison: Council, I will call the meeting to order. For the record it is July 26, 2022, at 6:02 p.m. We will begin this regular City Council meeting with roll call attendance. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) COMMUNITY INVOCATION Simison: We had no one sign up for the community invocation. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Simison: So, we will move on to the adoption of the agenda. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move adoption of the agenda as published. Borton: Second. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 2 of 37 Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda is adopted. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up under public forum? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. ACTION ITEMS 1. Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H- 2021-0070) Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move into Action Items. The first item up is a request for reconsideration -- reconsideration of denial of Burnside Ridge Estates, H- 2021-0070. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. So, you have a request for reconsideration of Burnside Ridge. It's in your packet. You have had opportunity to review it. So, tonight, again, it's not a hearing. This is mostly for the public, because know all of you know this. This is not a hearing time. This is an opportunity to either grant or deny or remand the findings back for further consideration. If the decision is to rehear it, then, we would, then, set it up and notice it up for a future date. We don't have to pick that date today, because we will have to go through the noticing process. If the direction -- the motion is to -- to deny, that would be the motion. We will prepare some findings to that effect and, then, provide that to the applicant. If it's to remand for further -- further action on the findings themselves, we will send that back -- not to a date certain, we will prepare those and we will bring them back. Likely if we were to do that it would be in your first or second meeting in August, depending on what extent there is to changes. But that's what's before you tonight. I do see the applicant is in the audience, so they are here at least to hear what your discussion is. Simison: Thank you. Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Well, I did review the request by the applicant and looked into that and, of course, reviewed the minutes of our meeting and certainly one of the major issues was there -- are what we refer to as our growth areas and -- and we did refer to our growth areas several times during the deliberations, but it -- it was critical that -- to note that we did not, as a Council, expressly refer to the 2020 priority growth map when it was -- when denying the application and staff had made mention that we are not referring to the growth areas and so it was not -- not part of that. So, I -- I'm leaning towards making the motion to grant the request for consideration, but to limit it to the Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 3 of 37 purpose of clarifying the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and not delving into that. I have been advised by legal counsel that we can tighten those findings of fact and I think that's probably something that -- that we should do, but just wanted to put that out there for -- for discussion. Simison: Council, further discussion? Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I would move that the City Council grant the applicant's request for reconsideration for the limited purpose of clarifying the findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning adverse impacts on public services. Strader: I second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: Was absent on the 7th, so I just feel it appropriate to abstain from the reconsideration request. So, I will abstain from the vote on this motion. Simison: Council, any other discussion on the motion? Then Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, abstain; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: Five ayes, zero no's and one abstain, so motion for reconsideration for the purposes of findings of facts is agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan Simison: Next item up is -- is Item 2, public hearing for Community Development Block Grant program year 2022-2026 consolidated plan. We will open this public hearing with staff comments. Ms. Campbell. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I'm just going to give you guys a quick overview of the consolidated plan that goes from October of this year through September 2026 and, then, I will move into the changes that have been made since the Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 4 of 37 last time we presented. So, just a quick reminder. The con plan identifies the goals and strategies for the next five years and the action plan identifies the specific projects that we will take in the upcoming year. So, our five year goals, which are basically the different types of projects that we will be funding, are housing, public services, public facilities and infrastructure improvements and program administration. We have identified some projects for this upcoming year. Under housing we identified housing repair and home buyer assistance. For public services there is youth scholarships, emergency rental assistance, senior transportation. And for public facility and infrastructure improvements there is two separate streetlight modernization projects. And, then, just basic program administration and fair housing activities. So, there were some changes to all the documents, but most of it was just wordsmithing basic things. Expansion to discussion items, but I did want to point out a few things. The first one is on the con plan under the citizen participation, we updated the methods of outreach that we used and who we have contacted. Under the number of housing units, there was an analysis from HUD, but we took that out, because it was old and it didn't reflect our current situation and how difficult our housing market is right now. And under barriers to affordable housing, we updated it to include the list of priorities -- of priority policies addressed in the city's comprehensive plan. On the action plan we updated one of the projects. It was Franklin and the street project and we --we moved the location so that it provides services to a low to mod area, instead of the major thoroughfare, so that the CDBG benefits are directly for the low to moderate income area. And the final change was on the citizen participation plan. We updated the substantial amendment criteria to tie that directly to a project goal, instead of an individual activity. So, the final steps on this -- we have our public hearing and public comment period for the con plan, action plan, and analysis impediment tonight -- that closes and, then, on the August 9th Consent Agenda, then, I will have those final documents and resolution for you. August 15th. The public comment period for the citizen participation plan closes and I will have that final document and the resolution on the August 23rd agenda. Consent Agenda, by the way. And with that I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you, Crystal. Council, any questions? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Crystal, can you refresh my memory why the request is to close the public hearing tonight, as opposed to waiting until August 9th? Campbell: I did not call out the citizen participation plan in the original one and so I just wanted to make sure I noticed it effectively for everyone, instead of giving a shorter time frame. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 5 of 37 Cavener: I guess, Crystal, is there any reason why we couldn't keep the public comment period open through the 9th when we would be taking action -- or be asked to take action? Campbell: So, I -- I misunderstood your previous question. Cavener: Okay. Campbell: Sorry. So, the reason that we are closing that one is because we have to make all the updates and we have to update it in HUD's system, which can take some time and so we just wanted to give ourselves enough time to incorporate all the comments that were in there. Cavener: Okay. Thank you. Campbell: So, if you -- if you guys want to, then, we could. It would just take a little bit of extra work to make sure we got it in on time. Cavener: All right. Thanks, Crystal. I appreciate that. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Crystal, can you go back to the slide that shows the changes -- the major changes? The change that takes some -- let's see. Keep going. Maybe you didn't put it on here, but the 20 percent -- yes. The 20 percent from the -- for the annual funding, if it's being reallocated. Project goal would be an entire category; right? Versus individual activity. Is that something the federal government changes part of like our compliance with the comp plan or is that something that -- that we have just decided to do that the city has decided as part of their criteria? Campbell: We adjusted it. The federal government doesn't require it to be super strict. The 20 percent we can define what that looks like and in the past, then, we have had it related to a specific activity. But sometimes that makes it a little bit more difficult to respond when maybe a project closes out under budget or something and we have to go out for-- we have to do a substantial amendment, which requires 30 days of public notice and everything to reallocate those funds to a different activity. So, it could be like one streetlight project to another, but because it's a separate activity we can't just move that over. But with this we would be able to do that. But it would only be projects that were previously identified in our action plan. Simison: Council, any additional questions? Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we do. First is Ralph Chappell. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 6 of 37 Simison: Good evening, Ralph. I assume you know the drill. Chappell: Ralph Chappell. 1899 South Swan. Looking at the first item here where it says public facilities and infrastructure, it says senior center. What -- what is the senior center? We already have one. So, is it going to help do something more with it? The other thing it says neighborhood facilities. What are those? And the last -- another one that says health facilities. What's -- what are those? On the next line down there you have child care. We are getting into the childcare business? It doesn't make any sense. Emergency rental assistance. No. Then the next one that says homeowner -- homeownership assistance. We are going to help people buy their houses? Another one says homeowner repairs. Why? My thing is you are going to get this money from the government. Where does the government get the money at? They get it from China. So, then, we have to pay interest on that stuff. So, now you are going to say, okay, we are going to take that money, which we do have the money here in the -- in the city of Meridian, we can use our own money, but we are going to take it from the federal government. For what reason? It doesn't -- to me it doesn't make any sense. You could do the job, same thing, with the money the city has. With today's dollars, instead of borrowing that money, interest is going to be paid on it and who is going to have to pay it. Not you, you, you. It's going to be your kids or your grandkids. It doesn't make any sense. You -- you just -- all right. The other thing is do you really want to burden your kids and grandkids with this -- with this particular -- I don't know how many hundred thousand dollars it is. It's quite a bit. Whenever you could just do the same thing with -- with the city's money. So, my thing is if you approve this, have a good night's sleep, because your kids and grandkids are going to have to pay for it, not you. That's all I have. Simison: Thank you. Thank you, Ralph. Council, any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Kay Baldwin. Simison: And if you could state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Baldwin: My name is -- Simison: Can you get into one of the microphones. Baldwin: My name is Tomi Kay Baldwin. I reside at 2938 West Santa Clara Drive and I was one of the recipients of the block grant this year. They came in and they saved my home. They -- two years ago in October of 2019 1 was being responsible. I asked the company to come in and fix my furnace -- you know, do the -- do the update that you do in the fall and we had just bought our home. We had -- they discovered a drip -- a single drip and it turned out that we had to remove the entire HVAC, so the -- the water heater, the --the water softener and at that same time we took in a disabled child from the system and it was a bad week. Bad bad week. While the insurance adjuster was there, one of the repairman popped his head out of the wall and said do you know you have polybutylene piping? I don't even know what that is. And we lost our home insurance Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 7 of 37 that day as well. We were unable to get home insurance until this grant came in and redid my plumbing. My -- I have three special needs children. They came in and leave my home safe for all three of my little boys and I am now off medication, because I am no longer living in a state of stress. My children are -- Simison: Kay, can you -- Baldwin: Because of this grant. Simison: Keep saying -- on the microphone. Thank you. Baldwin: Forgive me. Simison: Okay. Baldwin: My children will be grateful to pay in years to come, because they are safe today. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I'm not sure if the others wanted to testify, but I will call them. Lisa Hansen. Tony Allison. Okay. Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item this evening? And do we have any -- I haven't looked to see if we have any online. If you are online and would like to provide testimony, you can use the raise your hand feature. Okay. Seeing no one come forward or raise their hand, Crystal, would you like to make any final comments from the testimony that was provided this evening? Oh. If you would like to come forward. If you -- come -- come up to the mic. Everything has to be said into the mic on the record. So, if you can come forward, state your name and address and you will be recognized for three minutes. Elam: My name is Paul Elam and my address is 5127 North Asissi Avenue in Meridian. This is my first attempt -- first time of attending a meeting, so I apologize, I don't know the process very well. Simison: That's okay. Elam: But just curious is do we get to hear all the details of the funding? Just like that gentleman said, like do we get to hear, you know, all the -- all the, you know, specific amounts of each one of those categories of that money that's going to be spent or do we just get to hear like a balloon number? Simison: Crystal? Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 8 of 37 Campbell: So, we have actually presented the exact numbers multiple times over the last several months -- yes. I can definitely get that information to you. I -- I think I have it printed out at my desk, if you would like me to get that for you. Elam: This is the last time anybody can discuss it then? Is that-- you said this is the date when they close it, so there is no more public comments and nobody else can review it and, then, comment again or you are going to extend it? Campbell: Are you needing to -- are you needing to have that extended so that you can review it? Elam: Like I said, it's the first time I have ever attended a meeting, but just like the gentleman said, I would kind of like to know what money is being spent and how it's being allocated and, you know, who it's going to serve, that kind of thing. Campbell: Yeah. I can definitely provide that information to you and I can also keep your comment and I can put it into the plan as well. Elam: Okay. Thank you very much. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Strader: Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a comment. Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Yeah. Just -- Ralph and I didn't catch the gentleman's name who just testified. We had gone through a pretty extensive process in reviewing the plan, but just to give you like a couple of examples, some of the examples for the senior center-- that was like specifically to provide them with transportation. So that they could get needy seniors to their doctor's appointments and so forth. The bus that they use has broken down or the van that they use. And the childcare is -- it's not like Boise where they are giving grants to all childcare providers. That's specific to the Boys and Girls Club in downtown Meridian. But I think your point is well taken in a couple of fronts; right? The federal government's spending is totally out of control. I agree with you. But this money is going to go away if it's not used for positive things in Meridian and a lot of people in these programs depend on it and, then, I guess the other comment I would make is I do think we have the ability to keep the public hearing open tonight and that might be a good thing for us to do, to give folks a chance to review in more detail. So, I would suggest that the Council will consider that. Simison: Thank you, Council Woman Strader. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? Or, Council, do I have a motion to continue the public hearing? Cavener: Yeah. Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 9 of 37 Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Crystal, appreciate kind of helping to answer that question at the forefront. Kind of leads to where my question was coming from. I always like to give the public as much opportunity to comment and your explanation was spot on. We have had multiple hearings about this. The information has been made public. Oftentimes, though, people don't necessarily have the opportunity to pay attention to it until it's at the last minute. This is their -- was kind of their last chance to -- to provide testimony. So, I recognize it's going to create an extra burden onto you as staff, but I know you can capture the comments that we heard here tonight. If we receive any other communication between now and August 9th I know you will be able to incorporate that as well. So, Mr. Mayor, would move that we continue the public hearing for the CDBG program year '22 to '26 consolidated plan to August 9th. Strader: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this item. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? You ayes have it and the public hearing is continued. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 3. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 22-1988: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(C) Concerning City Council Seats; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(E) Concerning Staggered Terms; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(B) Concerning Duties and Powers of the Meridian Districting Committee; Adding Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(1) Concerning Modifications to City Council Seat Numbers; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item up is Item 3, a public hearing and first reading of Ordinance 22-1988. We will open this public hearing with comments from Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I have a slide that I know Chris is going to pull up here in a second. Actually, I have two. Here we go. Can we go with the district one first. Thank you. So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, and for members of the public, so tonight was a first reading of an ordinance change that's being proposed from the Mayor's Office and the Legal Department. So, I do want to clear up the first thing is there was a recent news story published about this exercise that we are going through and it started off-- the title of it was, oops, like we missed something. No one missed anything. The committee that we asked to volunteer their time to create these districts pursuant to state code did exactly what they were asked to do. They were asked to look at the districts and base it all on population and precincts, which is what the state law contemplates. It doesn't contemplate anything else. And so that was their charge. That was their direction and they took it very seriously. You heard the chair -- Chair Jo Greer talk about that and Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 10 of 37 the only consideration of anything -- and not as to where anyone lives, but where -- it was any consideration beyond population precincts, was the committee discussed on a -- a district that crossed the freeway. The only significant feature we have here, because there is no rivers, there is no mountains, there is nothing of that great of magnitude here, is the freeway and the conversation as -- as Chairwoman Greer stated, was do we have one or two districts that cross the freeway and the decision was ultimately made that one would cross the freeway, because it was inevitable that one had to, but we would try to keep it to just the one. So, that was the only consideration that was made beyond precincts and the population and that was -- what their reaction was and that was what the state law contemplated. So, these districts are what you approved a few weeks ago. They are not being proposed to change and they are not being proposed to go back to the committee to reconsider anything, because that's what their direction was. So, I do want to correct that the impression I got from reading the news story about it was that someone erred and now we are trying to fix an error. We are not trying to fix an error. We are not trying to do that. What we are proposing is to change seat numbers. State code also grants authority to the city clerk to designate the seat numbers, so there is no thought or process that went into the conversation by the committee as to where the numbers would go, whether they would start at the bottom left or the top right or the middle or whatever. There was no conversation. They went basically like a map one, two, three, four, five, six. They just went in a circular pattern. That was it. There was no reason to do it that way. There was no discussion about that pattern works better than this pattern or this direction is better in this location than that one. None of that was being considered. They just went that way just because it looks like a clock. That's about it. So, at the time all of the seats of the Council Members have a seat number. So, in Idaho you can either elect city councils by at large or by seat number. Some cities do at large, like Garden City and Kuna. Some do it by seat numbers, like us. So, we have always just designated numbers. So, for lack of a better way of doing it, they created the districts by the numbers, they just plugged all the Council Members by seats into the same numbers. No rhyme or reason, evaluating election terms or the staggered terms that are inherent in city elections. None of that. So, all of that was done completely blind to anything else and that was exactly what they were asked to do. So, again, there was no oops here. So, now once it was completed, the discussion point we had -- and we have had this prior to them being completed internally with my department, was is there a way to create the districts to be all -- all have representatives that actually reside in those districts and be completed by 2023? Right now -- Chris, could we hop to the next slide? Oh. Johnson: An arrow. Nary: Oh, there we go. Thank you. So, right now if we did nothing you would see there that districts one, two, three would change in the general election in 20 -- or excuse me. One, three, five would change in '23. That is the cycle that those seat numbers have been in the past. And then seats two, four and six would change in '25. By happenstance, the current member of seat four, which would be the corresponding District 4, happens to reside in that district today. In District 6 that person happens to reside in that district today. If we make the change, then, District 1 -- to what we are proposing where basically Seat 2 would now become Seat 1. Seat 1 would become Seat 2. The representative in District Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 11 of 37 1 lives there now. So, there is no -- there is -- so, again, we are meeting the intent of the state law sooner. District 1 would be represented by a person that resides there. District 2 would be represented by a person that resides there. District 3 would come up for the election cycle in the '23 election naturally anyway and currently no Council Members live in that district now. District 4 would be, as I stated before, would already be immediately with a representative. '23 for Seat 5, because, again, no current Council Member lives in Seat 5 today. So, that was -- would normally come up anyway. Seat 6 would, again, be immediate. So, the desire when this law was passed in 2020, our office had a lot of contact and a lot of conversation with Senator Winder, the -- the -- the President Pro Tern of the Senate, who was the one who carried this forward through the Senate and to the House and got approved. His desire in both '20 and '21 when we were trying to create some changes that would make it a little bit cleaner for everybody was the sooner the better. That was his desire. He recognized with staggered terms it can be challenging to do that. Other -- other cities have chosen a different path that we did not choose to go down, because we didn't find the same comfort level of state law support for some other alternative paths. So, when this process concluded, as it was done, we looked at it and said if we make this one change of seat numbers, then, it's done. It's done now for most of them and it's done completely by the next election in '23. So, is that advantageous to the city? In our belief it's advantageous to our citizens. The intent of the code was to have a representative government by districts. The sooner the better. If we do nothing it will happen by 2025. So, three and a half years now -- from now it would be completed anyway. Our desire in bringing this forward to you to consider is that we could have this done here by the end of next year. By the cycle of election in November of '23 every person in every district would be representative and reside in the district as intended. So, one question is asked of me in the last week is do we have to do this? No, you don't have to do this. I mean you are not required to do any of it. But if the objective and desire is to get the representative government done sooner and completed and move on to the next -- the next cycle, which is at the next census, that, hopefully, I'm not standing here having this conversation with you then, it will -- it will be a natural evolution. As I stated last week, it may look odd to people for the next few election cycles that it's no longer one three and five and two, four and six. In ten years they can change that back, too. It doesn't matter. They could do that. We didn't recommend doing that now, because that doesn't seem necessary when the smaller change has support in the code, has a direction in the state law that contemplates a change of seat numbers and allows for that type of change. So, that's what's before you. That, hopefully, explains a little bit better. Hopefully from the public's perspective they understand that this is not trying to correct any error or mistake, it's trying to clear up an issue that could be done sooner than later and we believe as intended by the code, as intended by Senator Winder, this -- this accomplishes that sooner than later and that's a good, positive thing for what the code intends. So, I can answer your questions. And also our intent is so the public understands. This is just the first reading. We had planned on the second reading at your next meeting on the 9th and the third reading with another opportunity for public comment on that one. Obviously, written comments they can submit anytime. But our intent was to bring you back on the third reading on the 16th if the Council is of a mindset to approve it. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 12 of 37 Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Yeah. I -- I made my comments last week when -- when this first came forward and I think the newspaper reported on -- on those comments. But to me this is the way to fully implement representative government as quickly as possible in regards to how -- how the legislature had hoped, but also in my opinion it reflects the will of the people from the last election by aligning those who were elected into -- into those seats where they live and gives them that representation as well. So, I'm happy to also answer any questions from Council. From my perspective as well. But, Council, any questions for Mr. Nary? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I would like to make a comment. Can you guys hear me okay? Simison: Yes. Strader: Great. You know, I just like to be upfront about things. I do think that this is very positive for the residents of what is currently designated as District 2 to have representation, but I cannot ignore the facts after thinking about this since I viewed the hearing last week, that this change would benefit me directly. It is specific to my seat and the district that I live in and I don't want to ignore that fact. It would specifically allow me to run for office two years earlier. I don't feel that it will be appropriate for me to vote on this and I will be abstaining from voting on it. Simison: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. I appreciate that comment, Council Woman Strader. I also live in District 2. Again, the commission was blind to where we lived. They didn't take that into consideration when both of us were put in, but I -- I -- I see it completely different. This allows the voters of the district to make that decision right away, instead of having someone who lives out of the district be their representative, they get to vote immediately on who they want, whether it's Council Woman Strader, me, or someone else. That's their decision and, then, they have a representative elected from that district, whatever they decide immediately, instead of waiting two years. So, I -- I just see it from that perspective. It gives them the opportunity to -- made their voice heard right away. So, just --just a different perspective. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 13 of 37 Perreault: So, Bill, when a resident sees the chart and it says that they now immediately have a representative in a district, what conclusion should they draw from that? Nary: I guess, Council Member Perreault, Mr. Mayor, I -- I -- I guess if -- if -- if that's important to them, because that's what the whole purpose of the state code change was, then, it means that, again, they have got somebody who in theory -- and this is very theoretical -- that has a better understanding of what issues face them in where they live. You know, many of the things you hear are very centric to the location, whether it's traffic, whether it's schools, whatever that may be. So, I think if I'm a resident I would at least have the comfort level to know that the person representing me at the City Council probably has a better understanding of what I have to deal with everyday than somebody else who may live in a completely different part of the city and not really feel that, because, again, I know you have all heard that, you don't--you have heard people say to you, well, you don't get it, you live here, I live there, I'm the one driving over here and you are not driving over here. So, I think that's what -- if-- if -- if -- if you are that into this stuff I think that's what you would think is, okay, how I have got somebody that lives and represents me that kind of gets what I go through every day. That's the way I would think. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Because we -- none of us were elected in these seats and we didn't --we didn't run with -- with a district specific message or, you know, we are -- we are not -- I don't think any of us would say, hey, we are specialists in the district in which we now currently live that these maps have been drawn. So, to -- to say I just -- I guess I just want to be careful representing to the public that we have some sort of specialized knowledge about our districts when we say that there is an immediate representative, because we weren't elected in that way originally. So, that's kind of what I was trying to get with that question is just to be clear that, you know, we weren't voted in in these districts originally. We may or may not have specialized information about that district currently. So, if somebody looks at this and has no history or understanding of-- of kind of what's gone on, they may look at it and go, oh, okay, so the current representative for District 1 clearly understands the concerns for District 1 right now. And so I would -- just curious, you know, your thoughts on that, because we really haven't had a discussion about how this looks for us in -- in -- in the sense of how we are interacting with members of -- of our districts. Nary: So, yeah, absolutely fair question, Council Member Perreault. So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so the legislature on their own accord -- and -- and I will be honest, I have been in this business a long time. Nobody I have ever dealt with asked about this at this level. Everybody's been used to the state electing people that way and -- and -- but you are right. But the same thing can be said of state representatives. I don't know if this person lives across the street from me or moved here yesterday. I don't know. So, I don't know how-- how engaged everyone is in that conversation, but what I do think is the legislature made their independent choice absent what cities wanted or didn't want and said we are going to choose now that you no longer get elected in this form, you get Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 14 of 37 elected in this form, knowing full well no one -- no one in the state had a district system in place in 2020. No one. Not -- not Boise. Not us. No one. So, they didn't really ponder that I don't believe very long and hard on whether or not that would be a bother to somebody to say, well, I voted for this person for my seat, because the seat just was a number. It didn't have any meaning to anything, it was just a designation and as I stated earlier, cities could elect people by seats, so you have to run for a specific seat or you could elect them at large. There was no distinction between either one of those systems. And -- and there was never intended to be. So, they changed the rules at the state level, regardless of what cities may have thought, and decided that's going to be the way it goes from now on and now instead of having a choice, as we had before, we don't have a choice. We always had the ability to district before. No city chose to, because of other reasons. Or for whatever reason. But now we don't have a choice. We have to do it that way. So, we have to separate ourselves from the mindset of I voted for this person, because Seat 2 means so much to me -- I'm sorry. Seat 2 is this district if you -- if you -- if you live in a different part of the city that's the way it goes. You are no longer in District 2 and you no longer represent Seat 2, you live in seat -- District 5. So, we are just changing our mindset from what a seat is to a district. Everything is the same. Simison: There will be time for public comment and questions after we are done with the presentation. Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: You know, I -- I -- I felt that this made sense, but I'm really interested to see what the public has to say about this. Like the process that took place before, it was very transparent. Council and the Mayor's Office was a couple arm lengths away from it at all times and will continue to -- to --to --to approach it that way for sure, but I'm really excited to see what the public has to say about this and reserve my final thoughts until the -- the final reading, the final public hearing. Nary: Anyone else? Simison: Any other questions for Mr. Nary? Okay. Nary: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up in advance to provide testimony? Johnson: Yes, Mr. Mayor. First is Mike Luis. Simison: And if you can state your name and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 15 of 37 Luis: Mike Luis. 5343 West McMurtrey Street, Meridian. I don't agree with this. I mean you guys selected a redistricting committee. There was five meetings, two public hearings, six drafts. You guys approved it and I think you guys should stick with it and the last election cycle, as a matter of fact, there was a issue Phil McGrain didn't rotate the names correctly and there was a very close race in one of the districts -- or one of the seats, so let it go to vote. It is what it is. It was selected. Let's go to the election. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Phil Reynolds. Reynolds: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the City Council. My name is Phillip Reynolds and I reside at 6423 North Salvia Way, Meridian. And I'm here to speak in opposition of this proposal. I think it gives an appearance of gerrymandering. I think the committee did a great job, they worked hard, they put things in place and all of you approved it and it -- it should remain. I believe the attorney just mentioned that most people don't even know about this. Most people don't care about this. They don't have a clue what's going on. Only the City Council does and a few political junkies that watch your agendas on a regular basis know this is happening. So, I think the ethical and proper thing to do would be just to leave it the way it is. It -- it -- it gives the appearance that it's going to benefit and we just heard from one of the Council Members, it's going to benefit Council Members, but it has no positive or negative impact on the citizens and it's going to give that appearance, it's only for the City Council. So, please, do the right thing. Please do not support this proposition. Thank you. Simison: Council, questions? Cavener: Mr. Reynolds? Just a -- a quick question, because I -- Simison- Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate your comment about, you know, the public --your perception the public isn't aware of this and I think it's the --very much the intention of the Mayor, the Council, our staff to communicate with the public about this, which is why we are having multiple public hearings. I guess I -- I would ask your advice or recommendations on things you think the -- the city should be doing between now and our next scheduled public hearing to better inform the public, so that they have an opportunity to weigh in. Reynolds: Thank you for asking that. What I would like to see as a citizen is I would like to see our representatives out in the neighborhoods. I would like to see town hall meetings, go out to the HOA meetings, make a presence, inform the citizens of what's happening down here, because when I walk precincts, last year, I learned there is a lot of seniors. They are not on computers. Some of them don't drive. They don't have a clue what's happening down here and they have the right to know and it's -- the City Council and the city staff's job to keep that information going out to them. They don't all have Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 16 of 37 access. So, please, keep that in mind, too. But they don't know this is happening and -- I would bet -- if gambling was legal I would bet the majority of them don't have a clue about any of this right now. So, please, give the right appearance, be ethical, and do the right thing. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Question for Phil. Phil -- Reynolds: Sure. Hoaglun: You know, one thing that this does, as this chart shows, is this would enact the ordinance for the legislature's desire to have us in districts to be representative of the people in 2023. By delaying it to 2025 that means we won't be doing those things, because you will have people in districts that they don't live in representing them and there is no incentive to be there, because they aren't going to be elected there. So, why would we not want to have representation by the people sooner, as opposed to later, as the legislature intended? Reynolds: Again, the general public -- it doesn't matter to them and, Mr. Attorney, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the mandates for districts started from a lawsuit -- or lawsuits to states and -- and it came from some attorneys in Texas and it started with some discrimination lawsuits requiring cities to break up into districts and now it's kind of making a wave across the United States. Is that -- is that information correct? Nary: Mr. Mayor, Member of the Council, I have no idea. When the legislature discussed this in 2020 there was not a conversation about another state. All they talked about over and over again was they were elected in districts and they felt that cities over a hundred thousand people that had at large representation, which all cities had at that time, wasn't fair to the public. That the public elects legislators by districts, therefore, cities of the size of a hundred thousand or greater should do it that way. That would be more representative. There was no lawsuit in the state of Idaho over this issue. There was people in public that weighed in about it, but there wasn't a lawsuit and whether or not another state lawsuit -- certainly isn't going to drive anything we are doing in our state. Another state -- laws are different. The requirements are different. The rules are different. So, that wasn't really any conversation at the state level I'm aware of. All of it was they are too large to have one person, essentially, in theory, representing 1/6th of a hundred thousand people, when the legislative districts are nowhere near that size. So, that was their focus. They are elected by districts, then, the city representatives should be districts as well. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 17 of 37 Reynolds: Okay. Well, I can't speak for Idaho, but I can speak for the state that I moved from. In the past at large worked out very well and we may find in the future -- I don't -- I'm not going to predict the future, but we may find that what districts create is little mayors. A mayor for this district. A mayor for this district. A lot of fighting over funding. It's -- it was difficult to get along. It -- it created problems from where I came from and -- and these are small towns that -- that had this. So, something that came in -- and -- and that's why the state that I came from was required -- the cities were required to break up into districts. Maybe -- I'm just guessing. Maybe Idaho jumped on board before the lawsuits got here. That --that's a possibility. But I'm asking the City Council tonight to do the right thing and -- and present an ethical image to the citizens and -- and just go with what you approved the first time, because when you start making changes -- Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Reynolds: -- it gives bad appearances. Simison: Councilman Bernt. Bernt: Phil, I -- I shared the same thoughts, really with regard to districts. I wasn't a fan. But it's the law, so it's something we have to do. But my -- my question to you is -- you mentioned gerrymandering. Could you provide clarity of why you think that the appearance of doing this would be gerrymandered? Reynolds: Well, that's -- that's a political term. That's a political term. Bernt: I know what it is. I know what it is. Reynolds: And as people find out that -- you know, as citizens find out that's going to be the projected image. I'm not saying this is gerrymandering, but it -- it's a term that the public, as they learn, will -- will toss that term around. Good or bad. It -- it's a term that people know in their heads and it's -- it's -- again, are -- are you projecting a proper image by supporting this, making changes after you have already approved something. So, please, do the right thing and -- and just --just leave it as it is. We will move forward. It will take some time, but I think it will be better on the long run. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: So, Mr. Reynolds, I appreciate you being here and -- and this is a big part of it. So, to the point of anyone in the public having some misperception on the process, you are one of the folks who is involved and -- and knowledgeable about the process that was utilized in the -- the distance and detachment of the Council and Mayor to it. I think that -- so, one, thanks for being here, but, two, as you go forward and you might -- if you talk to folks in the community and if-- and if they don't have the information that you have, we encourage you to share that about the process utilized to -- to create a fair -- it's not Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 18 of 37 gerrymandered, it's detached from any of our input. We always struggle trying to get folks involved and informed like you have, so I encourage you to do that and try and share that, so if folks say something with misinformation about how we got this far, that you will be able to speak up and help correct them as you watched it -- early in this process we went to great lengths to try and -- the seven of us discuss how this being forced upon us -- I don't think there is any of us that wanted to do this. None of us -- we have all been here a long time and Meridian is one community; right? Reynolds: Right. Borton: And even with -- quite frankly, I don't think districts change a thing for that. The mentality is we represent the city as a whole, each of us. At least that's the way I think for sure. But we were adamant from the start to be detached and to empower this community to go do basically an equal protection math equation and that's it, subject to the rules of the state that they forced upon us, quite frankly. So, I just encourage you to, one, keep involved like you are, but help us share that message to folks in the community. If you hear misinformation we are, obviously, doing the same thing. I thought, quite frankly, I don't want to hear -- I get cautious when you use the word ethical. I -- I don't think anything's unethical, quite frankly, about this. Councilman Hoaglun said it really well. Really, it -- it's a -- one minor change in the process that creates a quicker accountability and quicker voice to the folks within a community to directly elect their representatives. So, I thought what Brad said made good sense as far as the explanation for it. But I appreciate you being here and -- and -- and, hopefully, continuing to communicate with folks about the process. Reynolds: I will continue my communication and in a positive manner, as I always do. But, again, the public doesn't know. Ninety-eight to ninety-nine percent are not going to be aware of any of this. So, the districts -- at this point and going forward for many of them are irrelevant. They -- they want proper representation and they want -- they want their streets paved. They want their sidewalks free of debris. No graffiti. Safe communities. That's what they want. They -- they don't want politics. They don't want to be involved in politics. They want a beautiful, clean city to live in and a safe city. Borton: Mr. Mayor, if I could. Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: The conversation fascinates me. A thousand percent agree. Two truths. This -- this legislation that was placed upon us by the legislature zero citizens in Meridian asked for it and anytime you can communicate with any of our state legislators about that concern we encourage all of our citizens to do that, to say you really created a solution for something that wasn't a problem, at least in our community. So, we are still committed to represent the city as a whole. No doubt. I got words for state representatives, too. The public wants to see them, too. The public wants to see their elected officials. They want to know what's going on. A lot of them feel uninformed and I -- I think our elected officials have to do a better job at that. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 19 of 37 Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Thank you very much for what you are sharing. As Councilman Borton just mentioned, we -- we agree. We -- we don't -- we don't want the potential appearance of division that this could create. But in addition to communicating with your elected officials at the state level, always feel free as well to write in editorials to the media. We have -- we have had some pretty frequent articles, pretty -- pretty often articles are being written that aren't accurate as to what is being said, communicated by the city. So, don't hesitate to write those as well and your thoughts on this -- this is a big deal, it's going to affect this entire valley and, you know, Meridian, Boise, and -- and Nampa and I know for me it won't change how I will go about things here, you know, in -- in light of just wanting to make decisions -- good decisions for the city as a whole. Reynolds: Well, I hope -- even if we -- after we break up into districts that you still take ownership of the city as a whole. I hope that continues, because that's really what the citizens want to see. They -- they don't see lines. They don't see their neighbor living in another district. The streets all connect the entire City of Meridian and that's what they want to see, that continuity. So, thank you very much for your time. Simison: Mr. Clerk? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everyone. Simison: Okay. That's everyone who signed up in advance. If anyone would like to provide testimony if you would like to come forward at this time. If you want -- you got to come up here if you want to speak, so -- have you state your name and address for the record again. Elam: Paul Elam. 5127 North Asissi Avenue. Again, sorry, I'm just still learning the process, but it's been a great learning experience and I'm trying to prepare myself for an upcoming meeting. We expect because of a giant apartment complex that is going to be built near our -- our home, so that's why I wanted to start attending. But I was just wondering -- I think this would be addressed to you, sir, but about the law that was passed by the state -- I have only lived here for a year. Is that final, there is no getting around it, because I agree with a lot of the great points made by that gentleman and for me when I -- when I think about it I think the same kind of thing, that, you know, we could have two amazing council members that live in the same district and I hate to lose one, because they already care so much about the city, because of something that the citizens didn't even know was being voted on. So, is there any flexibility or is it -- we have to make this change automatically? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, so -- Mr. Elam. There really -- there is no change that we can effectuate at the city level. So, the state does carry the -- carry the -- the weight here. They have made this change. We did propose some changes in the Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 20 of 37 '21 legislative session and those never got approved, so we don't really have a --a change -- and I don't know if there is any desire at the state level to revisit this particular issue again. Elam: It would have to be another vote at the state level to say we don't necessarily need that after all -- after citizens get involved like that gentleman was saying. Nary: Yeah. It's -- it's certainly difficult to change state law without the legislative support and it is very difficult on a lot of issues that can -- for some reason get really divisive to get the change. So, we are doing the best we can. I mean -- and this is just my own personal editorial comment, not on behalf of the city, but I don't think it was accidental that no city in the state had districts. I -- I don't necessarily think that was a desire that was asked from the city level. It really, truly, was a state conversation. Elam: Yeah. It's interesting. I think it was you that mentioned nobody had ever requested that in Meridian, which blows my mind, but I'm just curious, how many cities were affected by this new law or requirement? Nary: Three. Elam: Three. Okay. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I -- I -- I just have to speak up. Mr. Elam, I -- I just -- to be truthful, this was done -- and since you are new to the city -- politics occur everywhere. Elam: Yeah. Hoaglun: The legislature is conservative. Our capital city is less conservative. Elam: Yeah. Hoaglun: And this was aimed at them. Elam: Oh. Hoaglun: They had a number of Council Members from the same region of the city. So, that's why it does -- you cannot single out communities by name, so they picked the number, one hundred thousand at that time. Now, Nampa and Meridian have surpassed a hundred thousand. So, just to let you know how it works, that's how it happened, so -- Elam: Wow. That's good information. Thank you very much. I -- being new to the process, but starting to be aware, you know, we --we love it here. Our family moved here Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 21 of 37 and we are very thrilled to be in this community and so now we want to kind of learn what goes on and I agree with what many of you have said, so thanks you for your time. Hoaglun: You're welcome. Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Perreault: Don't run away. Sir? First I want to say thank you very much for coming as a new resident to our community. Much appreciated. I just wanted to say that the residents do have -- if residents decide that they want their city to district they do have a method in which they can go about that. So, that's kind of what's being communicated as it's a little bit challenging to justify this law when none of the residents of any of the three communities that were affected were coming to their own cities and saying, hey, really think we should be districted, because we -- and so just wanted you to know that. I also wanted you to know that conversation about this has been going on for about four years. So, this isn't something that is -- the legislators were talking about this in 2018. They passed a bill that said cities over 150,000. That became an issue, because it, obviously, singled out Boise. Then -- then they -- they amended that bill and it became a hundred thousand and so this has been going on. So, it's not that residents probably aren't aware of it. It's been in the news for a very long time. I just don't know that residents really got why they -- it was necessary, because if we are not understanding why it's necessary, certainly the average person isn't understanding why it's necessary. But other cities have really done their best to communicate with our legislators about how it will affect the cities and the residents and -- and our concerns and thoughts about it and -- and don't know that we were -- were really heard in the manner that we hoped we would be, so I just wanted to give you that history, as well as what Bill had shared. Elam: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. It's really fascinating to kind of learn how these things happen and -- you know. And I agree with that gentleman that spoke and that I -- I haven't met any citizens that really keep up with what's going on, even in the city level very many. Where we live in our community I just happened that -- my wife spotted a Facebook group that talked about a new development and that's how I got involved, because I thought does anybody even know in our -- in our community that they are going to put this right next to our area, when there is only one lane each direction on this street that can't accommodate 450 new cars every day and -- and so we asked around the community and nobody had ever even heard that that was even being discussed. So, it -- to -- to the gentleman's point, so many people don't really know what's going on. So, it's good to hear and I hope things -- rules like that don't prohibit having great members across the board, just because of some lines being drawn. So, thank you all. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else present that would like to provide testimony on this item? If so, please, come forward at this time. If you would state your name and address for the record. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 22 of 37 Hon: Mike Hon. 2134 East Summerridge Drive. Bernt: How are you doing? Hon: Hello. Thank you and good evening. Yeah. You know, to Phil's point, I don't think a lot of people even knew the map was being drawn. Like, boom, it appeared; right? From a committee that was created by the Mayor. So, from my perspective, you know, you chuck the dice, you created the map, it is what it is and I think you should just move forward with the map as it is. So, that's that. Thank you. Simison: Any questions? No questions. Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item at this time? Or anybody online that would like to provide testimony, use your raise your hand feature on Zoom. Okay. Seeing no one wishing to provide additional comment, Council, I know the intention is to leave this public hearing open for each of the subsequent readings or decision points or if Council wants an off ramp at any point in time from that standpoint. So, do I have a motion to continue this public hearing? Or do we need -- do we need a motion to continue it, Mr. Nary? Nary: Pardon me. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, it would be on your August 9th meeting for a second reading automatically. Simison: Okay. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Some thoughts maybe to continue to-- maybe take some of the public feedback about public engagement. I'm -- I'm not sure what options exist, but particularly hearing from residents that would be impacted in District 1 and 2, if there is maybe some extra efforts the city could take to promote what's going on in those particular areas and invite public feedback from them would be helpful. I also think it's important -- and I may have misheard you when you first presented this, Mr. Mayor. But I was under the impression there was going to be some direct communication to the redistricting commission about this proposed change. At least when I checked in with one to kind of get their feedback they hadn't heard from anybody, so I just would invite that we reach out to the redistricting commission, make them aware of this, and I think also solicit their feedback as well. Simison: Okay. All right. Then with that we will go ahead and move on to Item 4 -- or do we -- yeah. We don't need to do an additional first reading action. Okay. 4. Public Hearing for East Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0037) by Laren Bailey, Located at North of E. Lake Hazel Rd. between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 23 of 37 A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove single- level limitation on single family residences within Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). Simison: All right. Item 4 is a public hearing for East Ridge Subdivision, H-2022-0037, and we will open the public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The applicant -- it's not my project, so I'm here on behalf of Alan just covering, because --they are requesting continuance, because the applicant team couldn't -- have their availability tonight, so they are just requesting continuance to the August 9th hearing. Assuming they would have requested next week, but we are not having a meeting next week. Johnson: Mr. Mayor. This is Chris. Also they did not post for tonight, so it was not legally noticed. Simison: Okay. So, we can't open the public hearing regarding that. It just -- asked me to continue it. So, with that do I have a motion to vacate the item from the -- Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: What's our action, Mr. -- Councilman Cavener, if you know. Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I -- before any motions are made I -- and perhaps we should have maybe chatted about this before we set the agenda. I don't know if there is people that are here that are able to testify and aren't going to be able to be here -- Simison: We can't open the public hearing. Cavener: I understand that we can't open the public hearing, but I do think that we could poll the audience about the availability of being here at a future meeting. I think that --for me, before we set a date, I want to make sure that the folks that if they are here tonight that they are going to be able to come back to provide testimony at a proposed evening. Simison: Is there anybody here that was here for this item this evening? Or online if you can raise your hand to indicate that that's the case. Seeing no one -- okay. Mr. Nary? Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, what I would suggest to you is simply move this item to your next agenda. Then the noticing will get done appropriately for it, but we can't really take other actions, since, again, it wasn't properly noticed for tonight. Simison: Okay. Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 24 of 37 Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Do you need a notice for that or -- I mean a motion for that or -- Nary: Move it to the next available agenda. Hoaglun: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: I move that we hold a public hearing for East Ridge Subdivision, H-2022-0037, for August 9th. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the item is moved to the August 9th meeting. MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT. 5. Public Hearing for Pickleball Court Subdivision (H-2022-0025) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 4050 W. McMillan Rd. at the northeast corner of N. Joy Street and W. McMillan Rd. A. Request: Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 zoning district. Simison: Next on the agenda is -- is Item 5, which is a public hearing for Pickleball Court Subdivision, H-2022-0025. I will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As noted, this next one is for Pickleball Court. It is a request for annexation of 4.96 acres of land, which is currently zoned RUT. They request the R-4 zoning district. And also a request for a preliminary plat -- preliminary plat consisting of 14 single family homes -- or I should say residential building lots and four common lots on approximately four and a half acres in the requested district. Now, typically, I don't discuss it, but there is about a half an acre difference of the annexation area and the plat area and that's because this abuts two public roads and zoning needs to go to the center line of the road. So, that's where the additional area is. The site is located at the northeast corner of Joy Street and McMillan, as seen in this picture here. Joy Street runs right along their west boundary and is a public road. The subject four and a half acres currently contains a barn or other agriculture building or two. Previous home Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 25 of 37 appears to have been removed according to the latest imagery. The subject site abuts two public roads as noted. McMillan to the south, Joy Street to the west. But in the north and east are two existing R-4 developments. Vicenza to the east and Summerwood Subdivision No. 2 to the north. The subject property is designated as medium density residential on the future land use map, consistent with existing development to the east and the north. The proposal for 14 building lots on four and a half acres of land constitutes a gross density of just over three units per acre, nearly the minimum density allowed within the medium density residential designation. So, again, not pushing the density on -- per our Comprehensive Plan. Minimum building lot size is 8,000 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for the requested R-4 zoning district. The adjacent developments are similar density and lot size, which make the project consistent with the existing development. With the existence of Joy Street along the west boundary, subject project should act as a transition towards the higher density approved further west at the corner of Black Cat and McMillan and with the underdeveloped properties in between that. Access is proposed via a new local street connection to Joy Street, noted as West Riva Capri. And there is no access proposed to West McMillan. Access to all proposed homes is from the new local street that ends in a cul-de-sac near the north boundary. No opportunity for a stub street exists, because existing development did not provide one to this property. The applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way for McMillan and widen the paved surface area adjacent to this site for McMillan. The applicant is also required to reconstruct Joy Street as half of a 33 foot wide local street section abutting the site. ACHD has approved the proposed road connections and layout and staff also supports the proposed layout. The subject project is less than five acres in size. Therefore, the UDC does not require minimum amount of open space or amenities. However, the applicant is proposing some open space, which staff has analyzed. The applicant shows three main areas of open space. One, the required buffer along McMillan, an open space lot along the north boundary, which is Lot 12, and an additional grassy area in the southeast corner that's noted to hold a future gravity irrigation pond. The applicant should add an exhibit and more detail to the landscape plan that shows how this pond will be constructed and what it will look like to ensure compliance to UDC standards and there is an existing condition of approval regarding that. Within Lot 12, along the north boundary -- so, that would be this one here -- the preliminary plat notes that there is a pickleball court or a sports court. The applicant requested flexibility in the type of the sports court requested there. Therefore, the applicant -- or I should say they did request that. Staff did modify that DA per the Commission recommendation to modify the DA provision. So, I -- originally I specifically stated a pickleball court, because that's what was noted on the plat. The applicant wants flexibility on what kind of sports court, depending on what they end up doing. At the Commission hearing public testimony was only about the dust mitigation, I guess. There was a neighbor that was concerned with just having the dirt out there and not having it wetted. The Commission discussed that. They also discussed the difference of the height proposed of these homes to the existing and whether the applicant had an intention to match. The applicant -- the actual home builder was here for the Commission meeting and stated that they will try to match height where they can. They also asked are there -- are lights planned around the proposed sports court at the north end and the answer was no and, then, there was also a brief discussion on this project's location in relation to a project on the south side of McMillan Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 26 of 37 that was denied. They -- Commission specifically noted that the differences were pretty large in both its size, density, and that this has no direct access to McMillan Road. Again, Commission did note -- recommend modifying that provision regarding the sports court and these other things that the applicant requested, which were also noted and so this is what's shown here what -- is what's changed in the Commission recs that were sent to Council. There has been no written testimony for the project before the Commission or after. So, I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff? Is the applicant here? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Tamara Thompson with The Land Group. Our offices are at 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle. I'm here tonight representing the applicant, who is the property owner, and who -- who is also the home builder. I do have a PowerPoint, but Joe pretty much has all the same slides that I would have for you, so I think I will just go through with his and, then, if you have some specific questions I might have him put mine up. So, before you tonight is the annexation of just under five acres and a proposed zoning to R-4. That R-4 is consistent with the surrounding properties. This property is kind of landlocked. It has existing homes to the north and to the east and public streets on the south and the west. As Joe mentioned, the public improvements to those street frontages are required by ACHD, so road widening and sidewalks and landscaping will be constructed with the subdivision. We have 14 residential lots. They all have a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. We have aligned two existing homes to the north and to the east where possible. Some of those are kind of pie shaped, so we can't make them exact, but we have tried to line them up one to one and as Joe mentioned there is not opportunity for cross-access or stub roads, as all those homes are already -- all those lots are already developed. This proposed development is consistent with the existing developments to the east and -- and the north as far as lot sizes. This is logical and orderly expansion of the city and it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Our proposed zoning is consistent with those surrounding properties as well. We have read the staff report and agree with staff's analysis and the recommended conditions of approval and we respectfully request your approval tonight. I will stand for questions. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: Hello. Thanks for presenting this. I just wanted to know more detail about the pond. Any kind of irrigation pond I would just worry about like sitting water, mosquitoes, sometimes they are not done well. Could -- could you give us some more detail about what is intended? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, the pond is in this location right here. This property does have surface water rights and the -- with the surface water rights they Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 27 of 37 only get water once per seven days. So, we have to create a pond in order to have the capacity for the neighbors to be able to -- we will do a pressurized irrigation system and in order to have that storage in order to -- to hold that so that the people can sprinkler their lawns whenever they want to and not just every seven days. So, there is enough capacity, it just doesn't come very often. There is that limitation. So, we will, with the final plat, have the design for that and we -- we have done the calculations as far as the land area that's needed to have that storage, but the design we will do with the final plat. don't have a design for you tonight for that. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: Along those lines is it intended, then, that there is some type of aeration of the water to prevent mosquitoes? And, then, what is kind of your intended plan? We have one of these in our neighborhood, much to the frustration of mothers across our neighborhood, as our young ones like to kind of climb in there and they get muddy and stuff like that when it's empty. What are your plans to kind of, one, manage it as a safety issue and reduce like the impacts of mosquitoes and stuff like that? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, the --we -- we design these quite often and this one will have fencing around it, so that it won't be easily accessible by children in the neighborhood and as far as aeration, I don't have a good answer for you on that. If-- if it -- it will -- it will depend on if they can and that kind of stuff. I don't -- I don't know exactly how they are going to design that. But that will be something that -- that we can address and I can sure pass that on to them. But staff, with the final plat, will -- we could have them be looking at that as well. Dodson: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Yes, Joe. Dodson: Sorry. Did Councilman Bernt says something? I just wanted to clarify that the code does require, if there is going to be standing water, the aeration will be required or some form of it in order to help with the mosquito issue. So, that's why I put in the condition that will take care of that and make sure it complies with code once they come back around with the final plat or -- or building a lot. Cavener: Thanks, Joe. Dodson: Absolutely. Simison: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Thompson: Thank you. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 28 of 37 Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to provide testimony on this item? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not have anyone sign up in advance. Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody present that would like to sign up, go ahead and come forward at this time and you will state your name and address for the record, be recognized for three minutes. You will always have that opportunity. Elam: Thank you. Paul Elam. I live at 5127 North Asissi Avenue and this is actually the property that I came here tonight about. It -- it's maybe one block from our community. We are in Bridge Tower West, which is right there a little bit behind the Walmart on Ten Mile Road. Traffic is already a nightmare on that street, McMillan, and -- and it's funny when you talk about districts, it doesn't really matter -- kind of that gentleman said -- we don't really care which district it falls in, as long as the Council Members are kind of hearing our -- our interests in paving or whatever it is. But currently that -- where they have that plan there is only one lane each way on McMillan and -- and it's very congested. Many hours of the day you can barely even take a left or right off of Joy, which is the street that they indicate where that is, so -- I mean I literally -- we rode our bikes right by there. It's -- it's probably 500 yards or so from where we live and -- and it is very congested and so I would ask that -- as well as other areas that they want to build on -- and there is already another giant community going in about maybe one or two blocks west of there that already has paved streets close to Black Cat. I would ask that the city or this company that wants to put in the development, that they do a study on the transportation impact of that area, because already the roads are very crowded and -- and I'm sure there is a lot of other cornfields that people want to build on, but until they widen McMillan and Ustick and other areas nearby, it's going to be a big problem for the existing citizens that have already purchased in that area. Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Elam: So, I ask that they would delay this approval of this hearing until a study is done. Simison: Thank you. Is there anybody else present who would like to provide testimony on this item? Anybody online, use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one, would the applicant like to come forward? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Members of Council, to address the comments about traffic, as you know, ACHD has analyzed the project and has a staff report that they -- and conditions of approval that they have -- that your staff has, then, attached by reference. So, we have to comply with those conditions as well. With this development we are widening the streets in our -- along our frontage, providing sidewalks in those areas and for Joy we are redoing half of that road section, so there is considerable amounts of -- of improvements that are -- that are going on there. But, then, we also pay our impact fees, which is the system that we are in. So, this --this project is complying fully with the ACHD report. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 29 of 37 Simison: Thank you. Council, any -- Councilman Cavener, Cavener: Tamara, to this point what's McMillan rated by ACHD with this proposed development? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I'm not sure what you mean by that. Rated? As far as the letter? Cavener: Yes. Thompson: Oh, I don't -- I didn't bring that report with me. Do you have that in front of you? Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I do not. I can pull it up, but I'm -- I know McMillan is a constrained corridor, so widening it ain't -- is not going to happen as far as I know. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Tamara, when you talk about why -- are you -- are you -- are they doing a right turn lane in -- from in front of your property onto Joy or is there just an additional lane being put in on the right side? Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, a right turn lane was -- was not required at that location. What -- but the edge of pavement is getting widened and, then, a detached sidewalk is -- is being continued. It isn't in front of the properties immediately to the east of us, so it will continue to -- to and through our property to Joy Street and, then, turn the corner and it will be the entire length of Joy as well. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: For commentary, so I can get back to you, the ACHD staff report has it rated better than E. So, just for Council and for you -- that's not what I expected to see, so I thought it was important to share that with everyone. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 30 of 37 Strader: Just as someone who lives off of McMillan, just to pipe up, the traffic situation is so out of control on McMillan and the canal makes it so that widening it is just totally not feasible in the near future. I'm happy to see that this is R-4 and not a bunch of apartments. You know, I would have a lot more heartburn if this was a lot higher density. I appreciate that the lot lines, you know, match up with the surrounding neighborhood, et cetera. But, yeah, just felt like I had to say something as someone who experiences McMillan on a daily basis. Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Thank you. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2022-0025. Hoaglun: Second the motion. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Borton: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Borton. Borton: I think this is a relatively straightforward small project. Sort of tucked in there. I agree with Council Woman Strader, seeing this as an R-4 is -- is refreshing. McMillan is a challenge for this generation and the next generation, no matter what you put on it, unfortunately. But I think it's a -- it's a well designed, thoughtful plat, appropriately zoned. Appreciate the open space and some of the flexibility on the sports court. I think that's well taken as well. So, it just seems to be a pretty clear cut application. I will make a motion that we approve H-2022-0025 as presented in the staff report of July 26th, '22. Bernt: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve H-2022-0025. Is there discussion? Cavener: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Cavener. Cavener: I'm in support of this request as well. I -- I always try and look at an application and see how it enhances our community and I think this one does. I think it's important, Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 31 of 37 because we have had a couple of people provide testimony that are newer to Meridian, just a good reminder -- the City of Meridian doesn't oversee our streets and roads. It's -- a personal frustration of mine is that we have to rely on staff reports from another agency. According to ACHD they view McMillan as better than E and E is an acceptable level of service. We are stuck in traffic. We sometimes use words that start with the letter F, maybe not the letter E, when we are stuck in traffic. So, I sympathize with where folks are coming from, but we have to somewhat rely on the traffic engineers for what that road can handle and I agree, I think this is a -- a well thought out project. It's small. The R-4 is a perfect fit for this part of town, so I'm in favor. Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Yeah. The impacts on the roads are -- are negligible for a project like this. A person may not be aware that, you know, a few months ago across the road there was a major project planned, but there were certain items that Council did not agree to on ingress, egress, so other impacts that it had that was denied and it was a very large project. So, we just don't go about just any application that comes before us, we look at them thoroughly. And I also saw that the applicant agreed that they will make sure they are doing dust mitigation and will take care of that concern that a neighbor expressed. So, I'm in support of -- support of -- of this project as well. Simison: Council, any further comments on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 6. Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Ave. (Parcel #S1210417400) A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.22 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. Simison: Next item up on the agenda is a public hearing for Pinedale Subdivision, H- 2022-0001 . 1 will open this public hearing with staff comments. Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last project tonight is for Pinedale Subdivision, located just east -- I guess the southeast corner of Chesterfield No. 2, just west of Ten Mile Road. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 32 of 37 The request before you tonight is for annexation and zoning of 1 .2 acres of land, with a request for the R-8 zoning district and a preliminary plat for seven detached single family building lots and one common lot on 1 .2 acres. There has been some miscommunication about how many lots, because originally this was proposed with 12. Actually, it was proposed to me at 15 and I said good luck and, then, we got it down to 12 and, then, we got them down to ten and, then, nine and now we are at seven. This was remanded from you back to P&Z with the seven lot subdivision, which is now before you tonight. The -- as I noted, the applicant has revised the plat multiple times to address current concerns voiced by both staff and neighborhood, as well as the Commission previously. The applicant is proposing to construct detached single family dwellings at a gross density of just over 5.7 units per acre and an average lot size of approximately 4,400 square feet, which previously with the nine lots it was approximately 3,200 and a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet and it was previously 2,250. The proposed use is a permitted use within -- within the requested R-8 zoning district. Further, all of the existing homes to the west are also part of the R-8 zoning district. The access is proposed via extension of West Newland Street, which is an existing residential local street abutting the west property boundary. It is required to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac, to our dismay. The existing access is from a private access across from the Ten Mile Creek that goes up to Pine. This access will be terminated upon development. ACHD has previously approved the proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet, which the applicant has said can be accomplished and we will verify that with the final plat. Staff is not concerned that it will be able to fit on the site. Ten Mile Creek runs along the entire east boundary and requires a hundred foot total easement, which is shown on this plat here. They are showing 50 feet from the center line of the creek, which is per the irrigation district 50 feet is on each side. It does encumber the buildable area of the property further, so due to the encumbrances on the property, both the irrigation easement and the cul-de-sac, staff has included a DA provision requiring side loaded garages where possible. This type of design can force -- sorry. Can force longer driveways to go deeper into the site, which allows for more off-street parking for the homes. The design also creates an opportunity for the living area of the home to move closer to the street, as the living setback is 20 -- or, sorry, ten feet and the garage setback is 20 feet. So, overall that allows for more buildable area than is shown on the plat, which are -- it's kind of hard to read, but the little dotted lines are the applicant showing what the buildable area of each lot is. Staff does note that the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the required parking pad for side loaded garages. The applicant should continue to work with staff to mitigate these issues and revise the plat accordingly, unless Commission or Council removes staff recommended DA provision that require this. That was one of-- is pretty much the only discussion point by the Commission and staff at the Commission hearing was can we make that more flexible and based on Commission's recommendation I did revise that DA provision to allow the applicant and staff to work, instead of requiring it on all lots, which, again, seven divided by two doesn't work, but minimally three. I revised it to make it a little more flexible of just where it's applicable. Some areas just may not need it and may not be able to make it fit dimensionally. My understanding is that the applicant -- the -- the home builder is going to propose smaller'ish homes in order to help with some of these issues. There was one piece of public testimony-- one piece of written testimony submitted after the Commission hearing Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 33 of 37 and they just noted the same concerns that other neighbors had, which was just parking concerns in the neighborhood that exist already and a question about whether Pinedale will be part of the Chesterfield HOA as future residents will likely use their open space. That I do not have an answer for, but I will leave that to the applicant and I will stand for any questions. Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant with us this evening? State your name and address for the record, be recognized for 15 minutes. Conti: Good evening. My name is Antonio Conti. Address 7661 West Riverside in Garden City. What we have in front of you is a perfect in-fill project. This is 1.2 acres, county property, surrounded by city. The project started, like Joe said, with 15 lots, with an R-15 type of zoning and, you know, after going back and forth in a few meetings we realized that that was not feasible. As it is, the lot right now there is a mobile home on site that was going to be removed and it's been a sore spot for the entire neighborhood. I don't know if you had a chance to go out there. It's a really sad looking area. Installing this cul-de-sac would help with fire truck turnaround. Right now it's just a dead-end street. We provided, as requested, a path, a travel -- a walkway that we connect across the bridge that is the current access to this property and we connect to the railroad right of way, which my understanding is going to be a future walkway for the City of Meridian. So, what we are here to ask for is for an R-8 zoning. The R-8 is the same as the property to the west. Seven lots, with a cul-de-sac, and -- and that walkway access to the common space within the right of way of the Ten Mile Creek. The question in regards to the side loaded garage, the challenge is, you know, like you said, small lots. Some we can do it, I don't see a problem on a couple of the lots, but others will be challenging, so we appreciate that you made it a little bit more flexible to allow us to work around this. If you can remove it at all it would be great for the client, but I understand, you know, flexibility is better than a rigid line. Any questions? Simison: Council, any questions for the applicant? Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Councilman Hoaglun. Hoaglun: Real quick, Joe. If we go back one slide to that. So, sir, I just want to make sure -- the access to the parkway looks like it's in that northeast -- about 1 :00 o'clock, 1.30, 2:00 o'clock right there. Conti: Correct. Hoaglun: That's what you referenced earlier? Conti: Yes, sir. Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 34 of 37 Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much. Conti: Thank you. Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony? Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not. Simison: If there is anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this item, if you would like to come forward or use the raise your hand feature on Zoom. Seeing no one coming forward or raising their hand, would the applicant like any final comments? Conti: That was easier than the last time. Thank you very much. Any further questions, please, let me know. Thank you. Simison: Thank you. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I am happy to kick it off. I move that we close the public hearing. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. Strader: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Strader. Strader: I'm happy to kick off the discussion. I think it's a big improvement. You know, having followed the -- the different iterations of this, I think it's a much better fit. It is a -- a little bit of a tricky layout as we have seen and with that, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move that we approve -- approve file number H-2022- 0001 for today's hearing date as outlined in the staff report. Borton: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2022-0001. Is there discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 35 of 37 Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. ORDINANCES [Action Item] 7. Ordinance No. 22-1986: An Ordinance (Ferney Subdivision — H-2021- 0103) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Exhibit "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 6.304 Acres of Land from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item on the agenda is Item 7, Ordinance No. 22-1986. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Ferney Subdivision, H-2021- 0103, for annexation of a parcel of land located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise meridian,Ada county, Idaho; and being more particularly described in Exhibit "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 6.304 acres of land from RUT to the I-L zoning district in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would like it read it in its entirety? If not, do I have a motion? Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Simison: Council Woman Perreault. Meridian City Council July 26,2022 Page 36 of 37 Perreault: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 22-1986 with the suspension of rules. Cavener: Second. Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-1986 under suspension of the rules. Is there discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll. Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader, yea. Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES. 8. Ordinance No. 22-1987: An Ordinance (Grayson Subdivision — H-2022- 0014) for Annexation of a Tract of Land 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 in Exhibit "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 3.39 Acres of Land From RUT to the R-8 (Medium- Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Simison: Next item up is Ordinance No. 22-1987. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to Grayson Subdivision, H- 2022-0014, for annexation of a tract of land 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 in Exhibit "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 3.39 acres of land from RUT to R-8 zoning district in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date. E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active land use/development applications are not permitted during this time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET Date : Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and provide a brief description of your topic . Please observe the following rules of the Public Forum : • DO NOT : o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning and Zoning or City Council o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters • DO o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first o Observe a 3 - minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic is deemed is for this forum ) Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Request for Reconsideration of Denial of Burnside Ridge Estates (H-2021- 0070) CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, (:�VER\1DIAN4.- FINAL DECISION,AND ORDERI 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 I 1-513-3, 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 67-6521(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 DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC CLARK WARDLE Joshua J. Leonard jleonardoclarkwardle.com �E CEIVED July 5, 2022 JUL 05 2022 Sent via personal service to: CITY COLERKS OFFICE ORIGINAL Mayor and City Council c/o City Clerk 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 104 Meridian, Idaho 83642 With copies sent via hand-delivery to: City Attorney's Office and Community Development Department 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 306 33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: Request for Reconsideration -- H-2021-0070. Dear Mayor and Council, Our firm represents Linder Holdings, LLC ("Applicant'), which, through its engineers, Kimley- Horn & Associates, is the applicant in File No. H-2021-0070. On behalf of the Applicant and Kimley-Horn, we are grateful for the time and attention of the Mayor and Council in reviewing the Applicant's annexation and preliminary plat applications (together, "Applications") for the proposed Jackson(Burnside)Ridge Estates Subdivision("Project"). We also are grateful for City staffs efforts and the strong working relationship the Applicant and its representatives have enjoyed with City staff in the course of developing the Applications. We strongly believe the high quality of the Project is attributable to the dedication, knowledge, experience, care, and communication of City staff. I We agree with all of the positive feedback about the Project from the Mayor and Council during the City Council's deliberations on June 7, 2022, as well as from the Planning and Zoning Commission following its public hearing on April 28, 2022. As you know, following its deliberations, the City Council, by a narrow 3-2 vote, denied the Applications, despite the unanimous recommendation of approval received from the Planning and Zoning Commission, which never mentioned adverse impact on services. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, I T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua 1.Leonard Preston B.Rutter T:208.388.1000 251 E Front St.Suite 310 F:208.388.1001 PO Box 639 clarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701 r July 5,2022 Re: Request for Reconsideration--H-2021-0070 Page 2 of 3 Final Decision, and Order ("Final Decision") denying the Applications was approved and signed on June 21,2022. Although the Council narrowly voted to deny the Applications, Council Members unanimously agreed the Project was"beautiful,""really well thought out," "outstanding,""thoughtful,"a great example for future projects,and that it"create[d] a sense of place that reflects the unique character of South Meridian." All of the Council Members praised and thanked the Applicant for the time and effort it expended to bring forward the Applications and the Project. Nonetheless, the Applications were denied. Pursuant to Section 1-7-10 of the City's Unified Development Code ("UDC"), we now write to request reconsideration of the Council's denial of the Project's Applications. This reconsideration is based upon the following specific deficiencies: • First, the public hearing was closed without the Applicant being given the opportunity to address questions raised by Council Members for the first time during the Council's deliberations. • Second,the denial appears to have been based upon an impossible standard. Rather than evaluating whether there is an adverse impact on public services, as required by the UDC (see UDC § 11-513-3E.4), the Applications were denied because they would create additional burdens on public services. Any annexation will create an additional burden, making the standard applied to these Applications unfair and unworkable. If applied to all annexation applications, this standard will stop the City from ever annexing property, regardless of its circumstances. Not only does the information in the record show there is no adverse impact,but this"additional burden"standard would leave the City in a position where no new annexations would ever be allowed. • Third, comments during deliberations also indicated that denial of the Applications was based on a"Priority Growth Map,"which,to our knowledge,has not been formally adopted by the City or incorporated by reference into the City's Comprehensive Plan. No copies had been made available to the Applicant at any time during the application process, and the Applicant did not have an opportunity to comment on this map. More troubling, comments made during the Council's deliberations indicated that the Priority Growth Map is outdated and does not reflect the current availability of public services in the area, including the existence of water and sewer infrastructure at the property' and a fire station within 1.4 miles of the project, as depicted in the photographs and aerials contained in the Water service is available along two frontages of the Subject Property,and Sewer service is available along its East frontage. July 5,2022 Re: Request for Reconsideration--H-2021-0070 Page 3 of 3 following pages, which contain additional information supporting our request for reconsideration.2 (Also see: Exhibit A - Utility Infrastructure.) ACHD's street network adequately serves and operates at acceptable levels of service (LOS), pursuant to the approved TIS and subsequent ACHD Staff Report,with its conclusions. (Also see:Exhibit B - Traffic and Road Improvement Plan.) The West Ada School District also did not indicate any adverse impact, as noted in the Staff Report. The Applications must be considered based on actual comments from agency service providers and standards that have been expressly adopted by the Council. • Fourth, comments during the hearing seem to indicate that this project was not judged simply on its own merits, but instead was considered in light of future applications that might be made in the vicinity. Each application—including this one—must be considered on its own merit and not based on speculation as to what other property owners may decide to request annexation by the City. We believe denial of the Applications requires reconsideration for all of the reasons identified above and further discussed in in the following pages, which hereby are incorporated into out Request for Reconsideration by this reference. By giving the Applicant an opportunity to respond to the issues raised by the Council in its deliberations, reconsideration will ensure the Applicant's due process rights are protected. Equally important,though,the City should revisit the"additional burdens" standard imposed on the Applications, and should, on reconsideration, review these Applications on their own merits, as opposed to concerns about potential future annexation applications. Reconsideration is appropriate in this case and we respectfully request that the Council grant our request. Again, we're grateful for the time and effort expended by City staff,the Council, and the Mayor in reviewing our Applications. Very truly yours, 01kNJ Joshua J. Leonard Enclosures: • Memorandum in Support of Request for Reconsideration • Exhibit A-Utilities • Exhibit B -Roads 2 Although Fire Station No. 6 is depicted on the Priority Growth Map, its existence does not appear to have been factored into response times to the property. +T: TO: Mayor Simison, Council President Hoaglun, Council Vice President Borton,and Council Members Bernt,Perreault,and Strader FROM: Clark Wardle LLP �,- DATE: July 5,2022 ORIGINAL RE: Memorandum in Support of Request for Reconsideration(H-2021-0070) CW FILE#: 24000.2 In support of the request for reconsideration submitted herewith on behalf of our client, Linder Holdings, LLC, and its engineers, Kimley-Horn & Associates, (together, "Applicant'), we identify the following specific deficiencies in the City Council's decision to deny the applications in matter number H-2021- 0070(the"Applications")for the proposed Jackson(Burnside)Ridge Estates Subdivision("Project"): 1. Due Process Violations. After the public comments ended at the public hearing on June 7, 2022, Council Members raised concerns about the availability of services and the ability of the City and other service providers to serve the Project. These concerns were raised during the Council's deliberations on the Applications,so there was no opportunity for the Applicant to address or respond to them. This is extremely important, as the concerns about the availability of services were based on incomplete understandings of the facts,which the Applicant was prepared to address, if given the opportunity to respond. Additionally, the denial set an impossible annexation standard, which will be problematic for future annexations, as described below. 2. Denial not Based on Obiective Standards and Required Findings. Council Members who voted to deny the application did so, in large part, due to(a)the perceived impacts the Project may have on various public services,and(b)a belief that approving this Project would open a wide path to further annexations in southwest Meridian. These beliefs are not reflective of the current conditions in this area or the standards applicable to annexation requests. (a) The information in the record (including the Staff Report and the comments and reports received from commenting departments and agencies) unequivocally indicated that all services (roads, fire, police, schools, sewer, water, etc.) can be provided to this Project without an adverse impact. Nevertheless,the Council denied the Applications,finding: The proposed annexation and residential subdivision would place additional burdens on City services, including, but not limited to, public safety services. (Final Decision, Section A.6.) (emphasis added). To be clear, "additional burden" is not the actual standard for annexation identified in the UDC. It goes without saying that there is an "additional burden" every time property is annexed; as a result, the UDC standard requires analysis of whether there is an adverse impact on these services. Quoting from the UDC: Page 2 of 11 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; (UDC § 11-5B-3.E.4,emphasis added.) In denying the Applications,the Council's June 21,2022 Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, Final Decision, and Order ("Final Decision") did not specifically identify what "additional burdens" some Council Members felt the Project would place on the City's public safety services. Again, though, the absence of "additional burdens" is not the required finding for approving annexation. The issue is whether there is an adverse impact, and the City's record includes no evidence to support a finding that annexation would result on "an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city... ."(Id.) Comments in the record from the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Fire Department, respectively, show no adverse impact. After reviewing the Project, the Meridian Fire Department determined that,"This project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department." (Meridian Fire Department Staff Report,dated February 16,2022.) The Meridian Police Department's comments on the Project included, "The Meridian Police Department has no outstanding issues concerning this development application." (Letter from Meridian Police Department to Joseph Dodson, dated February 17, 2022.) The response times of the Meridian Police Department (3 minutes, 13 seconds) and the Meridian Fire Department (less than 5 minutes) both are within the expected level of service goals. In fact, the Meridian Police Department's expected response time to the Project is nearly 1/2-minute quicker than the average response time in the City of Meridian (3 minutes,43 seconds,pursuant to the Letter from Meridian Police Department to Joseph Dodson, dated February 17, 2022), and the Meridian Fire Department's Fire Station 6 is only 1.4 miles from the Project, pursuant to the Meridian Fire Department Staff Report, dated February 16, 2022). The record shows that the Project will have no adverse impact on utility providers. In fact, the City already opted to bring sewer and water infrastructure to the property - both are immediately available adjacent to the property,as noted in the Staff Report: Water • D=ante to Sen-ices Directly adjacent • Pressure Zone 5 • Water Quaitry Concern: None • Project Consistent with Yes Water Master Plan and Wastewater • Distance to Server Directly adjacent Sen-ices • Project Consistent with Yes XVW Master Plan/Facility Plan 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 3 of 11 (Staff Report, dated June 7, 2022, Section II, entitled "Summary of Report" (p. 3), highlights added.) The existence of water infrastructure adjacent to the property also is shown in the following nine photographs, each of which includes an aerial that shows the location in which the photograph was taken: Image 1 r{ ` C a:r ti, w x Image 2 n R 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 4 of 11 Image 3 �er — �- Image 4 "'Kamm=® Image 5 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 5 of 11 Image 6 S 1AO60flAOGE _ -'c1 f - ESfAT6 Iinage 7 • UCRO'1 kYGE � - ESiAIES rI Image 8 O 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 6 of 11 Image 9 t, r JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES _ i i j The existence of sewer infrastructure along Linder Road, immediately adjacent to the property, also is shown in the following five photographs,each with an aerial showing the location of the sewer infrastructure in the picture: Image 10 O JACKSON Riot_ ESTATES Image 11 ' JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES .r 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 7 of 11 Image 12 at • • O • JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES - - s Image 13 iiVicto ID 4. JACKSO�J RIDGE ESTATES • M1 Image 14 5�X- r. O • JACKSON RIDGE ESTATES "Political subdivisions providing public services" also include the West Ada School District ("School District") and the Ada County Highway District ("ACHD"). Neither agency has indicated that there is an adverse impact. The Staff Report noted the following information received from the School District: 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 8 of 11 West Ada School Disrricr Estimated Additional School 157 estimated children at full build out(pecific to the area) Aged Childmm. • Capacity of Schools Mary McPherson Elementary—675 students Victory Middle School—1,000 students Meridian High School—2,075 students • 4 of Students Enrolled Miry McPherson Elementary—442 students Victory Middle School—996 students Meridian Hi&School—1,698 students SaGol of Choice Optoa, • Christine Donnell Elementary(Arts)—480 enrolled w.-capacity of 500) P Spalding Elementary(STEM)—651 enrolled eapacity of 750) (Selections from the Staff Report, dated June 7, 2022, Section 11, entitled "Summary of Report"(p.3),highlights added.) The Project also received a favorable report from ACHD -- based on the Traffic Impact Study (a copy of which is in the record), ACHD staff commented: The TIS indicates that all roadway segments in the study area are expected to operate at an acceptable level of service planning threshold during the existing AM and PM peak hours under existing traffic, 2025 background traffic,and 2025 total traffic conditions. ACHD Report, dated June 1, 2022, Section B.2.b. This question,"What standards are applicable to annexations?"is critical. If the City takes the position that any additional burden is a basis to deny annexation, not only would the City be applying a standard that does not exist in its code, but it would be setting up a situation where all annexations must be denied. This is obviously not the case,nor do we believe it was the Council's intent. But it is the logical outcome of fairly applying the standards under which this annexation was decided. (b) Based on the Council's deliberations, the Council Members who voted to deny the application appear to have been less concerned about this Project than about future annexation applications and future projects. The question to be decided by Council should have been whether this Project complies with the standards and findings required in the UDC. Instead,the standard was framed during deliberations as follows: I think that the gentleman who got up to testify that the next property is ready to go after this one goes. This is really a key decision, I think, for this Council, is, if you're ready to see more development in this area,well this is a great project to start that. If you're not,well then, unfortunately you've got to make a decision tonight,in a lot of ways. I'm not saying the next one has to be approved,but if it comes in looking just like this one, as good, it would be hard to prevent future annexations and growth in this area. (June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https:Htinyuri.conVOuestionFramed, emphasis added.) In another comment during deliberations, a Council Member admitted that the vote was less about this Project and more about future projects: 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 9 of 11 For me it's timing, for me it's the impact of future development that will come in this area if we approve this. (June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https:Htinyurl.com/FutureDevInArea, emphasis added.) And in yet another Council Member comment during deliberation: As much as I like all that's been done [on this Application], I am very concerned that we will invite some additional applications and potentially not be able to provide the services to those properties because we are intentionally not investing infrastructure in that southwest area. (June 7, 2022, Meridian City Council Meeting - https://tinyurl.com/FutureDevelopments, emphasis added.) The standard applied by the Council in denying this Application simply does not exist in the UDC. Each and every application that comes before the City must be judged on its own merits. Projects cannot be denied (or approved) based on speculation on what applications may or may not follow. Instead, the City must rely on its UDC and other governing documents and judge each application individually, in light of the UDC requirements and the comprehensive plan provisions applicable at the time of application submittal. As noted above, the record establishes that services are available adjacent to the property. The record also establishes that all levels of service, response times, and other indicators remain within acceptable ranges at full build-out of the Project. 3. Misplaced Deference Given to Priority Growth May. (a) The City of Meridian's Comprehensive Plan("Comp.Plan")challenges the City to"guide growth to priority areas" (Comp. Plan, § 3-2), "[p]rovide utilities in high priority growth areas" (Comp. Plan.Table 3.1, 3.02.01A), "[p]rioritize growth and development where it furthers the City's vision and allows for the efficient provision of services" (Comp.Plan. Table 3.1,3.03.02),and"[e]ngage with service providers,City leadership,and community members to identify priority growth areas"(Comp.Plan.Table 3.1,3.03.02A). These are laudable goals; however, they must be undertaken in a way that allows an applicant to know and understand the standards to which they will be subject when they make applications in the City of Meridian. To our knowledge,the"Priority Growth Map"referenced at hearing has not been adopted or incorporated by reference into any of the City's governing land use documents or the UDC. And again,to our knowledge,it does not contain established standards for reviewing annexation applications. What we do have is a series of decisions by the City that organically identify priority growth areas. These include: • extending utility infrastructure to areas of prioritized growth; 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 Page 10 of 11 • engaging with other service providers to ensure they do not extend their infrastructure to serve areas not prioritized for growth; and • negotiating with Ada County to identify and agree upon the City's area of city impact. The City's prior decisions and actions have unambiguously identified the Subject Property for"priority growth": • The City included the area of the Subject Property in its Area of City Impact, which was recently'renegotiated with Ada County; • The City's sewer and water infrastructure has been extended', so that it currently is immediately adjacent to the Subject Property; and • The City built Fire Station 6 only 1.4 miles from the Project. These prior actions show that the City has prioritized the Subject Property for growth. Utilities are there. Services are there—in fact,we understand this project will help provide a sewer connection for the future school site. The fire station is there to serve the project. Collectively,these actions show that the City has, in fact,prioritized this area for growth. (c) The so-called"Priority Growth Map" is not in the City's Record in this Application, File No. H-2021-0070. Instead of consulting it directly, Council Members relied on their memories of it. The actual map was not identified or provided to the Applicant either during the hearing or at any time leading up to it. The Priority Growth Map was not mentioned to the Applicant during the Pre-Application Conference sessions on November 26,2019,May 12,2020, or March 2,2021 (see"Pre-App Notes V 1"in the record), it was not included in the June 7, 2022 Staff Report , and we even heard during the hearing that City Planner Joe Dodson hasn't seen it . This of course prevented the Applicant from being able to review,reference, or address the actual map. The concept of the Priority Growth Map obviously is important and beneficial. Even if it had been adopted or incorporated by reference into the City's comprehensive plan,though, it must be regularly updated to be an effective planning tool. After the Council's denial of the Applications, City staff provided a copy of the May 2020 Priority Growth Map to the Applicant. Based on Council Members'comments during Council's June 7th meeting,and also based on the face of the Priority Growth Map itself("Printed 5/6/2020 9:19 am"),we believe the May 2020 Priority Growth Map is out of date. For example, although Fire Station 6 is depicted on the Priority Growth Map, it doesn't appear that the "5 min Fire Response" area was updated to include the entire property, which clearly is within the Meridian Fire Department's 5-minute response area (see Meridian Fire Department Staff Report, dated February 16, 2022). Additionally, water infrastructure has been expanded and extended along W.Victory Road. But given that the Applicant did not have a copy of 1 Effective July of 2021. 2 See Images 1 through 14,attached. 4 httas:htinvurl.com/OldPGAMan(Council Member: "...if we zoom out, and we've brought up and dusted off our old priority growth areas map,where would this fit?" Joe Dodson:"I cannot answer that.I don't think I've ever seen that map.") 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 r Page 11 of 11 this map and was not given an opportunity to respond to the Council's understanding of it, the Applicant had no meaningful opportunity to ensure the Council's understanding reflects the actual facts on the ground. 4. Denial Based on Conversations Outside the Record. It was clear from several comments during the Council's deliberations that confusion existed about fundamental elements of the Application. Several Council Members referenced prior conversations and discussions"about this specific square mile and this lot in particular,"'which influenced their votes to deny this Application. Absent additional information about the nature, context, content, and participants in those prior conversations and discussions,the Applicant is unable to adequately or sufficiently address them. 5. Deficient Final Decision. The City's Final Decision failed to analyze the facts in the Record and provide a reasoned basis for the Council's denial of the Application; instead, the Final Decision consisted of bare, conclusory statements,unsupported by facts in the City's record. As noted above, these statements are troubling, not only because they lack detail and factual analysis, but because they effectively paint the City into a corner. If subsequent annexation applications are decided under the same standards as this Application, then the City will not approve any annexation that creates any additional burden on City services. In other words, the City cannot approve a_y future annexations if it applies this standard. This not only violates this Applicant's rights, but it also sets an impossible standard that will stop any City growth going forward. This decision requires reconsideration. On these bases,we respectfully request reconsideration by the Council of its denial of the Application,and we welcome an opportunity to address the concerns raised by the Council in its deliberations on June 7, 2022. As noted above,the Applicant possesses information relevant to the Council's concerns, and would greatly appreciate the ability to present such information to the Council following its vote to reconsider its denial. I 5 This comment seemed to infer that the current Applications are not the first significant development proposal for the property, which is incorrect. Prior to the Applications,the Jackson Family used this property in the operation of their dairy farm,and this is the first significant development proposal for this property. 4863-4604-4711,v. 1 L=, l ■ tW1� � � � � i � � IIJ > �8 � ;o fil z w x b ;y — 4• 9 .y" 00, _'_— oil Arl- o __ y r (l)/ 'u� 'uf a 'uf a 3 v I. J LU — --- ---— „- --------------------- --- r$ Q z cD 0 1 T 1; � C ��� I• N .V N U) o- W1 c N a•a-oavaaol f- I I i 1 1 1 1 a ° C m U U m w U ) U 2 m c � d c c G m o E Q bra m v .0a w r Y elf `w a 0 3 0 c n IZ m C p n. N:� Q - v c v m p o �U c a � 0 3 w - Qa- aU mW n d 2 5 c x v rn cop a °O p c w ai -�¢ a ZC m 55 o C6 a ° wo covC o c 0c ; Ecw U� oL S7 p O O Q H j > > L_ o a -o m v `o 0 6 ° o coo m c c c m c c o o o c o d ' o 2' o m y E2 N m =a O p N U v °' ° E C C C C p fAl-1.11 AM Rd CY J I I ICI l;l I;I ICI ® O ¢ p L1S J Q z cD 0 E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2022- 2026 Consolidated Plan PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 26 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2 PROJECT NAME : Community Development Block Grant Program Year 2022 - 2026 Consolidated Plan Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 3 1 �1ZD 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mayor Robert E. Simison ERIDIAN4.�- City Council Members: Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun Joe Borton Jessica Perreault A H Luke Cavener Liz Strader July 26, 2022 MEMORANDUM FROM: Crystal Campbell, Community Development Program Coordinator To: Mayor Robert Simison and City Council RE: Updates to Consolidated Plan, Action Plan, Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, and Citizen Participation Plan for CDBG Program 1. Introduction and Background The Meridian CDBG Program is finalizing the 2022-2026 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan), which includes the Action Plan,Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI), and Citizen Participation Plan. These documents are currently out for public comment. There was a presentation of the draft documents at the Council workshop on June 28, 2022. 2. Updates to Draft Documents Staff has made minor changes to the documents to provide clarifying language. The following major changes have been made: • Action Plan—The location of the former Franklin and 51h Streetlight project has been updated. Although this is in an LMI area, it is a major thoroughfare so the majority of those who would benefit are not part of the LMI area. Public Works provided an updated project location to address lighting within the neighborhood instead of along Franklin Road. See Attachment 1. • Citizen Participation Plan—A revision was made to the Substantial Amendment Criteria to require a Substantial Amendment if more than 20 percent of the annual funding is reallocated to a different project goal instead of an individual activity. 3. Council Action A public hearing is scheduled for July 26, 2022. Staff requests that Council offer a space for citizens and stakeholders to provide feedback on the Con Plan,Action Plan, and Al. 4. Timeline The timeline below outlines upcoming Council involvement to finalize the documents associated with the 2022-2026 Con Plan: July 26: Public hearing for the Con Plan, Action Plan, and Al. Public comment period closes for these documents. August 9: Final Con Plan,Action Plan, Al, and a resolution to accept them will be submitted on the consent agenda. August 15: Public comment period for Citizen Participation Plan closes. August 23: Final Citizen Participation Plan and a resolution to accept it will be submitted on the consent agenda. The projects in the Action Plan are anticipated to start on October 1, 2022. Council will see the subrecipient agreements on the consent agenda around that time. •—_m, fawn S . ! AA,__ § Q a | ƒ 2 � § ,__. . . __Ins Id_ 2- � d � # � � ! - � � ■ �. 4 § \ / � 2 m 2 , ! 4.1 4 7 m lift tiv�© CL H § 2 Ira § ��, ■ .� m E � ` a U ■ ; ■ ^ + � # . ; . � � S | A ) . - ./ | � � • r■ _ $ -------- . !� Meridian CDBG Program OCTOBER 1, 2022 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 2026 Consolidated Plan2026 -2022 The Con Plan identifies the goals and strategies the activities identified for the upcoming year.for the next five years. The Action Plan shows •Year Goals-5 housing)Program Administration (e.g. program planning, fair •streetlights, sidewalks)Public Facilities and Infrastructure Improvements (e.g. •rental assistance)Public Services (e.g. childcare scholarships, emergency •Housing (e.g. homeowner repairs, homebuyer assistance) Housing PY2022 Projects Program AdministrationneighborhoodsStreetlight Modernization in two separate •Public Facility and Infrastructure ImprovementsSenior Transportation-Meridian Senior Center •Emergency Rental Assistance-Jesse Tree •Youth Scholarships-Boys and Girls Club •Public ServicesHomebuyer Assistance-NeighborWorks Boise •Homeowner Repair-NeighborWorks Boise • Updates to Con 40-MA the City's Comprehensive Plan.Included the list of priority policies addressed in Barriers to Affordable Housing the current conditions.Removed analysis from HUD. It does not reflect Number of Housing Units Included methods of reaching out to the public.Citizen Participation 10-MA15-PR Plan Updates to 2022 instead of a major thoroughfare. Streetlight project to provide services in an LMA Updated location of the Franklin and 5th Projects 35-AP Action Plan Updates to Citizen reallocated to a different project goal instead of more than 20 percent of the annual funding is Updated to require a substantial amendment if Substantial Amendment Criteria Pg. 5 Participation Plan Next Steps Aug. 23 Resolution•Participation Plan•Aug. 15 closesParticipation Plan period for Citizen Public comment •Resolution•AP, and AIFinal Con Plan, •Aug. 9 AP, and AI closesperiod for Con Plan, Public comment ••July 26 E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance 22-1988: An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(C) Concerning City Council Seats; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(E) Concerning Staggered Terms; Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(B) Concerning Duties and Powers of the Meridian Districting Committee; Adding Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(I) Concerning Modifications to City Council Seat Numbers; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances and Resolutions; and Providing an Effective Date PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 26, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3 PROJECT NAME : First Reading of Ordinance 22 = 1988 Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes , please provide HOA name fdm 2 � �ia3 N . -S',� I ✓ ; 2 � a7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1988 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER An Ordinance Amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(c) Concerning City Council Seats; Amending Meridian City Code ection 1-7-1(e) concerning staggered terms; amending meridian city code section 1-7-11(b)concerning duties and powers of the meridian districting committee; adding meridian city code section 1-7-11(i) concerning modifications to city council seat numbers; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an effective date. WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Meridian adopted the Meridian Districting Plan, which created six (6) City Council districts and assigned a City Council seat to each district; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-707A and Meridian City Code, beginning with the 2023 general City election, no candidate, including an incumbent candidate, may run for election or re-election to a City Council seat in a City Council district in which the candidate is not a resident; and, WHEREAS, it is consistent with the intent of the Legislature and Idaho Code section 50- 707A to fully implement the Meridian Districting Plan as soon as practicable; and, WHEREAS, it is possible to fully implement the Meridian Districting Plan after the 2023 general City election by redesignating City Council seats 1 and 2 as City Council seats 2 and 1, respectively; and, WHEREAS, if City Council seats 1 and 2 are not redesignated as City Council seats 2 and 1, respectively, the Meridian Districting Plan will not be fully implemented until after the 2025 general City election; and, WHEREAS,the redesignation of City Council seats pursuant to this ordinance will not result in any substantive changes because the City Council members holding the redesignated City Council seats will serve the same four-year terms to which they were elected; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(C) shall be amended to read as follows: B. City Council seats es'�. There shall be six (6) City Council seats on the Meridian City Council, which shall be numbered pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-707. Each City Council seat number shall be identical to the City Council seat number assigned as of August 22, 2022, except that City Council seats 1 and 2, as they existed prior to August 22, 2022, shall be redesignated as City Council seats 2 and 1, respectively. The Mer-idian Distfieting Committee ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL SEATS,TERMS,AND DISTRICTING PAGE I shall eaeh City Cetmcil seat p o this seetion and 1.C. 50 707. The number of each City Council seat shall correspond to the numbered City Council districts. Section 2. Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(E) shall be amended to read as follows: E. Staggered terms. At each election, three (3) City Council seats shall be open for election, alternating between City Council seats 2, 3, and 5 and City Council seats 1, 4, and 6in oddn*mber-ed seats and even numbered seats. 1. Election in 2023. In the 2023 general city election, the first election after the establishment of City Council districts in the City of Meridian, no candidate, including an incumbent candidate, may run for election or re-election to a City Council seat in a City Council district in which the candidate is not a resident. Incumbent City Council members who are serving in City Council seats 2-1, 3, and 5, as suehseats were designated prior-to the assignment of'r-it r,,uffe;I seats to City G&uf ei distr-ets, and who are running for re-election in 2023, must be residents of the respective City Council districts in which they are running. In order to preserve staggered terms, City Council members serving in City Council seats 1-2, 4, and 6; as sueh sea4s were designated prior-to the assignment of City Gotineil seats to City Couneil distr-iets-, shall serve the remainder of their terms in those seats, during which time they shall represent the City Council districts corresponding to their City Council seat numbers, regardless of whether they are residents of the City Council district to which their seat corresponds. 2. Elections in 2025 and thereafter. In the 2025 general city election and in each election thereafter, no candidate, including an incumbent candidate, may run for election or re- election to a City Council seat in a City Council district in which the candidate is not a resident. Section 3. Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(B) shall be amended to read as follows: B. Duties and powers. The Meridian Districting Committee shall be charged with, and authorized to: 1. Evaluate and apply federal decennial census data regarding the City of Meridian in order to establish six (6) City Council districts pursuant to the provisions of I.C. 50-707A; Title 1, Chapter 7, Meridian City Code; and all other applicable provisions of local, state, and federal law. 2. Assign City Council seats, numbering 1 through 6, to the corresponding numbered City Council districts,pursuant to this Chapte , Meridian City Godee. 3. Act independently to make decisions regarding designating ting and numbering City Council districts , without regard for the residency of elected officials or candidates running for municipal office of the City of Meridian. ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL SEATS,TERMS,AND DISTRICTING PAGE 2 4. Consult resources and experts in demographics and population distribution, including, without limitation, the Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, the United States Census Bureau, and their delegees and staff, as needed or desired. 5. Consult resources and experts in districting and apportionment, including, without limitation, the Idaho Secretary of State, the Idaho Commission for Reapportionment, the Ada County Clerk, and the delegees and staff thereof, as needed or desired. 6. Consult City of Meridian Geographic Information System and Planning staff for information and assistance with establishment of City Council districts and the preparation of maps. 7. Consult the City Attorney or designee regarding compliance with applicable Idaho Code and Meridian City Code provisions. Section 4. A new section shall be added, Meridian City Code section 1-7-11(I), to read as follows: I. City Council ma pursuant to Idaho Code section 50-707, modify City Council seat numbers after the Meridian Districting Plan has been adopted, so long as such modifications are approved by ordinance at least one hundred thirty-five (135) dgys prior to the date of the next general city election. Section 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. Section 6. That this ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022. APPROVED: ATTEST: Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL SEATS,TERMS,AND DISTRICTING PAGE 3 STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-1988 The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance No. A22-1982 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this day of , 2022. William L.M. Nary, City Attorney NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1988 An ordinance amending Meridian City Code section 1-7-1(C) concerning City Council seats; amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-1(E) concerning staggered terms; amending Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(B) concerning the duties and powers of the Meridian Districting Committee; adding Meridian City Code Section 1-7-11(I) concerning modifications to City Council seat numbers; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an effective date. ORDINANCE CONCERNING CITY COUNCIL SEATS,TERMS,AND DISTRICTING PAGE 4 City Council Districts With and Without Proposed OrdinanceImplementation Schedule Full Implementation ImmediateImmediate District 6District 5 ImmediateImmediate District 4District 3 Immediate District 2 Immediate District 1With Proposed OrdinanceWithout Proposed Ordinance City Council Districts Implementation Schedule With and Without Proposed Ordinance Without Proposed Ordinance With Proposed Ordinance District 1 2023 General City Election Immediate District 2 2025 General City Election Immediate District 3 2023 General City Election 2023 General City Election District 4 Immediate Immediate District 5 2023 General City Election 2023 General City Election District 6 Immediate Immediate Full Implementation 2025 General City Election 2023 General City Election E IDIAN.;--- Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline Page 4 City Council Meeting July 26, 2022 Item #5: Pickleball Court Subdivision AZ, PP PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING MAP Preliminary Plat Landscape Plan Conceptual Elevations Requested revisions to DA and amenity within Lot 12 and provide a detail of the amenity.court sportspickleball–VIII.A.3b .and remove the common drive altogetherminimum required street frontage of 30 feet when along a curve OR revise the plat to show Lot 4 with the common drive, Lot 6Correct the plat to show Lot 7 to take access from the –VIII.A.2c provisions contained herein. conceptual building elevations included in Section VII and the court amenity), and sports pickleballproposed open space and consistent with the approved plat, landscape plan (including Future development of this site shall be substantially –VIII.A.1a conditions language: Item #6: Pinedale Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING Maps– Remand Preliminary Plat Conceptual Elevations Changes to Agenda: East Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0037) requests continuance to August 9, 2022 due to development team availability. Item #5: Pickleball Court (H-2022-0025) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.58 acres of land, zoned RUT in the County, located at the northeast corner of Joy Street and W. McMillan Road. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential (MDR, 3-8 du/ac) Summary of Request: Request for Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 district. The subject 4.5 acres currently contains a barn or other agricultural building or two; the previous home appears to have been removed according to the latest aerial imagery. The subject site is abutted by two public roads; McMillan Road to the south and Joy Street to the west. Abutting to the north and east property lines are two existing R-4 developments, Vicenza Subdivision to the east and Summerwood Subdivision No. 2 to the north. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the east and north. Proposal for 14 building lots on 4.5 acres of land constitutes a gross density of 3.06 units per acre, nearly the minimum density allowed within the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 8,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size for the requested R-4 zoning district. The adjacent developments are of similar density and lot size which make this project consistent with the existing development; with the existence of Joy St. along the entire west boundary, subject project should act as a transition towards the higher density approved at the corner of Black Cat and McMillan and the underdeveloped properties in between. Access is proposed via a new local street connection to N. Joy Street, an existing local street that connects to W. McMillan Road, an arterial street. Access to all proposed homes is shown from new local street that ends in a cul-de-sac near the north boundary. No opportunity for a future stub due to existing development and no existing stub to property from existing development. The Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for W. McMillan Road and widen the paved surface area adjacent to the site. Applicant is also required to reconstruct Joy Street as ½ of a 33-foot wide local street section abutting the site. ACHD has approved the proposed road connections and layout and Staff also supports the proposed road layout. The subject project is less than 5 acres in size, therefore the UDC does not require compliance with the qualified open space standards in UDC 11-3G. However, the applicant is proposing some open space which Staff has analyzed. Applicant is showing three main areas of open space: 1) the required street buffer along McMillan; 2) an open space lot along the north boundary of the project (Lot 12), and; 3) an additional grassy area in the southeast corner of the site noted to be a future gravity irrigation holding pond. The Applicant should add an exhibit and more detail to the landscape plan that shows how this “pond” will be constructed and what it will look like to ensure compliance with UDC standards. Within the Lot 12 open space lot along the north boundary, the preliminary plat has a notation that a pickleball court will be present. Applicant has requested flexibility in the type of sports court to be installed. Therefore, the Applicant requested a modification to Staff’s recommended DA provision regarding the proposed amenity and Commission agreed with the Applicant. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Matthew Gardner, Gardner Homes – Applicant. b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Theodore Lye, Neighbor; 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. Plan to mitigate dust during construction if project is approved and moves forward; 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Difference in height of proposed homes to those existing to the east, is there intention to match them – Applicant plans to attempt this where possible; b. Are lights planned around proposed sports court at north end of site; c. Discussion of project location in relation to recent denied project on south side of McMillan – noted differences between projects in size, density, and no direct access to McMillan Road. 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Modify relevant provisions per Staff presentation at the hearing on June 16, 2022. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: None Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0025, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 26, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0025, as presented during the hearing on July 26, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0025 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) Item #6: Pinedale Subdivision (Remand) (H-2022-0001) Application(s): Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.22 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at along the railroad corridor west of Ten Mile and at the terminus of Newland Street at the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision. History: N/A Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 7 detached single-family building lots and 1 common lot. Applicant has revised plat multiple times to address concerns noted within the staff report and by Commission – Commission recommended denial to City Council for 9 lots with a common drive and the R-15 zoning district in April 2022. Applicant is proposing to construct detached single-family dwellings at a gross density of 5.74 du/ac, an average lot size of 4,399 square feet (previously 3,222) and a minimum lot size of 4,029 square feet (previously 2,257). Proposed use is a permitted use within the requested R-8 zoning district and all lots appear to meet UDC dimensional standards. Access is proposed via extension of W. Newland Street (an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. The existing access is from a private access across the Tenmile Creek to a previously private segment of Pine Avenue to the northeast of the site. This access will be terminated upon development. ACHD has previously approved the proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet instead of 48 feet as currently shown. This may reduce the lot size of Lot 6 below the minimum 4,000 square foot size. Staff finds that if this is the case, there is room to modify the lot lines to ensure continued compliance with the requested R-8 zoning district. Tenmile Creek runs along the entire east property line and requires a 100’ total easement width (50’ on each side from centerline of creek) which encumbers the buildable area of the property. Due to the encumbrances on the property (irrigation easement and cul-de- sac), Staff has included a DA provision requiring side loaded garages where possible. This type of design can force longer driveways that go deeper into each site which allows for more off-street parking. This design also creates an opportunity for the living area of each home to be moved closer to the street as the living setback is 10 feet while the garage setback is 20 feet; this allows for more buildable area than is shown on the submitted plat. However, Staff notes the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the required parking pad for side-loaded garages. The Applicant should work to mitigate these issues and revise the plat accordingly unless Commission or Council remove Staff’s recommended DA provision requiring this. Commission Recommendation: Approval Summary of Commission Public Hearing: 1. Summary of Commission public hearing: a. In favor: Antonio Conti, Applicant Engineer b. In opposition: None c. Commenting: Antonio Conti; d. Written testimony: Two pieces since remand – concerns over density and parking. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) of public testimony: a. None 3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission: a. Clarification on Staff’s recommendations for side-loaded garages; 4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation: a. Relax Staff’s recommendation for side-loaded garages to remove the requirement but allow the Applicant and Staff to work together on the best possible placement for side-loaded garages. 5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council: a. None Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Stefan Lofgren – Parking concerns with additional homes; will Pinedale residents be part of Chesterfield HOA as future residents will likely utilize existing open space/amenities. Notes: Possible Motions: Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of July 26, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0001, as presented during the hearing on July 26, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial) Continuance I move to continue File Number H-2022-0001 to the hearing date of \[date\] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for East Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0037) by Laren Bailey, Located at North of E. Lake Hazel Rd. between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd. Application Requires a Continuance A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove single-level limitation on single family residences within Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). C� f1E IZLAI`�T�--HO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING 07/26/2022 Legend e�j DATE: Project LucaSm TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner 208-489-0573 -- SUBJECT: H-2020-0037 R - MMM N ' East Ridge-MDA LOCATION: North side of E. Lake Hazel Rd.between S. Locust Grove Rd. and S. Eagle Rd in the southeast'/4 of Section 32,Township , 3N.,Range 1 E. I P F .�'.' • 5 � i I I I I f�_ I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Development Agreement Modification to remove single-level limitation on single family residences within Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). The 25 ft. height maximum will not change. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Applicant: Laren Bailey, The Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise ID 83706 B. Owner: G20 LLC—4824 W. Fairview Ave, Boise ID 83706 C. Representative: Laren Bailey, The Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise ID 83706 III. STAFF ANALYSIS This is a proposal for a development agreement modification to remove the limitation on single family residences within the Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No. 2 and No. 3 (Village Product Area). History: The Impressive East Ridge development is approximately 41 acres and was annexed,zoned to R-4 and R-15 and approved in November of 2017 as the East Ridge Estates Subdivision Preliminary Plat (H-2017-0129). The approved project allows the construction of a residential subdivision consisting of one hundred thirty-nine(139)residential lots and seven(7)common lots.A development Page 1 agreement (Instrument #2018-052339) was recorded. Conditions of the development agreement included prohibitions on direct access from E. Lake Hazel Rd., specifications on building elevations, and required open space and amenities including a clubhouse, sitting areas,and a neighborhood park. In 2019, it was discovered concessions that had been presented in a letter by the Applicant to the City Council at the 2017 public hearings to address community concerns had not been included in the original development agreement. These restrictions included increased western setbacks, additional landscaping, and a height limitation to one-story and 25 ft. for all 96 houses in the R-15 zoned area (Plats No 2 and 3, also known as the Village Area). In March 2019, the City Council directed staff to record these additional restrictions as an addendum to the development agreement (Inst. # 2019- 021791). In 2021, the applicant requested a second development agreement modification (H-2020-0096, Inst. #2021-025636). The purpose of this modification was to propose a slightly reconfigured plat (same number of lots) replace a required clubhouse and pool with a dog park, propose changes to the elevations, and remove some of the requirements (such as fencing type and setbacks) that impacted a property directly to the west, which was now under different ownership. The Final Plat for Phase One (Impressive East Ridge No. 1) was approved by the Council on July 17, 2019. East Ridge 2 was approved in February of 2021, and East Ridge 3 was approved in February of 2022. The majority of homes in Phase 1 have been completed. During the building permit review of houses intended for Phase 2,staff noted several houses had bonus rooms on a second story. As provision 5.Lg of the existing development agreement states"all product in the Village Area is to be single level with a maximum roof height of 25" staff denied the permits. This development agreement modification is to remove the second story restriction and propose additional two-story elevations with bonus rooms. The 25 ft. height maximum will remain. Staff has received several phone calls from concerned neighbors in regard to this proposed change. Concerns include houses that were previously limited to one story now having second story windows looking into their yards and the potential for higher rooflines. hi addition, approximately 6 months ago staff received at least one phone call from a homeowner who was under contract for one of the constructed houses in Impressive East Ridge No 1, and was doing due diligence to confirm the 25 ft. one-story provision was really a requirement of Phases 2&3. Staff does support the addition of bonus rooms on a second story because the height limitation of the houses will remain 25 ft. However, staff understands the concerns of neighbors who have purchased homes in Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No 1 with knowledge of the existing development agreement restrictions. Staff recommends removal of the single level restriction with the condition that second story windows shall not face Lots 2-20,Block 2 of Impressive East Ridge No 1, and Lots 9-18,Block 9 of Lavender Heights Subdivision No 2(please see attached supporting exhibit). Also, staff supports the inclusion of the new two-story elevation into the development agreement with the requirement that houses on Lot 61-97,Block 1 of Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No 3 (the perimeter lots facing East Ridge 1)vary in approved building elevation and home type with no two identical home types on adjacent lots. This is to ensure if there are two story homes built along the entire perimeter(which are not allowed under the present development agreement),there is a variation in architecture and rooflines as viewed by the adjacent houses. Page 2 IV. DECISION A. Staff: 1. Staff recommends the City Council approve the addition of the two-story elevations and the amendment to Development Agreement#2021-025636 as follows: 5.1.g All product in the Village area(zoned R-15)to be single level with a limited to a maximum roof height of 25 feet. Second story windows shall not face Lots 2-20, Block 2 of Impressive East Ridge No 1, and Lots 9-18,Block 9 of Lavender Heights Subdivision No 2. 5.1.m Houses on Lots 61-97,Block 1 of Impressive East Ridge Subdivision No 3 and Lots 17-21,Block 4 of Impressive East Ridge No 2 (the perimeter lots facing East Ridge 1) shall vary in approved building elevation and home types with no two identical home types on adjacent lots. Page 3 V. EXHIBITS A. Supporting Exhibit � p Lots 9-19, Block 2 Lots 2-20, Block of of Lavender W Impressive East Heights Na. 2, — Ridge No i, Staff m Staff recommends FiRACE D recommends second second story o story windows not windows not face face these lots. these lots. V2 z 0 rL R-15 area is ViIIage Product err ��Tt _ which presently has single story sr and 25 ft. height restriction EZEN.o L rJ Lots 61-97 Black 1 of - _' Impressive East Ridge 3. and Lots 17-21 Block =E_BEPG 10 .•y ; 4 of Impressive East Ridge No 2. Staff recommends variation -- - - --- - J in home styfes Mth no .. ---------€"tAi{B t ------two identical styles ----------- adjacent to each other. Page 4 B. Proposed Elevations to add to Development Agreement. Chandler A Chandler B Avondale A {NOT TO SCALE) Avondale B (NOT TO SCALE Gilbert A[w!Bonus] -_ - (N OT TO SCALE) — - — Pima A 1wf Bonus} (NOT TO SCALE) ® - Zd-O Tempe A Tempe B iWOT TO SCALE) (NOT TO SCALE y Page 5 C. Existing Development Agreement 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: a. Except the public street access to E. Lake Hazel Road from East Ridge Avenue, direct lot access to E. Lake Hazel Road, an arterial street, is prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. b, Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat and building elevations depicted in Exhibit A of the Staff Report attached to Exhibit"A"to the, Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law and the revisions noted in the staff report c. The applicant shall comply with the submitted home elevations attached in Exhibit A.4 of the Staff Report attached to Exhibit "A", Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law. The rear and/or side of structures that face arterial or collector streets (Lots 2-5 of Block 1, Lots 55, 56, 59, 60, 63, 64, 67, 68, 71 and 72 of 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. d. The site shall develop with a minimum of 10.54%open space(4.32 acres) and shall include the following amenities specific to the Village Concept and other amenities that would be for the use of the estate lots as well as the Village concept. The amenities specific to the Village concept include a dog park,water feature and outdoor ramada.Amenities that would be shared by both the estate lots and the Village concept include a neighborhood park that includes a large grassy area,a shade structure and sitting areas. e. Timing for the construction of the amenities is proposed as shown on the phasing plan in Exhibit A.2 of the Staff Report attached to Exhibit `B" of the Original Development Agreement,Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law. f. The 5-foot detached sidewalk and 25-foot landscape buffer along E.Lake Hazel Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development. g. All product in the Village area is to be single level with a maximum roof height of 25 feet. h. All product in the Village area is to be ago,,restricted. i. All 6 estate lots to be single level with a maximum roof height of 25 feet. j. Rear Setbacks for Lots 1,2 and 3,Block 3 shall be 45 feet measured from the north property line. k. Rear Setbacks for Lots 6-23 shall be 45 feet. 1. Side yard setbacks shall be 7.3 feet for homes on the Rim. Page 6 E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pickleball Court Subdivision (H-2022-0025) by The Land Group, Inc., Located at 4050 W. McMillan Rd. at the northeast corner of N. Joy Street and W. McMillan Rd. Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0025 A. Request: Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district. B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 26, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5 PROJECT NAME : Pickleball Court Subdivision ( H - 20 M025 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 C k6tC� si G` �>h �ooy VV I �( u 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 7/26/2022 Legend i w DATE: EP Project Location � �® 0 TO: Mayor&City Council FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 208 884-5533 EID POP Q4H SUBJECT: H-2022-0025 - - -' Pickleball Court Subdivision LOCATION: Located at 4050 W. McMillan Road, at the northeast corner of N. Joy Street and M@ W. McMillan Road, in the SE 1/4 of the - -- ------ -; SW 1/4 of Section 27,Township 4N, IE Range 1 W. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Request for Annexation of 4.96 acres of land to be zoned from RUT in the County to the R-4 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 14 single-family residential building lots and 4 common lots on 4.58 acres of land in the requested R-4 district,by The Land Group. IL SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage AZ—4.96 acres; PP—4.58 acres Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential MDR, 3-8 du/ac Existing Land Use(s) County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 18 total lots— 14 residential building lots and 4 bldg./common)) common lots Phasing Plan #ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 14 single-family units Density Gross—3.06 du/ac.;Net—5.05 du/ac. Open Space (acres,total None required—Approximately 29,600 square feet of %]/buffer/ ualified) total open s ace proposed Neighborhood meeting date February 1, 2022 History(previous approvals) No application history with the City Pagel B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action es/no Access Access is proposed via a new local street connection to N. Joy Street, an (Arterial/Collectors/State existing local street that connects to W. McMillan Road, an arterial street. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Access to all proposed homes is shown from new local street that ends in a Proposed) cul-de-sac near the north boundary. Stub No opportunity for a future stub due to existing development and no existing Street/Interconnectivity/Cross stub to property from existing development. Access Existing Road Network No, except Joy Street and W. McMillan Road. Proposed Road The Applicant is required to dedicate additional right-of-way for W. Improvements McMillan Road and widen the paved surface area adjacent to the site. Applicant is also required to reconstruct Joy Street as '/2 of a 33-foot wide local street section abutting the site. Applicant is proposing a new local street to dead-end in a cul-de-sac. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.1 miles from Fire Station#2;project area will eventually be serviced by Station Fire Station 8, scheduled to be opened in late Summer 2023. • Fire Response Time The project lies inside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Station 8 is constructed,response times will be reduced in this area. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions. Water&Wastewater • Impacts/Concerns • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions Page 2 1 . 1 . • 11111�: r11111111 e �IIIRI lse 1111 ��1'd111B�- 6. s■ I. 'NINE all I �'. 1�111n111111� , • - • • • N�'6rr11 • - • • • 1 Iallalllll� �' � �rGa■E' MINN . • - • �i�al 's �,J r�Q„Illllnn n■■e■a1 1IYA =111, -i■11111■ ��-�` ' i� ��1 - • v -`�� � I ME 0 nn � MC -LAJN gk- - IY��- ■1 11111111 �. zt` �.;a *•T `� �-1- �■ 1 IN - 1111111 -:al�ilq� � �■ -- J 1 � 1 ' • 1 1 1 1 - • - • Ill' ■■■■r'■■■■■ - • - • Illla■p e■r1 Irrre �a lllll .Irllnua nnur mill fllll►�I+ r1e1111 Ilel mill • . _ . . nn�Inrl ��nml Inn nnnm- � % • • - 1 nnnnll- aaIIIIIIIat- �aa1IIIIIIai- - anal a1111 - fill a111I IN r 1 aalw s1 wa IIIII l lilt• • -• • ., nn 1111%eai1n11I1 1 r�Qvi::iinnnl�u Emilio = - ": -i■11111- 'IV-1-1=1=_ _II � 11�-■11111 IN ■i■ �/IIIe •V?I�I ��Jl -•• ,Ala i■ � 1I11 MINE 1111 p II nn L1�Ui�J Q�1� s.,; nln rrlll��llgqnli� I II IIIII ��iuuiinnil� :j.Ali IIl11� L�PU� �irlll�q m•�n_ nand hIIJ4�' , ��aunlnn ullunl• � I���aunnm uuum ■ �'J - 11111111 Illli_�� 111111111 Illli� � a'Illllplll INa�= IIIIIIIIa lq�--► - Q IIIIIIIIaI - -- � LIIIIIIIIr ���=�'. V� I111111 _===Ilq - till 11111 _ _ilq - nuw o ••nlnn a--=unu� �■ nn■IrF' Iln- -RUG, r ■NINE II II IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/31/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 5/26/2022 Site Posting 6/4/2022 Nextdoor posting 5/25/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/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 4.5 acres currently contains a barn or other agricultural building or two; the previous home appears to have been removed according to the latest aerial imagery. The subject site is abutted by two public roads;McMillan Road to the south and Joy Street to the west. Abutting to the north and east property lines are two existing R-4 developments, Vicenza Subdivision to the east and Summerwood Subdivision No. 2 to the north. The subject property is designated as Medium Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with existing development to the east and north. Due to the existing local street along the west boundary, the Applicant is proposing to take access from this street and close any existing access to McMillan, which is consistent with City code. The Applicant is proposing 14 building lots on 4.5 acres of land which constitutes a gross density of 3.06 units per acre, nearly the minimum density allowed within the MDR designation. The minimum building lot size proposed is 8,000 square feet which is the minimum lot size for the requested R-4 zoning district. The adjacent developments are of similar density and has building lots similar in size and also some that are larger 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 and east boundaries and the Applicant has placed an open space lot along the north boundary and at the southeast corner of the site. Because the proposed development is consistent with the existing development to the east and north and no access to an arterial street is proposed,Staff believes annexing this land into the City is in the best interest of the City and is a logical expansion of City zoning and development 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 67-651 IA.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this application, Staff recommends a 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 4 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://www.meridiancity.orglcompplan): 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 existing subdivisions to the east and north. Further, this property is part of a larger MDR area that is also redeveloping west of the site at the northeast corner of Black Cat and McMillan with smaller lot sizes than those proposed in Pickleball Court. Staff finds the density and lot sizes proposed on the subject 4.5 acres to be an appropriate transition from the existing subdivisions to the remaining county parcels to the west and those smaller developing projects further to the west. "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 McMillan Road improvements (upgraded from two to three lanes in the future). The future Fire Station 8 will improve the response times in this entire area of the City 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. In addition, Pleasant View Elementary School is within walking distance of the subject site so any children in that age group would be able to get to school safely. 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 will construct attached sidewalks within the development as well as along the east side of the Joy Street for added pedestrian access to the north through the existing pedestrian facilities in Summerwood Subdivision and out to Gondola Street, a collector street with access to multiple subdivisions in this section of the City. 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 averaging over 8,000 square feet, significantly similar to those within the adjacent subdivisions to the east and north. Further, the Applicant is proposing a density at the bottom of the anticipated density in this area of the City. Staff finds these aspects of the project makes for a project consistent with the existing development to the east but also most consistent with the remaining county residential parcels on the west side of Joy Street that have not yet redeveloped. "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 proposing to construct a new local cul-de-sac street within the development for access to the proposed building lots. The new local street is proposed to connect to N. Joy Street, a county local street adjacent to the subject site. The Applicant is required to and is proposing to improve the existing right-of-way for Joy Street to include additional pavement, curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalks adjacent to the site. Further, the Applicant is required to construct 5-foot wide detached sidewalk along McMillan Road consistent with existing improvements to the east, Page 5 further extending the arterial street pedestrian facilities and safe pedestrian access to the commercial uses at the Ten Mile and McMillan intersection. In addition, the proposed road and pedestrian facility improvements will add to the safety of the underdeveloped county parcels that utilize Joy Street and Daphne Street, the local street that branches off and heads west of Joy at the northwest corner of the site. 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 outbuildings 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 W. McMillan Road that will also be closed upon development.No other site improvements appear to be present. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 8,620 square feet and a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-4 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2 and all lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size requirement of 8,000 square feet and minimum street frontage requirement of 60 feet. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots are shown 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). Some of the lot dimensions shown on the submitted preliminary plat do not compute to the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet. Prior to the City Council hearing, the Applicant should ensure all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement for the requested R-4 zoning district. Staff's calculations of the lot dimensions depicted show many of the lots are slightly under the minimum lot size—there are multiple areas in the subject site design where the needed extra area can be obtained by adjusting lot lines so Staff is not concerned with the Applicant being able to comply with this dimensional standard. Per UDC 11-6C-3B.4, no dead-end street shall be longer than 500 feet. The subject project is proposed with a cul-de-sac as the only access to the proposed single family lots and is shown to be approximately 450 feet in length and compliant with this code section. In addition, the Applicant is proposing one(1) common drive in the southeast corner of the project for access to Lot 4. Lot 7 also abuts this common drive but is not shown to take access from it as required by UDC 11-6C-3D.5. With the final plat submittal, the Applicant should provide an exhibit that demonstrates Lot 7 taking access from the common driveway in accord with UDC standards. 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. Page 6 G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4): Access is proposed via a new local street(shown as W. Riva Capri)connection to N. Joy Street approximately 200 feet north of the Joy and W.McMillan intersection. There are no existing stub streets adjacent to the site and Joy Street runs along the entire west boundary which is why the Applicant is proposing an access point to this local street and proposing Riva Capri to end as a cul-de-sac within the site, as shown on the submitted preliminary plat. Further, according to the proposed plat,Riva Capri is proposed as 33-foot wide local street with 5-foot attached sidewalks and Joy Street is shown to be improved with curb, gutter, and 5-foot wide attached sidewalk. The proposed street design complies with all UDC standards and ACHD conditions of approval. H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 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 Riva Capri is proposed as a 33-foot wide street section. 1. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17): 5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along the new proposed local street.W. Riva Capri and along the east side of N. Joy Street,consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. The proposed sidewalk dimensions also meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The Applicant is also proposing 5-foot wide detached along W. McMillan road consistent with existing sidewalk to the east and UDC standards. Staff supports the proposed sidewalk facilities. According to the submitted plat and landscape plan, the proposed 5-foot detached sidewalk along McMillan directly abuts the ultimate right-of-way line. UDC 11-3B-7C.1 a requires that all detached sidewalks shall have an average minimum separation of greater than four(4)feet to back of curb to allow for vegetative separation between the travel lanes and pedestrian facilities and to ensure these facilities are in fact detached from the vehicular right-of-way. In these instances, "back of curb"is in reference to the ultimate right-of-way line. Therefore, the Applicant should submit revised plans depicting the detached sidewalk to be at least 4 feet behind the future right-of-way line. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): A 25-foot wide street buffer is required along W. McMillan Road, an arterial street,landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. In addition, a minimum 10-foot street buffer is required along the east side of Joy Street to ensure the abutting lots are not double fronting lots and should be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-7.All landscape areas should be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-5, general landscaping standards. Lastly, according to the submitted landscape plan,the Applicant is proposing a gravity irrigation holding pond which should comply with UDC 11-313- 11 standards. The Applicant is showing a common lot along W. McMillan Road that is at least 25 feet in width and is depicted with 9 trees and one landscape bed at the corner of Joy and McMillan; this proposed landscaping does not fully comply with UDC requirements. The number of trees shown complies with UDC requirements but UDC 11-3B-7 also requires vegetative ground cover beyond that ofgrasses. Specifically, no more than 65%of the landscaped area is permitted to be grass and other area shall be comprised of additional planting beds for shrubs and other vegetative ground cover. The Applicant should revise the landscape plan to depict additional vegetative ground cover to meet this standard. Page 7 The Applicant is showing approximately a 1 S foot wide landscape buffer along the west boundary abutting the east side off. Joy Street, measured from the back of sidewalk. This buffer is required to ensure the lots internal to the project do not have frontage to two public roads. City code requires these buffers to be a minimum of 10 feet in width so the Applicant's proposal to construct a 1 S foot buffer exceeds code requirements. Essentially, the 1 S foot buffer is a local street buffer that is still governed by code but is not typically required; the proposed site design has created this situation so landscaping standards apply. For example, a total of 14 trees are required within this buffer and the Applicant is showing 16 trees. However, UDC 11-3B-7C.3 requires that at least 25%of street buffer trees are Class II trees and it is not clear from the landscape table that the trees noted along Joy are Class I or Class IT The Applicant should clarify this and correct this if additional Class II trees are needed within this buffer. NOTE: The subject project is less than 5 acres in size,therefore the UDC does not require compliance with the qualified open space standards in UDC 11-3G.However,the applicant is proposing some open space which Staff has analyzed below. There are two main areas of open space that would qualify under the UDC: 1)the required street buffer along McMillan,and 2) an open space lot along the north boundary of the project(Lot 12).In addition,the Applicant is showing an additional grassy area in the southeast corner of the site but this area is noted to be a future gravity irrigation holding pond.The submitted plans do not depict how this will be designed so Staff presumes it would not be qualified open space. The Applicant should add an exhibit and more detail to the landscape plan that shows how this "pond"will be constructed and what it will look like. Within the Lot 12 open space lot along the north boundary,the preliminary plat has a notation that a pickleball court will be present. The Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict this proposed amenity and its location. Staff is recommending a DA provisions requiring the applicant to comply with the open space and amenity as proposed. K. 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 to protect and use the existing 6-foot solid fencing along the north and east boundaries and is proposing 6-foot vinyl fencing along the rear lot lines adjacent to N. Joy Street and W. McMillan Road. The Applicant is depicting 6-foot open vision fencing along the east property line of Lot 4 and a portion of the south property lien of Lot 7 where these properties abut an open space lot utilized for gravity irrigation holding pond, according to the landscape plans. The proposed fencing meets or exceeds all UDC requirements. L. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21): The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend necessary public utilities for the proposed detached single-family dwellings within the Pickleball Court Subdivision. Public Works has reviewed the subject applications for compliance with their standards and finds them to be in general compliance except for specific conditions outlined in Section VIII.B of this report. Specifically, Public Works is seeking a 20 foot easement within Lot 12 and a 20 foot easement along the north side of Lot 13 for a potential future water loop back to Joy Street. This condition has been added to the conditions of approval in Section VIII.B. Page 8 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 VIII of this report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 16,2022.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: Matthew Gardner,Gardner Homes—Applicant. b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Theodore Lye,Neighbor; d. Written testimony: None e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application:None 2. Key issue(s) testimony a. Plan to mitigate dust during construction if project is approved and moves forward; 3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission. a. Difference in height of proposed homes to those existing to the east,is there intention to match them—Applicant plans to attempt this where possible; b. Are lights planned around proposed sports court at north end of site; C. Discussion of project location in relation to recent denied project on south side of McMillan—noted differences between projects in size, density, and no direct access to McMillan Road. 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Modify relevant provisions per Staff presentation at the hearing on June 16, 2022. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 9 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map LEGAL DESCRIPTION TH E Page 1 OF 1 LAND GROUP April 19,2022 Project No.:121130 EXHIBIT"A" PICKLEBALL COURT SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION/REZONE DESCRIPTION A parcel of land located in the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 27,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the South One Quarter Corner of Section 27 of said Township 4 North,Range 1 West, (from which point the southwest corner of said Section 27 bears North 89°35'49"West,a distance of 2654.00 feet distant),said South One Quarter Corner of Section 27 being the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence from said South One Quarter Corner,North 89'35'49"West,a distance of 334.34 feet on the South line of said Section 27 to a point common with the Centerline intersection of North Joy Street; Thence North 00'25'00"East,a distance of 646.62 feet on the Centerline of said North Joy Street; Thence South 89'15'37"East,a distance of 334.75 feet to a point on the north-south mid- section line of said Section 27; Thence South 00'27'09"West,a distance of 644.68 feet on said mid-section line to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described contains 4.96 acres more or less. PREPARED BY: The Land Group,Inc. pL T y s 0� 1 R b a 7880 4-19-2022 ST �O James R.Washburn 9rf OF SR.WA 462 East Shore Drive,Suite 100,Eagle,Idaho 83616 206.939.4041 thelandgroupinc.com Page 10 1 � o col gSp 5 `rG SUMMER WOOD SUBDIVISION W� F BLOCK 2 P. 7880 S89°15'37"E 334.75' 4-19-2022 °y�rgTE OF R.w10 �P I I Jae I I I l i I z a 1 — I I ANNEX REZONE m Y AREA:±4.96 AC o (215,990.42 SQ.Fr.) a ¢ � m Cn U U Y z � Q � I I c0 I SW.CORNER POINT OF BEGINNING SECTION 27 SOUTH QUARTER TAN.,R,1W=B� SECTION 27 ———'— TAN.,RAW,B.M. N89°35'49"W 334.34' _ N89'35'49"W 2654.00, W. MCMILLAN ROAD Exhibit "B" 0 100' 200 g Horizontal Scale:1 =100' Project No:121130 �i Date of Issuance:04/1 9120 2 2 s g i -THE Annex / Rezone r Y Z LAND o a'2' -GROUP s: =�o Page 11 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 3/18/2022) 98WOH Jouepoo Lei NOISIAlaens ano 11V83IM31d 21 A. k �v W, Rpm' MEM z --------------- --- --- ----- J ------------ 7fi Fir ---------- 696 a. C: Page 12 i I I I I E95PNG&IN 6RVER � I {Pv maE�7 oR fi R0220B.w200 ---- -- -- fi SUM NER W OOG SN.GIVISION RF PAPHNE STPZff 011' - ` i421' NBA"I5'3TW,fifi� I4 PIUNLE&4LGGURT .. / leas512tSm � L13 11430S F_ � •` L11 ��`.. qv' 1nw s.F. `31; Isoa5lsoazL I W I E I L16 N. 015ACF I w r, L __121'__— I m I 0000E F. I Mp 15 1yy�� IXGiING BJN WATER � I i � � -�.-..-. NZ INP.7g � 32 I � I Lg I II � W0351�]B30 mE_ - L -121 I I m z IL__— __ —J F >g 11s I L1a I r — - — —, y'z ml qTW I I Imo. I �I `" ----------J R -- r-----1zrs.5. I PI- I el I I g L—___12I•—____J I a«31L17 --- -- -- -- I —11q•---_ v RNQ':3a W.JMA cerar srasar �y�� �o I eoew 751 NRPAwA �` �JI 1]016F I - I ttP I I I I I I I„ L1 m >z I cola s.F. I BQId�P B -1 = woo s5.. I I I I I � I " � nem5izuwG m Im I L OPEN ANCE------� ------� �------� -----J .� IRRM.4TON POND FrW }m-�*�iCC 59E1G1_'2_0D3 EP ECJ.,•. .'E.6 r�.,•, '.r w •3�10' r�EG m FV .✓r�., --SI %—RG�IGTPIN_T6O_�GN3_R 1A N RT9 SPV@ iU5_1R- _2E OP OHP ONP OHP OHP 1-61} PIE f 0 100 S p s EP,- EP - 0 1r-l4r illl.fAN ROA(J iAR1ERIRL) 4 "� -� EG EP " -El- _-EP---_EP RB9'35 IE �EPm _ /J,J� INa9' W9V12654.00' 91.R OLfl 3EGa --�- SYfLLRSELZIf IRASIS GF GEARIXGI RVV M wW RnV LPd w2N'01 r-11L131 u' - CP6Fk 2015 Qr9215 RAW RAV R'W V P/W 1 � ��Ic"•IW rF -MV_ 1a hS Preliminary Plat-Overview a=� � Hm�I�Ie ,•=aa Page 13 C. Landscape Plans(date: 3/18/2022) SOMH MOPM NOISIAIMS IM03 lIV93IM31d ,E E,I J i,M01" i. �dfl NIP ITIIFIJi' W �N, --- ------- Al -------- --- II'I II ------- -- ---------- --------- Page 14 ---------- ------------ %1 7 0 --------- Ilk IL---I---------- -------------- 9000 9 IL--------------- I----------------0 9 ca -------j ---------- SOW H.F ---------- ---------- LIF, -------------- 17 0 7-� L2 1IF IF -p --------- IL-------- DHP )H ES W, EP E KIMIL"N Preliminary Plat-Landscape Plan 74 j H- 1 1 Page 15 BuildingD. Conceptual Page 16 w i s I�wA 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.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council. 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(including proposed open space and piekleball sports court amenity), and conceptual building elevations included in Section V11 and the provisions contained herein. b. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from W. McMillan Road(Lots 1-4) 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 exemptfrom this requirement. Preliminary Plat Conditions: 2. The preliminary plat included in Section V11.13, dated March 18, 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Ensure all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement for the requested R-4 zoning district of 8,000 square feet. b. Any existing accesses to W. McMillan Road shall be closed upon development of the site. c. Correct the plat to show Lot 7 to take access from the common drive,Lot 6 OR reivse the plat to show Lot 4 with the minimum required street frontage of 30 feet when along curve and remove the common drive altofzethe . d. Depict the required 5-foot wide detached sidewalk within the landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road 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 sidewalk and ensure it 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 sidewalk,per UDC 11-313-7C.1 a OR place said sidewalk within ACHD right-of-way per the ACHD condition of aWroval. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated March 18,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict the detached sidewalk along W. McMillan Road in accord with UDC 11-3B- 7C.1 a, as noted above. b. Depict the location of the noted piekle�a4_Torts court amenity within Lot 12 and provide a detail of the amenity. Page 17 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 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. Page 19 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 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridianciiy.org/public_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. Page 20 C. FIRE DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciV.orglWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=261475&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC i &cr=1 D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=261699&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty E. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=262292&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty F. NAMPA/MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=263094&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=261626&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-511-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with the R-4 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; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-4 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; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. Page 21 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information) 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 22 E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Ave. (Parcel #51210417400) Link to Project Folder: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0001 A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district. B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.22 acres in the requested R-8 zoning district. PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET DATE : July 26 , 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 6 PROJECT NAME : Pinedale Subdivision ( W2022 - 0001 ) Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify ( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes ) If yes, please provide HOA name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I D A H O HEARING 7/26/2022 Legend DATE: 0 Project Location TO: Mayor&City Council ® � FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner �� + 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: H-2022-0001 Pinedale Subdivision -- -------� - LOCATION: The site is located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel#S 1210417400), at the _ east terminus of W.Newland Street in the Chesterfield Subdivision, in the NW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, Township 3N, Range 1 W. � 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-8 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 7 building lots and 1 common lot on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Pine Project, LLC. NOTE: This application was remanded back to Planning and Zoning Commission from City Council at the request of the Applicant for the purpose of revising the preliminary plat in response to the discussions held at the March 3,2022 Commission meeting. This staff report contains analysis on the revised preliminary plat and zoning request and should be treated as a new staff report for the Pinedale Subdivision—the original staff report can be reviewed within the public record. II. SUMMARY OF REPORT A. Project Summary Description Details Page Acreage 1.22 acres Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community 6-15 du/ac Existing Land Use(s) County Residential Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential Lots(#and type; 8 total lots—7 residential building lots and 1 common bldg./common)) lot Phasing Plan #ofphases) 1 phase Number of Residential Units 7 single-family detached units Page 1 Description Details Page Density Gross—5.74;Net—approximately 9.86 Open Space (acres,total Approximately 9,970 square feet of open space /buffer/ ualified (approximately 18.8% Amenity Micro-path connection to future multi-use pathway at north end of property Neighborhood meeting date; # November 5, 2021 — I attendee of attendees: History(previous approvals) No previous approvals with the City B. Community Metrics Description Details Page Ada County Highway District • Staff report(yes/no) Yes • Requires ACHD No Commission Action (yes/no) Access Access is proposed via extension of the existing stub street,Newland Street; (Arterial/Collectors/State it is proposed to be extended into the site as a cul-de-sac. Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Stub No opportunity for further public street extension;Newland Street will Street/Interconnectivity/Cross terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. Access Existing Road Network No Proposed Road The Applicant is only required to extend Newland Street into the site.No Improvements other road improvements are proposed or required. Fire Service • Distance to Fire 2.8 miles from Fire Station#2. Station • Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5 minutes. Once Pine Avenue is constructed over the Tenmile Creek,the project will lie within the response time goal window. • Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%) • Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards(Tenmile Creek along east boundary) • Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions. Cul-de-sac is required to be signed"No Parking,"per Fire Department regulations. Police Service No report—see online record for any comments from MPD. Wastewater • Distance to Sewer 0' Services Page 2 Description Details Page • Project Consistent Yes with WW Master Plan/Facility Plan • WRRF Declining 14.26 Balance • Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed • See Public Works Site Specific Conditions • Additional 510 gpd flow was committed to model Water • Distance to Services 0' • Pressure Zone 2 • Project Consistent Yes with Water Master Plan • Water Quality None Concerns • Impacts/Concerns See site specific conditions in Section VIII.B Page 3 . p . p . -H■ _ a 1 IN 1■■■ ■■■■1 IN r111 I1111 ■■■■■■ 1■I +, llllll 111 _ LU n 11 m _ 1■ ~ PINE tl� ' —ram] p1F.-P, < llllll= a - ♦ � �r .� � G� J � —:i alllllllll■rl +`� +�V a .4 Z�, IIG�III 11111111111111111111111 I_ IIIIILIIIIII a uii mn- o - o ~"; _.. �a�l<: FRANKLIN a. - FRANKLIN 11: . 1111111111111 IIIIflllllll % AIWIIA11noo 11 1r111Ri±r: I _� p •� 1 • 11 p n llllll h�1�1� ■1■l■rn■■ nmr►�put►� �I n1 _ ,� _�oYi != .,■■ N l 111111111r.�+ ��';; [ � ll n Inn: '�• ? lull p1 11►�thl� �9� . -. •. - __/�� .I .� ..1■■II11 � 1 11l111111 `-``-' — � ` �. � •: lull= -?• anvil q E rinnn � Inl IIIIIII � `N E 11111e •-- n- 1111= ♦ Illll--•��•���m i � w� llllll llllll=__��� llllll l�n�� /111111111 r"� ° � --pp--■1111 � J —IIIII linalll n111111111111111111 l nE milli � lll LU \\IIC�III 11111I1111111111111111'I�� ��1' � Z � w F G�9E3 L-r � 1"1■ Z _ noun _ n■■1■■■ w ■■ i ii - --F-RANKLIN ~ — =p •■ ■■1.■■.. 1 w mm�111, I nllloul 1■ m■1n■�- i1 • iiiiill`�� • 1 n m nnnnliUmnn IRAN KL=IN I I1 •• ' •- 1 .- 11 IV. NOTICING Planning& Zoning City Council Posting Date Posting Date Newspaper Notification 5/31/2022 7/10/2022 Radius notification mailed to properties within 500 feet 5/26/2022 7/7/2022 Site Posting 5/31/2022 7/15/2022 Nextdoor posting 5/25/2022 7/8/2022 V. STAFF ANALYSIS A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan) Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric(residential dwellings are allowed at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac). The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non- residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood (MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R) areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged. The subject 1.2 acres is designated as mixed-use community but is part of a larger, 30-acre mixed-use designated area to the east that is west of Ten Mile and south of the future Pine Avenue extension (more MU-C acreage exists on the east side of Ten Mile as well). However, this site is physically separated from this MU-C area by the Tenmile Creek that abuts the east boundary of the subject site with only a future pedestrian connection available for any connectivity between this site and the MU-C parcels to the east. Because of the physical separation and the lack of connectivity to the east, Staff believes this project and site is more consistent with the existing subdivision to the west, Chesterfield Subdivision, than it is with any mixed-use project to the east (Foxcroft or Mile High Pines). Chesterfield and all of the residential to the west and northwest of this site is in the Medium Density Residential(MDR)future land use designation and contemplates residential development in the density range of 3-8 du/ac such as the proposed Pinedale Subdivision. Because of these facts, Stafffinds it appropriate to analyze the subject project against the MDR designation instead of the MU-C designation by floating that designation to this site, as allowed per the Comprehensive Plan. Since the original project description was published, the Applicant and Staff have worked together to respond to comments received from the Planning and Zoning Commission in regards to density, zoning, and parking concerns. In response, the Applicant has revised the plat and has proposed seven (7) building lots instead of 10 and has completely removed the previously proposed common drive. 7 lots on 1.22 acres of land has a gross density of 5.74 du/ac, within the allowed gross density in the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a project consistent with the adjacent MDR future land use designation. Due to the site being at the end of an existing stub street, the only vehicular connection is via extension of the stub street(Newland Street) into the property which is required to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac, requiring a large portion of the site to be reserved for right-of-way and reduces the buildable area of the project. Despite this fact, the Applicant is proposing lots at least 4,000 square feet in size and is requesting the R-8 zoning district to be more consistent with the Chesterfield development to the west which is existing R-8 zoning. Page 5 Original discussions with the Applicant contemplated 15 building lots on the subject site but the Applicant submitted the preliminary plat with 12 lots after Staff voiced concerns over the proposed density, lot sizes, and overall livability of the project. Other discussions occurred following submittal of the subject applications and the Applicant reduced the number of building lots to 10. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the project to City Council based on these same concerns so the Applicant requested to be remanded back to have an adequate opportunity to respond to the concerns noted. As noted, the requested seven building lots allows the project to further comply with the MDR designation by being less than 6 du/ac. Furthermore, the combination of this reduction in density and the requested R-8 zoning district should make Pinedale more consistent with the existing development to the west as Staff finds most appropriate. Furthermore, the subject site is surrounded by existing City zoning in all directions with existing development to the south, west, and northwest and entitlements on the land to the east and northeast. Therefore,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 rezoned and annexed with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the new DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council. B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridiancioy.or /�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 most consistent with the development to the west due to density, traffic,parking, and compatibility concerns outlined by Staff and existing residents. Despite the recent reduction in density and ability to match the zoning to the west, the proposed lot sizes will not match that of the Chesterfield Subdivision to the west. The subject site is encumbered by the requirement to construct a cul-de-sac entirely on this relatively small site so matching the lot sizes and the same look of Chesterfield would be difficult to attain. The impediments on this site allow the Applicant to propose a smaller building lot which subsequently allows a smaller home to be constructed than what exists in the surrounding area. Staff finds that despite not being an exact match to Chesterfield, the proposed layout and lot sizes should add to the housing diversity in this area. "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 west boundary. Road improvements currently under construction (i.e. Pine bridge over the Tenmile Creek) will place this project within the Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the access for the proposed plat. West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but, with a low number of homes, a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by this Page 6 development. Furthermore, Chaparral Elementary is within walking distance of this development should any elementary aged children live within this site. Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project. "Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation,conservation,and aesthetics" (4.05.01F).Because the property is less than 5 acres, the Applicant is not required to provide any qualified common open space. However, the Applicant is showing a common lot containing a micro path connection to a future multi-use pathway at the north boundary; this micro path runs along the entire northeast property line for the length of the property. This area is tucked away behind the building lots so all adjacent fencing will need to be open vision or semi private fencing. Staff anticipates this area being utilized as a quiet oasis due to its location against the Tenmile Creek. Staff is not aware if this site and future building lots will be part of the Chesterfield HOA for residents to access the amenities and open space within that project. However, Fuller Park is approximately Y2 mile to the north of the subject property which offers a public amenity within walking distance of the proposed development. Further, the micro path being constructed with the development ties into the multiuse pathway system that will connect to the park. "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is extending the attached sidewalks along Newland Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the north boundary to connect to a multi-use pathway segment from the Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the Tenmile Creek. Furthermore, the Applicant is preserving a potential connection point to the railroad corridor should the City ever decide to construct a regional pathway south of the site.All of these pedestrian facilities allow this small site, as well as the existing development to the west, to have multiple links to tie in together and promotes neighborhood connectivity overall. "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 Chesterfield Subdivision to the west largely because of the requirement to terminate Newland Street within the site as cul-de-sac. The proposed lots directly abutting the existing homes do not match in lot size but they are abutting 1:1 in terms of lot to lot so the existing residents should not feel as though there are smaller lots directly to their east. Furthermore, because the property is at the end of an existing street and it will terminate on the subject site, Staff anticipates the project will feel cohesive in its livability despite not matching lot sizes and density of Chesterfield. "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 Newland Street into the site by constructing a cul-de-sac wholly on this property, terminating Newland Street. This is the only access point into the site and connects this project directly to the abutting Chesterfield Subdivision that has access up to Pine Avenue, a residential collector street that will be extended from west to east over the Tenmile Creek to Ten Mile Road. 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 an existing residential structure and an out- building 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 vehicular bridge over the Tenmile Creek at the very north property boundary that connects to a private drive that is Page 7 essentially Pine Avenue. This access will be closed upon development and the vehicular bridge will provide access for a regional pathway within the approved Foxcroft Subdivision to the east. D. Proposed Use Analysis: The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 4,399 square feet and a minimum lot size of 4,029 square feet,based on the latest 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. The Applicant has not noted if this is a phased project,however Staff anticipates it to develop as one phase due to the size of the proposed project. As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the proposed use is the same as the existing detached single-family to the west in Chesterfield Subdivision but is proposed with smaller lots and subsequently smaller homes (approximately 4,000 square foot versus 6,000 square foot). According to the Applicant, the goal is to construct smaller homes at a lower price point to add more affordable options to the area and market. E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In addition,all subdivisions 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 including lot frontage and lot size. Further, the Applicant has depicted the building envelope on each lot on the plat for the purpose of showing future building footprints.As noted, the Applicant is anticipating constructing smaller homes than seen in recent years and smaller than those within Chesterfield. In addition, the setback lines on Lot 2 do not depict how code handles setbacks within a triangle so this building lot will have a slightly smaller building envelope than shown. 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 all of the elevations depicting two-story homes and two-car garages. The elevations depict varying field materials of lap siding, brick,fiber cement board, and stucco with 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 small subdivision. G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3): Access is proposed via extension of W.Newland Street(an existing residential local street)into the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. ACHD has previously approved the proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet instead of 48 feet as currently shown. This may reduce the lot size of Lot 6 below the minimum 4,000 square foot size. Staff finds that if this is the case,there is room to modify the lot lines to ensure continued compliance with the requested R-8 zoning district. The existing access across Tenmile Creek and up to the private segment of Pine Avenue will be closed upon development of the site and converted to a pedestrian access as noted above. Page 8 H. Parking(UDC 11-3C): Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II- 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, it is important to note that no parking is allowed along the perimeter of the proposed cul-de-sac. So,there is virtually no opportunity for any on-street parking within this subdivision because it includes a cul-de-sac as its public access. An option to help with potential off-street parking issues, the inclusion of shared driveways could be used in order to promote side-loaded garages. This type of design can force longer driveways that go deeper into each site which allows for more off-street parking. This design also creates an opportunity for the living area of each home to be moved closer to the street as the living setback is 10 feet while the garage setback is 20 feet; this allows for more buildable area than is shown on the submitted plat. However, Staff notes the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the required parking pad for side-loaded garages. The Applicant should work to mitigate these issues and revise the plat accordingly if Commission or Council add a DA provision consistent with this option. I. Sidewalks/Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17; UDC 11-3A-8): A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed along the Newland Street cul-de-sac, consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path along the east boundary that connects to the cul-de-sac for the purpose of providing a connection to the future multi-use pathway approved with Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the adjacent Tenmile Creek. The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards and the micro-path lot meets UDC 11-3A-8 standards. J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): The landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development is the micro-path area along the eastern perimeter;this area is not required landscaping as the project is less than 5 acres. However,the Applicant should still comply with UDC 11-3B-12 standards. The submitted landscape plan shows this area to be vegetated with grasses and no trees due to it being within the Tenmile Creek irrigation easement;the linear length of the micro-path requires 4 trees to comply with UDC I I-3B-12. Furthermore,the main purpose of this micro-path is to have access to the multi-use pathway at the north boundary which will have shade trees along its entire length up to Fuller Park. The Applicant should revise the location of this micro-path and work with the irrigation district to allow for the required trees along the east property lines at the furthest western edge of the irrigation easement. If the Applicant cannot obtain a license agreement with NMID to allow these 4 trees,the Applicant should submit for Alternative Compliance with the future final plat submittal to propose an alternative. K. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G): The proposed preliminary plat area is approximately 1.22 acres in size in size which does not require a minimum amount of open space nor an amenity,per UDC 11-3G-3. As noted,the Applicant is proposing a micro-path connection to the north boundary for future connectivity to a regional pathway segment. L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7): All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6. Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and does not meet UDC standards. Page 9 6-foot tall wood fencing is proposed along the perimeter of the project—this complies with code for all areas except the east property lines adjacent to the Tenmile Creek irrigation easement. With the final plat submittal, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show open-vision fencing or semi private open vision fencing along the east property lines of Lots 2&3. In addition, the Applicant should clarify if any fencing is proposed along the Tenmile Creek itself and coordinate with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District on where they would like any fencing located within their easement. M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6) The subject site directly abuts the Tenmile Creek along its entire eastern boundary.According to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID),the easement width for this facility is 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the"drain"as depicted on the submitted plat. In addition,the Applicant has proposed to place the entire irrigation easement within a common lot along the east boundary consistent with the UDC. 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 VII of this report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report. B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on June 16,2022.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: Antonio Conti,Applicant Engineer b. In opposition:None c. Commenting: Antonio Conti; d. Written testimony: Two pieces since remand—concerns over density and parking. e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor 2. Key issue(s) public testimony a. None 3. Key issues)of discussion by Commission. a. Clarification on Staff s recommendations for side-loaded garages; 4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation: a. Relax Staffs recommendation for side-loaded garages to remove the requirement but allow the Applicant and Staff to work together on the best possible placement for side- loaded garages. 5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council: a. None C. City Council: To be heard at future date. Page 10 VII. EXHIBITS A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map = ACKERMAN ESTVOLD www•ACKERMAN-ESTVOLD.COM May 18,2022 Pinedale Subdivision Annexation and Rezone to R8 Legal Description 3679 West Newland Street Meridian,ID 83642 A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along the northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad South 88'25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet to a point on the westerly edge ofTenmile Creek;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad on the westerly edge of said Tenmile Creek North 32`49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet; thence North 48'06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;thence North 43'31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge ofTenmile Creek North 88"25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00`52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 1.22 acres,more or less. HEADQUARTERS 4165 30TH AVE 5 3210 27T11 ST IV7661 W RIVERSIDE DR 190717TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102 MINOT,ND 58701 FARGO,ND 58104 WI LLISTO N,ND 58801 CARDEN CITY,ID 83714 701.837.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208.853.6470 Page 11 N ANNEXATION EXHIBIT B PORTION O— 11 IC SL 1/4 01 SLC'ON 10, 1.51N., 1?1.', 305— M—�ICIAN, C'IY C: M-RICIAN, AC C'OLN�, IDA 10. A reo• ' =:,RING AND AS--ANCES NAY 1,ARl=30N ��-V UOS P1 AT9 our TO G 1-F MF 10�S _F NE,ASI R FI=NTS. W PINE AVE - - - - - - W MEADOWPINE ST �� \ a w a \51 ml a, Z`----- - \ ----- -- - �._W FARLAM DRIVE_.--'�•r tJ-W NEWLAN STl P.O.B. - - UNION PAGIFIC RAILROAD STOR-IT SELF STORAGE FOUND MONUMENT B.O.B.BASIS OF BEARING P.O.B.PONT OF BEGINNING P.O.C.POINT OF COMMENCEMENT CCITY OF MERIDIAN AREA TO BE ANNEXED r ACKERMAN '_\�_ ES`i'VOLD 7551 West RIPer$IUe U—,Ste.102-Garaen City,Ill 33714 J No- R L 22 ra 208. .053.11 70 wwW.aek—n-ed ld... rn���m Na I F,rW U Ml6t,,,ao I aolsa,io Page 12 ACKERMAN ESTVOLD WWW.ACKERMAN-ESTVOLD.COM January 10,2022 Pinedale Subdivision Legal Description 3679 West Newland Street Meridian,ID 83642 A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along the northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad South 88'25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet to a point on the westerly edge ofTenmile Creek;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad on the westerly edge of said Tenmile Creek North 32"49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet; thence North 48`06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;thence North 43'31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge ofTenmile Creek North 88"25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00'52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. The above described parcel contains 1.22 acres,more or less. T 6g69 r .1�1/10/2 2T�Tf of �O HEADQUARTERS 4165 30TH AVE S 3210 27TH ST W 7661 W RIVERSIDE DR 1907 17TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102 MINOT,ND 58701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714 701.837.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208.853.6470 Page 13 B. Preliminary Plat(dated: May 2022) PINEDALE SUBDIVISION i A rrozrlorr of me soumersr Ira of srcnon o.T.aH..rz w..eo�se m o / / ML']21U AN.PIJA GL�JNIY.LW10 Qw _ --- —IL 2022 3—1 1_ SHFF Or I i 0 � ` 1� o. P � °� L LL�,� R,., V� O \ >ELw i s.eaH.o.�a< �o ,�,�,F �� �� Z_2 ��- Lu 3 Lu Lu �aa L. L 1 -. — — - - — - - PRELIMINARY union n.�n�v„1,�a - ..I PLAT 1.0 Page 14 C. Landscape Plans(date: 5/11/2022) nl syxd �, scns eseeoE - NVId JNIdHOSdNVIary;> tL-G%113�'PlRs zDLms.�ua sn�a la�Asu�sss OH'd01 NVIO163W - a�onlsa� 1VId AadNIWll32ld � ,R Nvwaa ov� NOISIA108fIS 3Itla3Nld E 5 j � g # a !� P a rvi H Fd 3, • \y 1=F � d B &3 ell / & I a Page 15 Ml M11.112111M I J� 4,la II 2 6'-0"CEDAR PICKET FENCE UnI-R.-c R'll"'d Page 16 BuildingD. Conceptual wo Y i tJ •l �l �'•Y 1 RS'�_�� `ter �i y �, _ .. �•= Page 17 r z+,tr3.4 !ram!.. ,.tic's ij _ k 06 Ti 4040 40- ff{/■ IJ 1 t V 1 r - ■w� i � f J■ Ir ' ter. �� � .�■ � - - ' rri .... f L 5A 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 and shall be obligated to install and maintain the open space and amenity as proposed on the approved plans. b. The Applicant shall work with Staff to include shared driveways where feasible to help remove the number of driveways proposed, especially for those lots taking direct access from the cul-de-sac,W.Newland Court. c. With the Final Plat submittal,the Applicant shall provide proof to the Planning Division that the existing access for the property via the vehicular bridge north of the subject site has been approved as a pedestrian bridge for the future multi-use pathway segment in the adjacent subdivision and any vehicular access rights to this area have been relinquished. 2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated May 2022,is approved as submitted. 3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C,dated May 11,2022, shall be revised as follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval: a. Depict open vision or semi-private vision fencing along Lots 2 & 3 in accord with UDC 11-3A-7A.7 standards. b. Depict fencing along the Tenmile Creek in compliance with UDC 11-3C-6C or submit proof from NMID that fencing is not allowed. c. Revise the landscape plan to show the micro-path in Lot 8 to be shifted at least 5 feet away from the proposed property lines so at least 4 trees can be added on its west side,consistent with UDC 11-313-12 standards. 4. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. 5. 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. 6. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval. 7. 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. 8. 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. Page 20 9. 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. Sewer services should be 90 degrees to the main or connected to a manhole at a minimum angle of at least 90 degrees. 2. Manhole at end of run should have 0.60% slope minimum. 3. Locate water line at least 10 feet from the edge of right-of-way. 4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches. 5. A portion of this development is in the Floodplain Overlay District and floodplain development permit is required for land development. This property is in a FEMA"A" Zone without Base Flood Elevations. A hydraulic analysis has been completed for Foxcroft Subdivision. Applicant will need to compare base flood elevations for existing conditions in this analysis to the existing conditions survey on 3725 W Pine. This should form the basis for a Letter of Map Amendment(LOMA) application to remove the entire property from the floodplain. The quicker LOMA process is started the better, otherwise we will need floodplain permits and elevation certificates for any development in the current flood zone. If fill this property is not eligible for a LOMA, fill may be added for a FEMA LOMR-F application. hi this case, floodplain permits and elevation certificates will be required for each structure in this zone. 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 I0-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. 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 Page 21 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. hi 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. — Page 22 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 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancily.org//public_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.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251084&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC iv D. PARKS DEPARTMENT https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251081&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES https:11web1ink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=251841&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC Lu Page 23 F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ) https:llweblink.meridianciV.or lWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=251854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty G. NAMPA/MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252550&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD) https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC hty IX. FINDINGS A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-513-3E) Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of Meridian with 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; Commission 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; Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to, school districts; and Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City. 5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city. Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City. B. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: Page 24 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Commission 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; Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD, etc). (See Section VII for more information.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and, Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind. 6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features. The Tenmile Creek is off-site of the subject property so Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that require preserving. Page 25 Item 22 E IDIAN;--- AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS Ll PINEDALE SUBDIVISION VIETNAM VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAYW PINE AVENUEN TEN MILE ROADW FRANKLIN ROADS BLACK CAT ROAD STAR JULY 26, 2022 PRELIMINARY PLAT, ANNEXATION, REZONE3275 W PINE AVENUE, MERIDIAN, ID EXISTING Land UseFuture Land Use DesignationZoningFamily Residential-Detached SingleResidential (9.86 DU/Ac Net)8)-Residential (RPROPOSED PROJECT OUTLINE County Residential15 DU/Ac)-Use Community (6-MixedRUT PROPOSED NET RESIDENTIAL DENSITYGROSS RESIDENTIAL DENSITYOPEN SPACE/COMMON LOTSSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTSPUBLIC FAMILY RESIDENTIAL-SINGLETOTAL SITE AREA PROJECT OUTLINE11722.95%0.28 ACRES18.85%0.23 ACRES58.20%0.71 ACRES1.22 ACRES EXISTING SITE SITE PLAN LANDSCAPING PLAN CONCEPT HOMES CONCEPT HOMES CONCEPT HOMES E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1986: An Ordinance (Ferney Subdivision — H-2021-0103) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; and Being More Particularly Described in Exhibit "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 6.304 Acres of Land from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code, Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance, and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-066882 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=4 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 07/27/2022 08:12 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-1986 BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, AUL , STRADER AN ORDINANCE (FE NEY SUBDIVISION — 2021-0103) FOR ANNEXATION OF A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY,IDAHO,AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 6.304 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO THE I-L (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITHTHE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION,AS REQUIRED LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY INANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READINGRULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal. Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and rezoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Franklin Storage, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and rezoned from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3, That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and rezone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed,rescinded and annulled. ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—FERNEY SUBDIVISION(H-2021-0103) Page I SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be,and the same is hereby,dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 26tn day of July, 2022. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 26t" day of July, 2022. MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON ATTEST: CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Ada ) ss: On this day of ,2022,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2028 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—FERNEY SUBDIVISION(H-2021-0103) Page 2 EXHIBIT A r ACCURATE SURVEYING & MAPPING XtR V I G� 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 S 890 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 1248.15 feet to the northerly railroad right-of-way; Thence S 88' 27' 42" E along said northerly right-of-way for a distance of 59.31 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 972; Thence N 01*41' 28" E for a distance of 50.00 feet to a found 5/811 inch iron pin with a plastic cap labeled PLS 972 at the northerly railroad right-of-way; Thence S 88` 27' 42" E along said northerly right-of-way for a distance of 153.84 feet; Thence S 00` 34' 55" W for a distance of 1294.86 feet to the section line; Thence N 89' 20'44" W along the section line for a distance of 214.10 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Parcel contains 6.304 acres, more or less. t � ` 4 � �, b •Ir•L� +rw4' of �N a.o i 1520 W. Washington St., Boise, ID 83702 Phone: 208-488-4227 www.accuratesurveyors.com EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT MAP ANNEXATION AND REZONE FOR HATCH DESIGN ARCHITECTURE A PORTION OF THE SW 114 OF THE SE 114 OF SECTION 9, T.3N., R.IE., B.M. COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO PLS 972 A& L5 —ROW L3 `, ROW PLS 972 D RAILROAD oo ,� RIGHT—OF—WAY O N N ROW ROW—ROW ROW LINE TABLE LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 N 00'34'57" E 42.00' L2 S 00'34'55" W 42.00' L3 S 88'27'42" E 59.31' L4 N 01'41'28" E 50.007 LEGEND L5 S 88'27'42" E 153.84' in aOp ANNEX AND REZONE N BOUNDARY LINE N PARCEL LINE ROW -- RIGHT—OF—WAY 3 W -- — — -- SECTION LINE W � �2 6M FOUND ALUMINUM CAP Z h N N a Q IN ASPHALT k6 N o nL • FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN W U) o 0 0 2 0 0 j CALCULATED POINT O �m WS S1109438871 (nV) 6.304 AC. SCALE: 1"=200' 114 CORNER SEC7ION CORNER CP&F No. 11 JO06165 CP&F No. 11084522 3" ALUMINUM CAP IN 2 112" ALUMINUM MONUMENT WELL, CAP IN ASPHALT-, PLS 1029 ROW ROW PLS 13551 rm 9 639.62' i 214.10' 206_2.99' .9-LI 0 16 N 89'20'44" W 2; 61' V16T15 ANC BASIS OF BEARING G W. FRANKLIN RD. Z _ 11463 h 1520 W. Washington -f OF ��P j,1 �tQ Boise, Idaho 83702 44 �S (208) 488-4227 �qN J.pPN�' www.accuratesurveyors.com DATE: JUNE 2022 JOB 19-274 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . Q& 1 , 1 , J William L . M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 224986 An Ordinance (Ferney Subdivision — 1-1-2021 -0103 ) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho ; and Being More Particularly Described in Exhibit "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho , and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian, as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 6 . 304 Acres of Land from RUT to the I-L (Light Industrial) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code ; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Laws and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance ; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules ; and Providing an Effective Date . [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] i f i ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - FERNEY SUBDIVISION (H-2021 -0103 ) E IDIAN:--- .J A Fi V AGENDA ITEM ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-1987: An Ordinance (Grayson Subdivision — H-2022-0014) for Annexation of a Tract of Land 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 in Exhibit "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 3.39 Acres of Land From RUT to the R-8 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2022-066883 BOISE IDAHO Pgs=5 BONNIE OBERBILLIG 07/27/2022 08:12 AM CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE CITY OF MERIDIAN INANCE N . 22-1987 BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER, HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER AN ORDINANCE (GRAYSON SUBDIVISION — H-2022-0014) FOR ANNEXATION OF A TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, ISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT "A" AND ANNEXING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS REQUESTEDY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 3.39 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT TO THE R-8 (MEDIUM- ENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READINGRULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description. herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit"A"are within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation and rezoning by the owner of said property, to-wit; MM&T Moldings, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and rezoned from RUT to the:R-8 Zoning District in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property. SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho and the Ordinances of the City of :Meridian to annex and rezone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. Page 1 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—GRAYSON SUBDIVISION(H-2022-0014) SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in full be,and the same is hereby,dispensed with, and accordingly,this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO, this 26th day of July, 2022. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO this 26th day of July, 2022. ATTEST: MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss: County of Ada ) On this 26th day of July 2022,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: Meridian MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2028 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—GRAYSON SUBDIVISION(H-2022-0014) Page 2 EXHIBIT A I DA H O 9955 W Emerald St SURVEY Boise, ID 83704 15G 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 S00030'07"W, 2651.95 feet from the west quarter-section corner of Section 29; Thence S89043'41"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 S00030'07"E, 350.36 feet along the west boundary of Estancia Subdivision to the south line of Section 29; Thence N89043'41"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. AND S� CD 1 4 1\, (n (n PRO , , Basis of Bearings cr, F j0 S00`30'07"E 2651.95' O^ 05� _ ��� S. Locust Grove Rd. w m '� v' N r �� c0 O N I cD �yS O 5 a0 N w Ipo I C i Unplatted i a o � 0 o N O m Cn � 3 o I N00'27'04"W 350.30' J' A CrJ V/ C/) C�- P � Q � Cy o 0 ;q a o CGO V Cn � m o r Z 3. P. n OD �. 0 00 J /i' v °N CA v o - amf N W O 4N.OD 03 M CO N � D\ ICI a° D� �� y o m\ 3 -01 y 0) \ N o d N dLn n cl � S J m — fD rTl O y O S o m o_ 7 � (A m (D O m N Q QS00'30'07"E 350.36' � oCil 0 o (A ? a � v n > > cn' o N p' CO 0 a o Q' Q O fQ N On J o O I _ (n O S. Alma Ave. W S O \ F � N� 0 o p Ln V oZ Z I N 0 s89°44'09"e 421.65 } N CD O W W O v CDO W O W W O A �V N OF 421.96 n89°4 '41"w Grayson Subdivision Annexation 72/10/2022 Scale: 1 inch= 60 feet File: Tract 1:3.3921 Acres(147758 Sq.Feet),Closure:n00.0000e 0.00 ft. (1/756636),Perimeter=1544 ft. 01 n00.2704w 350.3 02 s89.4409e 421.65 03 s00.3007e 350.36 04 n89.4341w 421.96 CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY : William L .M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that the summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to the public . Ov ,[ . 71 . J4�� William L. M. Nary, City Attorney SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO . 224987 An Ordinance (Grayson Subdivision — H-2022-0014) for Annexation of a Tract of Land 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 in the map published herewith ; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification of 3 . 39 acres of land from RUT to the R4 (Medium-Density Residential) Zoning District in the Meridian City Code ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be effective as of the date of publication of this summary . [Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B .] I ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — GRAYSON SUBDIVISION (H-20 M014) Page 4