CC - Narrative DEVELOPMENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC
CLARK
WARDLE
Geoffrey M. Wardle
(208) 388-3321
qwardle .clarkwardle.com
Via ProjectDox
September 29, 2022
Meridian City Council
City of Meridian
ATTN: Joe Dodson
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 300
Meridian, Idaho 83642
RE: Council Review of Denial of H-2022-0047
CW File No. 23422.6
Dear Council Members,
I. INTRODUCTION TO REQUEST FOR REVIEW
On September 1, 2022, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission ("Commission"),
heard the request of Alpha Development Group ("Applicant"), for a conditional use permit for a
multi-family development consisting of 235 units on 16.61 acres ("Property"), in application H-
2022-0047 ("Application"). The Application was denied on a vote of 2-1,with two commissioners
voting to deny the Application, one commissioner having opposed the motion to deny the
Application, one commissioner abstaining on voting on the Application, and the remaining
commissioners absent and not participating in the decision. On September 15, 2022, the
Commission adopted its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Decision, and Order of the
Commission ("Findings"), relying upon certain unsupported or irrelevant findings relating to traffic
on McMillan Road to determine that the Application should be denied because the Commission
could not find that Section 11-513-6(E)(5) of the Meridian Unified Development Code.
This request for the Meridian City Council's review of the Commission's decision is made
pursuant to Section 11-5A-7 of the Meridian Unified Development Code. This narrative and
supporting materials, together with the original Application and its supporting materials, are
proffered in support of this request for review and ultimately approve this Application, consistent
with the requirements of Section 11-5A-7(B) of the Meridian Unified Development Code.
Consistent with Section 11-5A-7(D)(2) of the Meridian Unified Development Code, the Applicant
respectfully requests that the Commission's decision be overruled, that the Application be
T.Hethe Clark Geoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J,Leonard Preston B_Rutter T 208.388.1000 251 L Front St.Suite 310
F 208.388.1001 PO Box 639
ciarkwardle.com Boise ID 83701
approved, and that the Council issue findings consistent with the actual factual record in this
matter. Before we turn to the errors in the Commission's denial of the Application as evidenced
by the Findings, it is important that we address certain background related to this Application.
A. Project History
This Property has a long development history. Most recently, the Applicant sought to
modify the existing development agreement encumbering the Property as part of the larger
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West developments. These developments were
previously approved pursuant to four separate development agreements by the City of Meridian,
but were consolidated into a single development agreement in 2019 (Summerwood Subdivision,
H-2019-0001, Inst. #2019-055407)("Development Agreement"). The Development Agreement
is attached as a courtesy for the Council as Exhibit A.
In approving the Development Agreement, the Council expressly determined that the
Development Agreement should be adopted to incorporate the four prior agreements into a single
instrument that it approved on April 2, 2019. Development Agreement, Section 1.7, p. 2.
Moreover, the Council reaffirmed that the Development Agreement superseded and replaced the
prior agreements("shall be subject to a new development agreement and will no longer be subject
to the previous four (4) development agreements"). Development Agreement, Section 5.1.b., p.
3. The Development Agreement incorporated the prior concept plans from the prior agreements
and required that "Any major variations to the concept plan shall require an amendment to the
development agreement and requires a new concept plan." Development Agreement, Section
5.1.a., p. 3. In adopting the Development Agreement, the Council had reviewed elements specific
to each of the prior agreements as Staff explicitly identified the textual changes that would occur
and that exhibit was incorporated into the Development Agreement. Development Agreement,
Exhibit A, pp. 3-5. Ultimately, the Council approved the Development Agreement eliminating
those prior specific provisions and simply required that "All future development of the subject
property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development."
Development Agreement, Section 5.1.i., p. 3.
B. Property History
The concept plan for the Property was first adopted when the comprehensive plan map
amendment designated the property as Mixed-Use Community in 2008. Consistent with that
designation, the Property was then zoned R-15 and subjected to a development agreement
recorded by the City of Meridian and the then owner/developer in 2010. The concept plan
incorporated in the Development Agreement is the same today as it was in the prior development
agreements.
In its application H-2021-0095, the Applicant sought to modify the concept plan attached
to the Development Agreement as it related to the Property.' The Applicant sought to modify the
' This Application and this Property again evidences the procedural issues that exist with Meridian's
processes and procedures regarding development agreements and conditional use permits. Because
modifications to development agreements go straight to the Council, the Commission has no knowledge
of the policy decisions that the Council ultimately makes in deciding to modify a development agreement.
Moreover, because of the degree of specificity demanded for development agreements by Meridian with
respect to concept plans, the Council spends an inordinate amount of time evaluating amendments if
there is a change to the concept plan. This is true even if the underlying modification would not change
the overall approved zoning, uses, configurations. Moreover, many issues that the Council fixates on in
Review Narrative -2
4879-5455-5187,v.7
concept plan because Staff had determined that the project proposed by the Applicant constituted
a "major variation to the concept plan" necessitating an amendment to the Development
Agreement.' The Council denied the application H-2021-0095 after two hearings on February 1,
2022.
Some members of the Council expressed a desire to see the property have a different
less intensive zone.' They were reminded that the Property had in fact been zoned R-15 for more
than 10 years without any development occurring upon it and were cautioned by their colleagues
that even if they rejected the modification to the concept plan "it's entitled Property." Transcript,
December 21, 2021 Hearing, p. 32. It was noted by one member of the Council that "this use is
already allowed within this zoning and it's just a matter of the type of density." Transcript,
December 21, 2021 Hearing, p. 32. In conjunction with the ultimate denial, the Council was
reminded that the "Property is already zoned R-15. The zoning is not going to change as far as
density is concerned". Transcript, February 1, 2022 Hearing, p. 11.
It appears from the proceedings on the prior application to modify the Development
Agreement that members of the Council incorrectly believed that there was a commitment to build
the property as an assisted living or skilled nursing facility.' Although there may have been some
discussion of such as possible uses in the development agreement recorded in 2010 in the
original narratives about the larger projects, the Development Agreement terminated and replaced
all four (4) prior agreements in their totality,6 the only element of the prior development
agreements to survive where those expressly incorporated in the Development Agreement, such
as the concept plan.
The Development Agreement expressly eliminated all textual references to such uses
under the development agreement recorded in 2010, even while retaining the original concept
considering and evaluating amendments to development agreements are more appropriately addressed
in the conditional use or design review stages, thus further wasting the Council's time and energy.
Finally, with the regular and frequent amendments to development agreements, Meridian ends up
confusing its own staff and Council as to what prior decisions actually implemented. There must be a
better way than what has gone on with respect to this Property and other similar properties in Meridian.
2 Development Agreement, Section 5.1.i., p. 3.
3 See, Transcript, December 21, 2021 Hearing, p.31 (Perrault: "Perhaps residential if it was a lower
density"); December 21, 2021 Hearing, p.32 (Perrault: "I'm really hesitant to not leave this area open for a
nonresidential use and I know that right now that's not currently how we have it").
4 See, Transcript, December 21, 2021 Hearing, p. 25 (Borton: "its more intensive than what's originally in
the concept plan with assisted living and a senior community"); Transcript, February 1, 2022 Hearing, p.
12 (Bernt: "the development agreement that says there is going to be an assisted living on the property");
Transcript, December 21, 2021 Hearing, p. 31 (Cavner: "the previous --while, again, from 2008 project
associated with this piece of dirt wouldn't have generated a lot of student impact")
5 See, Transcript, December 21, 2021 Hearing, p. 26 (Dodson: "That narrative about the assisted living
and some senior housing or any kind of multi-family was kind of in there and kind of not and, then, again,
this is why we have -- it's been difficult to get this through as a DA modification, because I can understand
the applicant's perspective of pushing back and saying that this is not specifically written in the 2019 DA").
6 See, Development Agreement, p. 3, Section 5.1.b. "The entire boundary of the property as depicted in
VII.B shall be subject to a new development agreement and will no longer be subject to the previous four
(4)development agreements."
Review Narrative -3
4879-5455-5187,v.7
site plan.' There has been no demonstration that the original concept site plan contains language
that imposes any use obligation on the Property. In fact, the Development Agreement expressly
indicated that the Property and the other affected parcels are no longer tied to the text of the prior
agreements, but rather to the text incorporated in the Development Agreement and provides
further that notwithstanding the applicability of the prior concept plans, the Property and all other
encumbered properties can be developed consistent with the requirements of the Meridian Code
and Meridian Comprehensive Plan in effect at the time of application.$
Ultimately, the Applicant's prior application was denied because members of the Council
weren't "convinced that the concept plan from '08 is improved with this application," Transcript,
February 1, 2022 Hearing, p. 17; thought that "the existing concept plan should be given more
time to see its day" Transcript, February 1, 2022 Hearing, p. 18.
C. This Application
Having evaluated the Council's rejection and the Council's apparent attempt to comply
with the requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6519(5)(c), which is discussed in more detail
below, the Applicant has come forward with a development proposal that is substantially in
compliance with the concept plan attached to the Development Agreement. To ensure
compliance with the Development Agreement,9 the Applicant submitted its site plan to the City for
review by planning and legal staffs (collectively "Staff'). On April 5, 2022, legal counsel for the
City confirmed that the revised concept plan did not necessitate a modification to the Development
Agreement due to the fact that it was generally consistent with the conceptual site plan set forth
in the Development Agreement.
The Application conforms to the concept plan in terms of the number and location of
residential units, the configuration of the residential units into two different styles, the provision of
extensive amenities, and the location and configuration of parking areas. As a courtesy, the
Applicant's presentation identifying the design and project elements provided to the Commission
is provided as Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Council had expressed
concerns about the overall density of the Project in the proposed 2021 amendment as that plan
contemplated 250 units.10 The current design of the Project is consistent with the Development
Agreement concept plan and was significantly different than what had been proposed by the
applicant in the 2021 amendment. The number of units in the current design has been reduced
to 235.
It is inappropriate for municipalities to negotiate with themselves when zoning ordinances,
development agreements, concept plans, comprehensive plans indicate that a property was
previously designated by the Council as appropriate for "medium high-density residential."
'See. Development Agreement, Exhibit A, pp. 3-5.
8 See, Development Agreement, Section 5.1.i., p. 3 "All future development of the subject property shall
comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development."
9 See, Development Agreement, p. 3, Section 5.1.a, p. 3 "The mixed-use portion of the Volterrra
development(area north of McMillan Road; west side of Ten Mile Road) shall be generally consistent with
the conceptual site plan submitted with this application".
10 See, Transcript, February 1, 2022 Hearing, p. 4 (Cavner: "some Council Members were pretty clear
they had some reservations about the density"); Transcript, February 1, 2022 Hearing, p. 19 (Strader: "I
don't think it' s in the interest of Meridian in the future to move forward with up to 250 here")
Review Narrative -4
4879-5455-5187,v.7
Density, by itself, is not a problem. When appropriate measures are taken to address design,
amenities, configuration, and placement, higher density development is desirable. That is what
has occurred here. The Applicant has proposed nearly twice the open space required under the
Meridian Unified Development Code. To allay the concerns of adjoining property owners who
are concerned about parking, the Applicant has proposed more parking than is required under
the Meridian Unified Development Code. The Applicant has revised the style of each building
to reduce building heights from what is permitted under the Meridian Unified Development
Code. The Project will not utilize the pools and other common amenities in Bridgetower, and
the Applicant has provided far more amenities than what is required to address the objections
of adjoining property owners. There are more amenities per acre in the Project than other areas
of Bridgetower. Lastly, higher density multi-family residential development is an appropriate
buffer between and transition from the intensive big-box use to the east, at the intersection of
McMillan and Ten Mile, and the less intense detached single family residential development to
the west and south.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ON REVIEW AND EXHIBIT INDEX
In denying the Application, the Commission inappropriately applied Meridian's Unified
Development Code and relied upon lay testimony to disregard the actual findings and
recommendations of ACHD and the professional traffic engineer that studied this Application. The
Commission's finding regarding McMillan Road was arbitrary and capricious. The Commission's
decision was based upon lay testimony that was not substantiated by any professional standard
conforming or required by applicable code. Further, the lay testimony was contradictory to the
professional traffic studies that were commissioned by the Applicant pursuant to applicable code.
These errors by the Commission are addressed below. We believe that the Council has an
obligation, under the underlying Development Agreement, Meridian's Unified Development Code,
Idaho's Local Land Use Planning Act ("LLUPA") and both the Idaho Constitution and the United
States Constitution, to correct the Commission's errors, to reverse the Commission's denial, and
to approve the Application.
As this is will be a de novo proceeding, the Council will have the totality of the application
materials and supporting materials before it. We hope that the Council will take time to fully
evaluate all of the associated materials. The following exhibits are attached to this memorandum
in support of the request to review and reverse the Commission's denial as a courtesy to the
Council as for reasons set forth herein they will be important for the Council's consideration.
Exhibit A - Development Agreement
Exhibit B - City Council Hearing Transcript, December 21, 2021
Exhibit C - City Council Hearing Transcript, February 1, 2022
Exhibit D — September 1, 2022 Presentation to Commission
Exhibit E — Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, And Objections Are
Unsupported By Actual Data
III. ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF REVIEW OF THE COMMISSION'S DECISION
Review Narrative -5
4879-5455-5187,v.7
A. The Commission's Decision that "McMillan Road is not adequate to serve
the Development" is Based Upon Concerns Regarding Traffic is Erroneous
In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Final Decision, and Order of the Commission
("Findings"), the Commission makes three determinations regarding traffic and then draws legal
conclusions therefrom. These Findings are erroneous. The Commission found that ACHD has
not provided updated traffic counts since 2018, that the 2018 counts do not accurately reflect the
average daily traffic counts in 2022, and that therefore McMillan is not adequate to serve the
development. It then concludes that it cannot make the finding required by Section 11-513-
6(E)(5) of the Meridian Unified Development Code and thus the standards have not been met.
However, the Findings are merely conclusory recitations without any analysis of how the
proposed use will not be "served adequately by . . . streets". The Commission's Findings are
erroneous because they ignored the only competent evidence available to it, the ACHD staff
report and the Applicant's traffic study. The Commission failed to act consistent with the
requirements of Idaho law.
1. The Commission Relied upon Lay Objections that are neither
Substantial nor Competent Evidence
In evaluating a conditional use permit application and the standards applicable to it, the
appropriate place to begin is with the enabling statutes. A conditional use permit is authorized by
LLUPA;11 provided, however, the jurisdiction must authorize conditional use permits by ordinance
adopted following the processes for the zoning ordinance generally.12 In evaluating a conditional
use permit application, the relevant ordinance must state the procedures and application
requirements.13 Although the Commission cites UDC Section 11-513-6(E) as the basis for its
denial in its Findings and summarily claims it has "properly exercised the powers conferred by
LLUPA". A conclusory statement asserting compliance with LLUPA will not save the
Commission's action where it clearly deviated from the requirements of Meridian Unified
Development Code and LLUPA.
There was no substantial or competent evidence about the inadequacy of McMillan Road
to serve this development, except for the evidence, provided by the Applicant, that the
Commission disregarded. The Applicant acknowledge that"[s]ubstantial and competent evidence
need not be uncontradicted, nor does it need to necessarily lead to a certain conclusion;" but it
must "be of such sufficient quantity and probative value that reasonable minds could reach the
same conclusion as the fact finder.1114 While adjoining property owners provided their own
anecdotal accounts of how they perceive the traffic, no one pointed to any defect in the analysis
provided by the Applicant in its traffic study, which was reviewed and accepted by ACHD and
incorporated into ACHD's staff report.
Moreover, the Commission provides no basis for why its objection to the 2018 trip counts
used by ACHD was problematic. The Applicant acknowledges that there may be more traffic
today. If true, then it is likely true for all intersections in Ada County. Notwithstanding, the
11 Idaho Code 65-6512(a)
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Cowan v. Bd. of Commr's of Fremont Ctv., 143 Idaho 501, 518 (2006).
Review Narrative -6
4879-5455-5187,v.7
Commission fails to identify how much more, and why the anecdotal data proffered by lay
witnesses should supersede (i) the traffic study provided by the Applicant, (ii) the COMPASS
modeling and growth data upon which it is based, (iii) ACHD's analysis of the current conditions,
its future plans, and (iv)the traffic study mitigation plans of the Applicant. If the Commission is to
disregard this evidence, it must articulate the basis for doing so and it must articulate why it relies
upon contrary lay testimony for its decision.
In the land use context, evidence is not required to be the same type as typically would be
heard in court,15 but the decision-making body must be reasonable in its evaluation of the
evidence presented. Lay testimony"based on personal opinion and emotion"16 is not substantial,
competent evidence in the face of expert comment and the input of agency experts that possess
relevant experience and knowledge.17 The Idaho Supreme Court recognized in the 2009 case of
Taylor v. Canyon County, which involved neighbors' opposition to a rezone application, the Idaho
Supreme Court held that although the neighbors had argued that the application frustrated
LLUPA's purposes, they failed to provide evidentiary support for their arguments.18 Essentially,
the court's holding was that concerns, objections and fears are not evidence. As a result, the
Idaho Supreme Court declined to consider the neighbors' unsupported arguments opposing that
rezone application.
Regardless of how the quantity of emotional lay testimony proffered, which, on its face,
challenges professional and expert testimony, such does not qualify, as a matter of law, as
"substantial competent evidence" that supports the Commission's denial of the Application. The
Commission did not support its Decision with actual evidence "of such sufficient quantity and
probative value that reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion."19 The Commission's
decision must be reasonable to establish that it is supported by substantial, competent evidence.20
2. The Commission's Findings are Statutorily Deficient
Land use proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings and require adherence to general
provisions of due process. This includes adherence to statutory requirements under Idaho law.
A summary or a recitation of facts presented without articulating the actual conclusions drawn
therefrom, as the Commission did here, are statutorily deficient. Idaho Code Section 67-6535
imposes certain obligations upon decisionmakers when acting on land use applications.
First, Idaho Code Section 67-6535(1) imposes the following express requirement in
approving or denying an application:
The approval or denial of any application required or authorized
pursuant to this chapter shall be based upon standards and criteria
which shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning
15 Evans v. Bd. of Com'rs of Cassia Cty., 137 Idaho 428, 432, (2002).
16 Evans v. Teton Qty., 139 Idaho 71, 77 (2003).
17 Id.
18 Taylor v. Canyon Cty. Bd. of Commr's, 210 P.3d 532, 548, 147 Idaho 424, 440 (2009).
19 Id.
20 Cooper, 134 Idaho at 456.
Review Narrative -7
4879-5455-5187,v.7
ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the city or
county. Such approval standards and criteria shall be set forth in
express terms in land use ordinances in order that permit
applicants, interested residents and decision makers alike may
know the express standards that must be met in order to obtain a
requested permit or approval. Whenever the nature of any decision
standard or criterion allows, the decision shall identify aspects of
compliance or noncompliance with relevant approval standards and
criteria in the written decision.
Next Idaho Code Section 67-6535 (2) requires that with respect to a decision under LLUPA,
The approval or denial of any application required or authorized
pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a
reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards
considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon,
and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable
provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and
statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual
information contained in the record.
The Commission's decision fails to satisfy either of these requirements.
The Idaho Supreme Court has repeatedly held that such a failure in adoption of a written
decision to meet the requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6535, constitutes a violation of
constitutional rights. Jasso v. Camas County, 151 Idaho 790, 794, 264 P.3d 897, 901 (2011).
For a reasoned statement to be valid, "the reasoned statement must plainly state the resolution
of factual disputes, identify the evidence supporting that factual determination, and explain the
basis for legal conclusions, including identification of the pertinent laws and/or regulations upon
which the legal conclusions rest." Id., at 794, 264 P.3d at 901. Conclusory statements are
insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6535(2) because they fail to
permit an evaluation of the process by which the decision was reached. Id., at 795-6, 264 P.3d
at 902-3.
The Commission's failure to articulate why it elevated lay testimony above the standards
identified in the traffic study and ACHD's staff report in making its finding was clearly erroneous
and requires the reversal of the Commission's denial of the Application.
B. In Denying the Application the Commission Ignored and Violated the
Development Agreement, Idaho Code, and Applicable Constitutional Rights
of the Applicant
1. The Commission Violated the Development Agreement
Development agreements are authorized by Idaho Code Section 67-6511A. In this matter,
the City of Meridian has previously annexed, zoned, and permitted development of the
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development pursuant to multiple separate
development agreements that were ultimately consolidated into a single development
agreement which has been attached hereto as Exhibit A. Idaho Code Section 67-6511A
provides that a municipality may "require or permit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or
Review Narrative -8
4879-5455-5187,v.7
developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject
parcel."
If a development agreement is required then it"shall take effect upon the adoption of the
amendment to the zoning ordinance". In this instance prior development agreements for
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development were adopted and then
consolidated in 2019 into a single development agreement, which encumbers all of the
properties and vests them with the right to be developed consistent therewith. Having required
such written commitments, Meridian must recognize the underlying zoning and existing
approvals for the Property.
The Commission, however, failed to do so by denying the development of the Property
consistent with the Development Agreement. A governmental entity, having entered into a
development agreement is reciprocally obliged to perform and approve applications that are set
forth in the agreement it approved. Sprenger, Grubb & Associates v. Hailey ("Sprenger Grubb
1'), 127 Idaho 576, 579, 903 P.2d 741, 744 (1995). In light of the City Council's prior direction in
denying the Applicant's prior request to modify the Development Agreement and modify the
concept plan, the Commission could not reasonably now deny an application that conformed with
the Development Agreement.
2. The Commission Violated Idaho Code Section 67-6519
As noted above, the Findings adopted by the Commission denying this Application are
statutorily deficient under the Local Land Use Planning Act as they fail to set forward the required
reasoned statement. These Findings are also problematic and violate LLUPA. In adopting these
Findings, the Commission's failure to conform to the requirements of Idaho Code Section 67-6519
results in the imposition of a de facto moratorium on the development of this property in violation
of Idaho law.
Idaho Code Section 67-6519(5)(a)-(b) imposes an additional obligation on any decision-
making body that has denied an application:
Whenever a governing board or zoning or planning and zoning
commission grants or denies an application, it shall specify:
(a) The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the
application;
(b) The reasons for approval or denial; and
(c) The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to
obtain approval.
(Emphasis added).
When an application, like this Application is denied, the decision-making body is statutorily
mandated to tell the applicant what it must do to obtain approval. The failure to do so, is a violation
of LLUPA invalidating the Commission's denial. This statutory obligation under LLUPA first
ensures property owners are given direction about what they can do and would need to do to
obtain approval of its application. Due process dictates that standards and rules be imposed
Review Narrative -9
4879-5455-5187,v.7
clearly, consistently, and openly. Second, this statutory obligation under LLUPA prevents a
municipality from imposing a development moratorium by repeatedly rejecting applications. Every
time an application is denied, the jurisdiction is obligated to inform the applicant what it could do
to obtain approval. Third, this requirement ensures that a municipality does not run afoul of the
constitutional limitations on exacting property, improvements, money or other considerations as
consideration for development. The jurisdiction is obligated to say exactly what action the
applicant must take to obtain approval to ensure that it is not unreasonably imposing
unreasonable and remote obligations on a property owner.
This furthers the determination of the United States Supreme Court that development
conditions can violate the Fifth Amendment and due process requirements of the United States
Constitution. The Supreme Court has held that development conditions exacting something of
value from a property owner must have an "essential nexus" between a "legitimate state interest"
and the benefit being exacted. Nollan v. California Costal Commission, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).
Moreover, such exactions must be "roughly proportionate" to the impact of the proposed
development. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 390-92 (1994).
The Commission's Findings are facially deficient and therefore its decision deficient and
erroneous. If the Commission believes that the condition of McMillan Road is inadequate to permit
the approval of the Application, then it must articulate exactly how such inadequacy is
exacerbated by this Application and what must be modified in this Application to address such.
Its failure to do so implicitly establishes that the Commission believes that all deficiencies in
McMillan Road must be addressed by this Application to be approved. However, by doing so
and by failing to articulate what this Application must do, the Commission ignores the actual
Constitutional standards established in Nollan and in Dolan.
3. The Commission Has Violated the Constitutional Rights of the
Applicant.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"commands that no State shall
`deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,' which is essentially a
direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike."21 Notwithstanding the fact
that most, if not all of the objecting testimony, came from individuals who are actually the
beneficiaries of the prior Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development
agreements, the Commission acquiesced to lay demands to deny the Applicant its own
constitutional rights.
First, the Commission acquiesced to neighbor objections and abdicated its obligation to
actually weigh evidence and make a determination based upon substantial competent evidence
and the actual standards before it. LLUPA recognizes and affords neighboring property owners
specific rights in the land use process, specifically, the right to notice, to participate, and to appeal.
LLUPA does not provide that neighbors' opposition constitutes a basis to deny an application.
Courts have long rejected permitting such factors to support a land use decision. They
have done so due to the recognition that affording neighboring landowners such power in the
evaluation process to give rise to an impermissible "neighbor veto." See Eubank v. City of
Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912), Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago, 242 U.S. 526 (1917),
21 City of Cleburne, Tex. v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
Review Narrative -10
4879-5455-5187,v.7
and Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge, 278 U.S. 116 (1928). However, the
concerns of neighboring property owners alone are insufficient to deny an application. To do so
results in a "neighbor veto" which has been soundly rejected by courts.
The rejection of the "neighbor veto" has been particularly strong in Idaho's neighboring
states, including Washington, Wyoming, and Utah. See Indian Trail Prop. Ass'n v. Spokane, 76
Wn. App. 430 (1994) (citing Maranatha Mining, Inc. v. Pierce Cy., 59 Wn. App. 795, 801 P.2d 985
(1990); Kenart&Assocs. v. Skagit Cy., 37 Wn.App. 295, 680 P.2d 439, review denied, 101 Wn.2d
1021 (1984))("While community sentiment can be instrumental in the development of . . . legal
requirements through the planning process, it alone cannot form the basis of a zoning decision";
Stucker v. Summit County, 970 P.2d 283 (Utah. App. 1994), citing Thurston v. Cache County,
626 P.2d 440 (Utah 1981) ("the consent of neighboring landowners may not be made a criterion
for the issuance or denial [of] a conditional use permit") and Board of County Comm'rs v. Teton
County Youth Servs., Inc. (652 P.2d 400 (Wyo. 1982) (holding that "the opposition of neighbors
is not one of the considerations to be taken into account" when considering a development
permit"). See also Western Sunview Properties v. Federman, 338 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Hawaii
2004).
As recognized by the Idaho Supreme Court, in rejecting the claim of a property owner
opposing the proposed use of neighboring property owned by the State of Idaho, the Supreme
Court held in Fenwick v. Idaho Dept. Of Lands, 144 Idaho 318 (2007) that "They have no vested
right to prevent changes in the use of the state's [neighboring] property. Indeed, a landowner does
not even have a vested right to prevent changes in the permissible use of his own property." This
is even more applicable where here, the Application strictly complies with the Development
Agreement pursuant to which objecting neighbors in fact obtained their properties.
Even the status as an affected person authorized to challenge a land use decision, does
not afford such a person any special treatment under LLUPA. Being an "affected person" entitles
the person to initiate an appeal; however, that status alone does not entitle them to reversal of a
decision absent an error of the kind identified in Idaho Code § 67-5279(3). Thus adjoining
property owners may be affected persons for purposes of initiating an appeal, however, that alone
does not give them any type of veto, approval right, or special recognition for purposes of denying
an application.
Second,the Commission ignored the vested rights of the Applicant to develop the Property
consistent with its current zoning. The zoning of this Property as R-15 for this type of density and
this use was previously established by the City of Meridian in 2008 and reaffirmed in 2010 with
the recording of the original amendment to the development agreement. It is well established in
Idaho that the rights of an applicant for a land use permit or rezoning of property are determined
by the ordinance in existence at the time of filing an application for such. Payette River Property
Owners Ass'n v. Board of Comm'rs of Valley Co., 132 Idaho 551, 555, 976 P.2d 477, 481 (1999).
As noted by the Idaho Supreme Court in Ready-to-Pour, Inc. v. McCoy, 95 Idaho 510, 513, 511
P.2d 792, 795 (1973) " the applicant's rights are measured under the law in effect at the time of
the application." All applicants have a clearly recognized right to have their land use applications
evaluated and measured under the ordinances in effect at the time of initial application. Payette
River, 132 Idaho at 556, 976 P.2d at 482.
In South Fork Coalition v. Board of Com'rs of Bonneville County, 117 Idaho 857, 861
(1990),the Idaho Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior rules regarding the vested rights of applicants
Review Narrative -11
4879-5455-5187,v.7
to have their applications reviewed pursuant to the ordinances in existence at the time they
applied for a land use approval:
In Cooper v. Board of County Commrs. of Ada County, 101 Idaho
407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980), we further reinforced Idaho's position
with the minority jurisdictions that the ordinance in effect at the time
of the application is controlling. On rehearing, we specifically
addressed this issue and held that subsequently enacted
ordinances would not be given retroactive effect, and the ordinance
effective at the time of application was definitive of the parties'
rights.
(Emphasis added).
The reason the ordinance in effect at the time of the initial filing of an application is the
one that applies is "that to permit retroactive application of an ordinance would allow a zoning
authority to change or enact a zoning law merely to defeat an application, which would result in
giving immediate effect to a future or proposed zoning ordinance before that ordinance was
properly enacted." Payette River, 132 Idaho at 555, 976 P.2d at 481 (citing South Fork Coalition,
117 Idaho at 861, 792 P.2d at 886).
Furthermore, the Idaho Supreme Court noted in Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls,
92 Idaho 595, 601, 448 P.2d 209, 215 (1968) that the holder of a governmental land use permit
"has a vested right to put it to a permissible use as provided for by prevailing zoning ordinances.
. . . A zoning ordinance is not retroactive so as to affect rights that have already vested." The
Commission cannot deny the development of property consistent with its underlying existing
zoning based upon vague objections to traffic due to the use and design of the property, where
the property has previously been annexed, zoned, and approved for such. To utilize a conditional
use permit in this process is an unconstitutional attempt to subvert long time recognized
constitutional rights.
Ignoring the vested rights of a property owner triggers the takings analysis the United
States Supreme Court established in Palozzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 15-66 (2001):
Where a regulation places limitations on land that fall short of
eliminating all economically beneficial use, a taking nonetheless
may have occurred, depending on a complex of factors including
the regulation's economic effect on the landowner, the extent to
which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-
backed expectations, and the character of the government action.
These inquiries are informed by the purpose of the Takings Clause,
which is to prevent the government from "forcing some people
alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice,
should be borne by the public as a whole."
(Internal citations omitted, emphasis added). The Applicant hopes to avoid further consideration
or discussion of the scope of these constitutional violations, but will supplement as necessary.
Review Narrative -12
4879-5455-5187,v.7
C. Recognizing that the Council will hear this as a de novo hearing, the
Applicant provides this additional analysis of this Application which will be
presented at the hearing of this matter.
In evaluating a Conditional Use Permit application,the Meridian Unified Development Code
sets forth specific standards for evaluation that we will address below.
1. Section 11-5B-6(E)(1) "the site is large enough to accommodate the
proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district
in which the use is located."
The Property is 16.61 acres in area. It is more than large enough to satisfy all of the
dimensional and development regulations for the underlying district. Moreover, the Application
sets for a design for the Property that far exceeds the specific development regulations
applicable to multi-family development under Section 11-4-3-27 of the Meridian Unified
Development Code. In preparing the Application, the Applicant has gone far beyond the
requirements for project amenities set forth therein. It has done so in the interest of insuring a
quality development that is self-contained. It has also done so because Section 11-4-3-
27(D)(2)(d) of the Meridian Unified Development Code grants the decision-making body very
broad discretion to "require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed
development."
However, the provision of such heightened landscaping, open space, and amenities
does have a consequence on the issue of affordability of the resulting units. During the public
hearing negative comments were made by the public and members of the Commission on the
potential rents for these units without any consideration or recognition of the impact that (a)
satisfying the requirements of Section 11-4-3-27 of the Meridian Unified Development Code
have on affordability, (b) prior exactions in the development agreement and adjoining properties
have had on this Property through the existing collector and arterial improvements that have
been made, and (c) the modifications that have been made by the Applicant to address
concerns previously raised by adjoining property owners to the design and style of these
proposed units. The Applicant conclusively established its compliance with the dimensional
and quantitative requirements of the Meridian Unified Development Code:
Review Narrative -13
4879-5455-5187,v.7
Allowed/Required • I I
Density 15 units/acre *14.16 units/acre
Building Height/Stacked 40' max building height *38'to top of parapet
Flats
Building Height/Modern 40' max building height *34'6"to top of roof ridge
Farmhouse
Open Space 3.19 acres *6.78 acres(41% of total
site area)
Site Development <100 units determined 13 proposed amenities.
Amenities by decision making Exceeds city's
body requirements
Landscaping Requirements Per Chapter 3 UDC Compliance noted in staff
report.
Parking 416 Required (235 to 462 provided (235 are
be covered) covered)
The Commission made no adverse finding that Section 11-513-6(E)(1) was not satisfied.
2. Section 11-513-6(E)(2) "the proposed use will be harmonious with the
Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this title."
As depicted below, the Property is currently designated Mixed Use Community (MU-C)
on the Future Land Use Map. This designation is inclusive with the other undeveloped property
to the north that is subject to the Development Agreement.
Futlu•e Land Use Alap
Legend r- 1. ..II'
-- - rc i
QlFroject Location CO
- » �
d enter
U
l Itr1
Review Narrative-14
4879-5455-5187,v.7
Contrary to the demands of some project opponents, this land use designation under
the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map neither contemplates nor permits the
medium density residential development that their homes are developed within nor the type of
strip commercial buildings that they seemed to advocate for.
In fact, the designation of this property as part of the more intensive Mixed Use
Community ("MU-C") was a conscious decision by the original developer of all of the
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development and the City of Meridian in
approving the various development agreements for these properties. Moreover, as noted in the
Staff Report, this land use designation was imposed fourteen years ago in 2008 "when the
property received a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment to change the property from Medium
Density Residential to Mixed-Use Community."22
The goals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan are clear and unambiguous as they apply
to this Application, as the purpose of the MU-C "designation is to allocate areas where
community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent
is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip
commercial type buildings."
One issue of what constitutes a "development" always comes up in Meridian when
addressing and applying the MU-C land use map. While the comprehensive plan and future
land use map guide development decisions, the underlying zoning governs specific
applications. As such in the prior development agreements in applying the MU-C to portions of
the Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development, it is clear that this Property
was specifically designated for residential use at a more intensive level to satisfy the guidelines
that in the MU-C that "developments should have a mix of at least three land use types", that
"Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area", and with "gross
densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre.1123
Similarly, consistent with the prior development agreements, the property was in fact
zoned as R-15, which is a more intensive residential use. And as stated in detail above, the
proposed development plan fully satisfies all of the requirements of Section 11-4-3-27 of the
Meridian Unified Development Code, establishing site specific requirements for multi-family
development.
In fact, the Property is zoned consistent with the recognized appropriate zones within
the MU-C designation as "Sample zoning include: R-15, R-40, TN-R, TN-C, C-C, and L-O."24 It
is important to note that while this site could support Meridian's most intensive multi-family zones
with significantly higher density, which would be supported near the commercial node at Ten Mile
and McMillan, the Applicant's proposed density and design provides a clear and appropriate
transition from the detached medium density single family residences to the west and the more
intensive big box retail to the east at the intersection.
In the Applicant's various meetings with the City, it was noted that to comply with the
approved concept plan and the elements of the Mixed Use Community land use designation, that
22 Staff Report, September 1, 2022, H-2002-0047, p. 4.
23 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-18.
24 City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, p. 3-18.
Review Narrative -15
4879-5455-5187,v.7
the Application should provide multiple housing types and significant open space for the Project.
The result is the townhouse style units on the northern two thirds of the site and the flats style
apartments on the southern third of the site with significant open space provided throughout. The
result is a mix of housing types and a variety of unit types including studios, one bedroom, two
bedroom and three bedroom units.
The Commission made no adverse finding that Section 11-5B-6(E)(2) was not satisfied.
3. Section 11-5B-6(E)(3) "the design, construction, operation and
maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not
adversely change the essential character of the same area."
As stated above, the Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development
has been undertaken pursuant to various development agreements that incorporated a variety
of potential uses and approvals. Contrary to the beliefs and claims of Application opponents,
their detached medium density residential properties were not entitled in a vacuum. They were
entitled as part of a larger set of development applications that contemplated an integration of
residential, commercial, institutional and other uses developed consistent with the requirements
of those development agreements, the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map. In
fact none of the medium density residential properties Application opponents own would have
been developed as part of the Vice nza/Volterra/Summerwood/B rid getower West development
without the inclusion of the more intensive commercial and mixed use areas annexed as part of
those applications.
Moreover, as set forth in the exhibits, in light of the comments and concerns raised by
adjoining residents, the Applicant has modified the style and design of the northern townhouse
style multi-family residential units to more closely align with the existing single family residential
designs.25
Most importantly, taking to heart the direction of the Council in its prior denial, to return
with a plan that is consistent with the concept plan in the Development Agreement, the Applicant
has done s0.26 Subject to the required changes to the project's design to comply with the
requirements of Meridian's Unified Development Code, the relevant life safety codes, the
25 See, Testimony from Janice Brochard, September 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript p. 15 1 have been pretty
much with all the meetings and Dustin and Brad have been really good about -- my big concern was -- I
know we are going to have apartments there, so I want them to be the most aesthetically pleasing to our
community and I think they have done a really good job with the modern farmhouse, because I went
around all over town and took pictures of what I thought would be acceptable in our community, because
we do have a nice -- Bridgetower West is a nice -- really nice, you know, subdivision and I didn' t want
that urban look. So, kudos to them for working, you know, with us on doing that. Really happy."
26 Of note, one issue that the Council needs to consider in conjunction with this Application is the impact
that the City of Meridian's procedures for development agreements have on the entitlement process
within the City. It has been the custom and practice of the City of Meridian to require very detailed site
plans in conjunction with annexation and zoning applications that are then integrated into a development
agreement.
Review Narrative -16
4879-5455-5187,v. 7
requirements of ACHD, the Applicant has proposed a project that conforms with the
Development Agreement.27
As a matter of law, a use that is proposed consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and the Future Land Use Map, the existing zoning designation, and the Development
Agreement, cannot be incompatible with "other uses in the general neighborhood" or will change
"the intended character of the general vicinity".
The Commission made no adverse finding that Section 11-5B-6(E)(3) was not satisfied.
4. Section 11-5B-6(E)(4) "the proposed use, if it complies with all
conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the
vicinity."
With respect to this standard, the Applicant incorporates its analysis set forth above.
This Application is the fulfillment of decisions made back in 2008 regarding the use of this
property in the original annexation and approvals of
Vice nza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development. Moreover, the beneficiaries of
those prior approvals, do not now have a reasonable basis to object to the full implementation
of elements of those prior approvals. To do so is to (a) ignore the vested rights of the Applicant
under the existing zoning and the Development Agreement and (b) cause the abandonment of
an integrated development plan upon which Meridian has based its comprehensive planning,
ACHD has based its capital improvements plan, COMPASS has based its traffic modeling,
WASD has based its future school locations and growth plans. As addressed in more detail in
the next section, the integration of multi-family development of part of larger developments,
even those that include a significant amount of detached medium density single family
residential is not only necessary, but desirable. This was a decision that was made when this
property was annexed and zoned in 2008 consistent with the
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development agreements.
The Commission made no adverse finding that Section 11-5B-6(E)(4) was not satisfied.
5. Section 11-5B-6(E)(6) "the proposed use will not create excessive
additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic welfare of the community."
With respect to this standard, the Applicant incorporates its analysis set forth above and
further notes the analysis set forth in Exhibit D and Exhibit E. The Commission made no
adverse finding that Section 11-5B-6(E)(6) was not satisfied.
6. Section 11-5B-6(E)(7) "the proposed use will not involve activities or
processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to
27 See, Comments from Commission Chair Seal, September 1, 2022 Hearing Transcript p. 50 " I mean I
have got to be honest, this fits everything else. As far as multi family goes it's great. Generally speaking
we are fighting trying to get open space, trying to get paths, trying to get connectivity, trying to get things
like that to go in. I mean they exceed the parking. They exceed the open space. They have reduced how
many stories, you know, that are in there and everything."
Review Narrative -17
4879-5455-5187,v. 7
any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,
noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors."
This standard is inapplicable to this Application. The Applicant proposes construction of
housing of a type that is common in the City of Meridian, that is consistent with the Development
Agreement, and that will have no extraordinary impact upon the general welfare. More
importantly, this specific zone authorizes this specific use and housing type contemplating this
very type of development.
The Commission made no adverse finding that Section 11-5B-6(E)(5) was not satisfied.
7. Inapplicable Standards. Neither Section 11-5B-6(E)(8) is inapplicable
to this evaluation as there has been no natural, scenic or historic feature impacted by this
application nor is Section 11-5B-6(E)(9) is inapplicable to this evaluation as no nonconforming
use is at issue.
8. Section 11-5B-6(E)(5) "the proposed use will be served adequately
by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer."
This reflects the only adverse finding the Commission made in denying the Application.
As set forth above in there is no basis for such a finding that McMillan is not adequate to serve
the Property. In fact, all of the evidence in this instance that relates to this Application evidence
that this standard and finding have been satisfied.
In making its decision, the Commission ignored the fact that ACHD found that all existing
right of way improvements for arterials and collectors required to serve this Project have been
previously constructed adjacent to the Property. They were done by the Applicant's predecessors
in interest in reliance upon the zoning of the Property and the approvals incorporated in the
Development Agreement entitling this Property to be developed as medium high-density
residential development.
The Commission ignored the fact that even with the trips generated by this Application,
that McMillan would operate within the approved and adopted levels of service. The mere fact
that trips have increased since 2018 is irrelevant as (a) the increase in relevant peak hour trips
are assumed by the COMPASS model, and (b) this Application in fact implements the one
mitigation element that improves traffic on McMillan, namely the extension of an internal collector
from the existing single family residential development on the west to the big box commercial and
Ten Mile to the east. As set forth above, the Commission has no basis for its determination that
the Application was not adequately served by McMillan.
The Commission ignored the fact that in light of the testimony about the timing of
development for this Property and the timing of the elimination of access to McMillan from the
future State Highway 16 extension that current traffic from Chinden seeking to access Ten Mile
and the Interstate Highway system will no longer be able to do so via McMillan and that those
trips will be diverted within the next few years as the State Highway 16 project is completed.
When that connection is eliminated, McMillan will be almost exclusively a local arterial serving
local traffic within that corridor.
Review Narrative -18
4879-5455-5187,v. 7
The Commission ignored the fact that until this Property is developed, there is no
connection between the existing residential development to the west, residential development
that was entitled in conjunction with the entitlement of the Property in the prior development
agreements, causing all trips to the commercial properties at Ten Mile and McMillan to be forced
out to McMillan. The prior approvals associated with
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development that failed to create this interior
connectivity have caused the actual problem that many have objected to. Unless and until this
Property develops, there will be no mitigation of this lack of connectivity. The private collector
the Applicant has proposed will benefit primarily the existing residents of the
Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development. This private collector reflects
a significant exaction that is not so distant from the standards set forth above in Nollan and
Dolan to implicate constitutional objections. However, the mere fact that McMillan is not being
widened right now is not a basis to find this Application will not be adequately served by
McMillan where this Application is being required to provide a parallel collector serving internal
traffic within the Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West development.
The Commission ignored the fact that this Application will enhance pedestrian connectivity
between and among the various elements of the Vice nza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower
West developments. Residents of those projects have a legitimate concern about Meridian not
requiring the completion of amenities within Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West
development south of McMillan. As you know, those amenities are not going to be constructed
until 400 residences are constructed, requiring those residents to cross McMillan to avail
themselves of the promised amenities. The failure to provide adequate pedestrian connectivity
between those elements of the Vice nza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West
developments is not the fault of this Applicant. This Applicant is addressing its part of the
connectivity issue for pedestrians and has engaged ACHD to determine if measures are
available to address that concern.
The Commission ignored the fact that due to the original development agreement, the
2008 comprehensive plan map amendment designating this Property as mixed use community,
and the 2010 zoning of the Property as R-15 the traffic, resident, student, utility, water and other
demands that would be generated by or consumed by this Property have all been part of
Meridian's planning for more than ten years. This is the plan that Meridian adopted for this site,
this is the comprehensive plan designation that Meridian imposed upon this site, this is the zoning
and use that Meridian determined appropriate for this site.
To deny this Application based upon traffic concerns, while continuing to issue building
permits and final plats for the remainder of the Vicenza/Volterra/Summerwood/Bridgetower West
development and annexing additional properties in the McMillan traffic shed is improper and
impermissible under the Development Agreement, the Meridian Unified Development Code,
LLUPA, and the relevant constitutions. The Staff report confirmed the adherence to these
requirements. Yet, the Commission elevated lay emotional objections over all of the actual
evidence before it.
Analysis in Exhibit E demonstrates that unlike the subsidies that municipalities pay for
detached single family medium density residential properties, multi-family residential makes less
of a demand on a per capita basis while making an extraordinary contribution to funding such
through the heightened taxes and fees and lower per capita demand.
IV. CONCLUSION
Review Narrative -19
4879-5455-5187,v.7
The public agencies required to provide input did so, and provided substantial, competent
evidence that the Application met the five approval criteria for a conditional use permit. This
Applicant has done as directed by the City Council and brought forth an Application that is fully
compliant with the Development Agreement, the provisions of the Meridian Unified Development
Code relating to the existing R-15 zoning designation, the provisions of the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan and its future land use map. Density was reduced as the City Council
directed with both the number of units and the overall mass of the units being reduced. The
Commission's decision therefore was in error. We look forward to the hearing on this matter.
Respectfully,
Geoffrey M. Wardle
Review Narrative -20
4879-5455-5187,v.7
Exhibit A
Development Agreement
(attached)
Exhibit A 1
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2019-055407
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=32 LISA BATT 06/26/2019 09:35 AM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
DEVELOPMENT AG +EMENT
PARTIES: I. City of Meridian
2. Bridgetower Investments,LLC, Owner/Developer
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(this Agreement), is made and entered into this
day of JUrV, 2019,by and between City of Meridian,a municipal corporation of the State
of Idaho, hereafter called CITY whose address is 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 and
Bridgetower Investments, LLC, whose address is 398 E. Copper Ridge Street, Meridian, ID 83646,
hereinafter called OWNER/DEVELOPER.
1. CITALS:
1.1 WHEREAS, Owner is the sole owner,in law and/or equity,of certain tract of land
in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit"A",which is attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full,herein after
referred to as the Property; and
E
i
4
1.2 WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 67-6511A provides that cities may, by ordinance,
require or permit as a condition of zoning that the Owner/Developer make a written
commitment concerning the use or development of the subject Property; and
I
1.3 WHEREAS,City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of Section
11-58-3 of the Unified Development Code ("UDC"), which authorizes
development agreements upon the annexation and/or re-zoning of land; and
1.4 WHEREAS, Owner/Developer has submitted an application for development
agreement modification for the purpose of combining/terminating four(4)recorded
developments [Instrument #'s 106034786 (Volterra), 108087854 (Prato Villas),
111010393 (Volterra North and South) and 110051282 (Volterra Mixed-Use)to
create one new master Development Agreement that governs the entire
Vicenza/Volterra development, under the Unified Development Code, which
generally describes how the Property will be developed and what improvements
will be made;and
1.5 WHEREAS,Owner/Developer made representations at the public hearing before
the Meridian City Council, as to how the Property will be developed and what
improvements will be made; and
1.6 WHEREAS, the record of the proceedings for the modification of development
agreements held before the City Council, includes responses of government
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION(H-2019-0001) ' , PAGE 1 OF 8
subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction,
and includes further testimony and comment; and
1.7 WHEREAS, on the 2na day of April, 2019,the Meridian City Council approved
certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order
("Findings"), for the modification of four development agreements, which have
been incorporated into this Agreement and attached as Exhibit"B"; and
1.8 WHEREAS,Owner/Developer deems it to be in its best interest to be able to enter
into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into
voluntarily and at its urging and request;and
1.9 WHEREAS, City requires the Owner/Developer to enter into a development
agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the
subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of
this Agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the
City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions
providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property
owners and to ensure zoning designation are in accordance with the amended
Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian on October 11,2016,Resolution No.
16-1173,and the UDC,Title 11.
NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein,
the parties agree as follows:
2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS:That the above recitals are contractual and binding
and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and
phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for,unless the
clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise:
3.1 CITY:means and refers to the City of Meridian,a party to this Agreement, which
is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho,
organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho,whose address is 33
East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642.
3.2 OWNER/DEVELOPER: means and refers to Bridgetower Investments, LLC,
398 E. Copper Ridge Street, Meridian, ID 83646. the party that owns and is
developing said Property and shall include any subsequent owner(s)Ideveloper(s)of
the Property.
3.4 PROPERTY:means and refers to that certain parcel(s)of Property located in the
County of Ada,City of Meridian as described in Exhibit"A"describing the parcels
to be zoned C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district as
described in Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated
herein as if set forth at length.
DCVELA)PMENf AG1EF.MENT—SUMMERWOGD SUBDIVISION(H-2419-0001) PAGE2 or,S
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 169 of 348
4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall vest the right to
develop the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under the
UDC.
4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without
modification of this Agreement.
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following
special conditions:
a. The mixed-use portion of the Volterrra development(area north of McMillan Road;west side
of Ten Mile Road)shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan submitted with
this application, excluding the properties subdivided with the Coleman Subdivision, as
determined by the Planning Director. Any major variations to the concept plan shall require
an amendment to the development agreement and requires a new concept plan for the overall
development.
b. These sites have existing development agreements recorded as instruments #106034768;
108087854; 111010393;and 110051282. The entire boundary of the property as depicted in
VILB shall be subject to a new development agreement and will no longer be subject to the
previous four(4)development agreements.
c. The applicant shall construct five(5)central plaza areas and associated pathways on the site
as generally depicted on the conceptual site plan for the mixed-use portion of the Volterra
development.
d. The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Department to facilitate the actual design and
exact location of the pathways in accordance with the standards listed in UDC I 1-3B-8 and
11-3B-12, and the Master Pathways Plan. Said pathway shall be constructed when the
extension of the northern case/west collector roadway through the mixed-use portion of the
Volterra development is constructed on site.
e. That prior to the approval of the 20&residential lot, (including Volterra North and Volterra
South), the 10.2 acre park (James Park) shall be constructed. The park shall include the
proposed swimming pool and restrooms,the water feature(fountain),clubhouse,the 10-foot
wide multi-use pathway and the tot lot.
f. That prior to the 400`h residential lot (including Volterra North and Volterra South), the
proposed three (3)acre park sough of McMillan Road shall be constructed, The park shall
include the proposed plaza area and playground equipment.
g. Further development in the C-G,C-C, L-O and R-15 zones shall comply with the structure
and site design standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the
Architectural Standards Manual.
h. Future homes constructed within the Volterra North, Volterra South and Summerwood
Subdivisions shall substantially comply with the sample elevations attached to each of the
respective Findings.
i. All future development of the subject property shall comply with the City of Meridian
ordinances in effect at the time of development.
j. For phasing purposes, Volterra North, Volterra South and Summerwood plats shall be
reviewed as one(1)project and all plats shall remain valid as successive phases receive City
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN r-SUMMERWoob 5UDDIVIS1ON(H-2019-0001) PAGE 3 OF 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019. - Page 170 of 3 S
Engineer's signature.The same applies to any future time extensions that may be requested.
k. One"Right Out,Exit Only"access point will be permitted south of the spine road(N.Vicenza
Way) onto N. Ten Mile Road for egress from the adjacent commercial.
b, COMPLIANCE PERIOD This Agreement must be fully executed within six(6)months
after the date of the Findings for the annexation and zoning or it is null and void.
7. DEFAULT/CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF
ZONING DESIGNATION:
7.1 Acts of Default.Either party's failure to faithfully comply with all of the terms and
conditions included in this Agreement shall constitute default under this
Agreement.
7.2 Notice and Cure Period. In the event of Owner/Developer's default of this
Agreement, Owner/Developer shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of written
notice from City to initiate commencement of action to correct the breach and cure
the default,which action must be prosecuted with diligence and completed within
one hundred eighty (180) days; provided, however, that in the case of any such
default that cannot with diligence be cured within such one hundred eighty(180)
day period, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such
period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and
continuity.
7.3 Remedies. In the event of default by Owner/Developer that is not cured after
notice as described in Section 7.2, Owner/Developer shall be deemed to have
consented to modification of this Agreement and de-annexation and reversal ofthe
zoning designations described herein, solely against the offending portion of
Property and upon City's compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances and
rules,including any applicable provisions of Idaho Code§§67-6509 and 67-6511.
Owner/Developer reserves all rights to contest whether a default has occurred.
This Agreement shall be enforceable in the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada
County by either City or Owner/Developer, or by any successor or successors in
title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an
appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the
covenants,agreements,conditions, and obligations contained herein.
7.4 Delay. In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by
either Owner/Developer or City is delayed for causes that are beyond the
reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall
include,without limitation,acts of civil disobedience,strikes or similar causes,the
time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay.
7.5 Waiver. A waiver by City of any default.by Owner/Developer of any one or more
of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the default and defaults
waived and shall neither bar any other rights or remedies of City nor apply to any
subsequent default of any such or other covenants and conditions.
MVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-SUMMERWdoD SUBDIVISION(H-2019-0001) '14-/ . PAGr 4 ol-,8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 171 of 348
8. INSPECTION: Owner/Developer shall,immediately upon completion of any portion or
the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this Agreement or by City ordinance or
policy,notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such
completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Property.
9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record this Agreement,including
all of the Exhibits,and submit proof of such recording to Owner/Developer,prior to the third reading of
the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re-zoning of the Property by the City Council. If
for any reason after such recordation,the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the
annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an
appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement.
10. ZONING: City shalt, fol lowing recordation of the duly approved Agreement,enact a valid
and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein.
H. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds,irrevocable
letters of credit,cash deposits,certified check or negotiable bonds,as allowed under the UDC,to insure
the installation of required improvements,which the Owner/Developer agree to provide,if required by the
City.
12. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any
phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City, or
sufficient surety of performance is provided by Owner/Developer to the City in accordance with Paragraph
1 l above.
13, ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Owner/Developer agrees to abide by all
ordinances of the City of Meridian unless otherwise provided by this Agreement.
14. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be
deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three(3)days after deposit in the United States Mail,
registered or certified mail,postage prepaid,return receipt requested, addressed as follows:
CITY: with copy to:
City Cleric City Attorney
City of Meridian City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Ave. 33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, ID 83642
O WNER/DEVELOPER:
Bridgetower Investments, LLC
398 E. Copper Ridge Street
Meridian, ID 83646
14.1 A party shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a
written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT-SUMMERWO❑D SUBDIVISION(H-2019-0001) 0-hy+ PAGE 5 Or S
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 172 of 348
15. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto
concerning this Agreement,the prevailing party shall be entitled,in addition to any other relief as may be
granted,to court casts and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction.
This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default,
termination or forfeiture of this Agreement.
16. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is
strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term,condition and provision hereof, and that the
failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under
this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform,
17. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to
the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including
City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the
Owner/Developer, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property.
Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property,or portions thereof,except that
any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be
both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees,upon written
request of Owner/Developer, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this
Agreement if City,in its sole and reasonable discretion,had determined that Owner/Developer have fully
performed their obligations under this Agreement.
18. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision ofthis Agreement is held not valid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the
invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein.
19. DUTY TO ACT REASONABLY: Unless otherwise expressly provided,each party shall
act reasonably in giving any consent,approval, or taking any other action under this Agreement.
20. COOPERATION OF THE PARTIES: In the event of any legal or equitable action or
other proceeding instituted by any third party(including a governmental entity or official)challenging the
validity of any provision in this Agreement, the parties agree to cooperate in defending such action or
proceeding.
21. FINAL AGREEMENT:This Agreement sets forth all promises,inducements,agreements,
condition and understandings between Owner/Developer and City relative to the subject matter hereof,and
there are no promises,agreements,conditions or understanding,either oral or written,express or implied,
between Owner/Developer and City,other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided,
no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the
parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns,
and pursuant, with respect to City,to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City.
21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re-zoning of the subject
Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval ofthe City
Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice
provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the
proposed amendment.
DrVELOPMENT ArrREBMENT-SUMMERWOOD SUIBI)ivistoN(H-2019-0001) ` PAGE;6 or 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019- Page 173 of 348
22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT:This Agreement shall be effective on the date
the Meridian City Council shall adapt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection
with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk.
[end of text; signatures, acknowledgements,and Exhibits A and B follow]
I
I
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION(H-2019-0001) PAGE 7 of 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 174 of 349
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it
effective as hereinabove provided.
OWNERIDEVELO ER:
BRIDGETOWE NVESTMENTS, LLC
By:
Its:
CITY OF MERIDIAN A ST: �eoz�Q AUc�sry
0
By City of
Mayor T de Weerd Ci E IDI� IAN*J-
+�v
SEAL
STATE OF IDAHO }
af►ha TREP`'a4�P
ss:
County of Ada, ]On this ZE day of J — ,20 19,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared M 196 -eallu&— known or identified tome to be K of Bridgetuwer
Investments,LLC and the who signed above and acknowledged to me that he executed the same a behalf of said corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
(SEAL) •.•�''� M M ''••.
Not ry Public for Idahoq �.•' ��.•!No■•� �y'4,�
Residing at: ►f L"ow t �.�,�n`a' 4d�•■■C
.
My Commission Expires: � ��} � -kAO'Y'A-R), �
STATE OF IDAHO } PUBLIC ;
SS
County of Ada � '��r�������iiii•" �Y����i
OF
On this 2.6 day of %-6r e, ,2019,before me,allotary Public,personally appeared ammy de
Weerd and - R n know or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,
who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument ofbehaIf of said City,and acknowledged to me that such
City executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate
first above written.
CHARLENE WAY
(LEWMISSION 0673N Notary Public for Idaho
NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at:
STATE OF IDAHO Commission expires:
,MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 3J2M
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION(H-2419-0041) PAGE 8 OF 8
Exhibit A
Legal Description and Development Agreement Boundary
VICEN&L SUBI'lMSIQN 11,A.Mod Date, July 11,2017
A parcel of land bring a portion of the Sin of Section 23,Towmship 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise
Meridian,City o£IVloriOft,Ada County,Idaho,snare particularly described os follows;
BEGINN.Mf G at ilia 0114 roster of said Section 27,monuanented by a ohise€ed`X"in tho mncrete
irrignliOn structure(CamerRecord No.9911329.9),front which the W 114 corner of said Section 27,
rnanutneated:by a 3.5"13iass Cap'(Caner Ricc.nrcl No.2415-;179246)),bears North 9902010"West,u
distaaw of 2449.83 feet,
Thence Sootb 89121'11P'Easr,coincident with the north Lino of the Sal14 of said 5ectiom 27,A distance of
2626.00 feel,to 1ht westerly right of wsy 1 ine of N.'Pen Mile Road;
Thence South 00'21'Iti"%Vest,coincident with said wastorly right of Nvay line,South 00"2 P 16"Woo,a
distance of 1331.59 feet;
Thence North 89038'44"Wet4 coincident with said westerly right of way line,a.distance of 8.00 fed;
Thence South 40*21'14"West,oohmcidant with said westerly right of►vny line,a rlistaoce of 1.74.61 fbet;
Theme North 8999'44"Meat,coincident wifh said westody tight of way llnc,a distance of 13.UU feat;
Thenc4 North 0115'22"best,a distance of622.75 feet;
7']nenee North 6049'I2"East,a diststsec of 112.27 feet;
11tcnce Ninth 88656'29"Went,a distance of 4304 feet in the easterly rigixt of way line of North Vicenza
Street;
Thence South 60'"'34"Wcal a distannce of 62,00 feet to the wostarly right of wary line of North Vicenza
StMOt atld thn012eginning of a non tangCnt cuivc to the right-,
Tt caw southerly along the are of said curve la ilia right,coincident with said-m*thriy right of way line,
an=d istrtncc of 130.71 scot,said curro havli%a radius ol`?45d10 feet,a contrui atnglc of 3 0°M4 101",and
a.chord lmwing of South W13'29"East a distance of 129.16 taet;
Thence 5aitth 011011"West,coincident with said wcaterly rlglitofway line,a dislanor,of 588,00 feet,
to tho beginning of a curve to the left;
Tlvenoe southerly alovg ilia it re of said carve to tho left,coineldcral with said westerly right of way)in*,an
arc disttuwa of 154.00 feet,said chive hav]ag a radius of 385.00 fret,a.cen4al auglo of 22°55'06",and a
chord bradng of Soots 10 '24'42"l;esr a distance of 152.98 fact;
Tbonce South 21*5115"FAd,400i►taldcnt with said westerly right of way line a distance tsf 79.91 foal,to
the beginning of a curvo in th0 right;
'Phratve southerly along tho tom of said curve to the right,coincident wilh said westerly right of way lily,
an aro distance of 54A0 feet,said curve having a radius of 136,00 fcet;a central tingle of 22155'06",and a
chord ben riitg of South 10°2,1'02"8nst a distance of 54.04 fret;
Summerwood Subdivision--H-2QJ.9-000:L- oage 1 of 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 176 of 348
Exhibit A
Thence South 01110311"West,coincident with said westerly right of way Bite,u distance of 178.81 ket
to thu nwherly right of way lino at'W,McMillan Road;
'MemNotth 89156'29"'West;coincldcntwitlt said northerly right of way litre,a disnunce of 751.53 fiat;
T'hcncc South 36"29'57"1 nst,coincident wish said northerlyright of way line,a distance of7.57 feat;
ThoncrsNorlli.18"56'29"West,coincident with said northerly right of way line,a distance of843.10 feet,
to the sonthw4st comer of the Vicenza Suhrilv[siun,Book 148,11ages 1S024-15028,Adtc Ccni ty Records;
Thence,North 00*2.9'00"Post,coincident with the westerly line ofsaid Vicenza Subdivision,a distance of
595.90 feet;
ThenceNoith 00'19'01"East,coincident wkh said-westcriy line,a distance of 659.78 feet to the
northeast cantor of Dlnek Cut T.slutes No.2,Book 32,Pages 1945-1946,Ado,County Reeflrds;
—ReltcoNorrli 89817'46"Wmt,coincident With the northerly Our,of said Black Cat Estates➢+to,1,a
(03tan000f 1261.84fccc;
noncvNorlh 12'47'57"West,a distano of2Q6.31 feet;
Tin nro Nwli 9811.1'16"Wost,a distance of 496:11 feet;
1-jeacc NoA 5V50'32"West;a distance of 89.09 feer,,
Ttr=o-,KorthWd 4'23"West,n distance Feet,
Thcncc Nortb 19'38'57"West,a distance of 111,75 feet;
TlwncaNmth 89034'S5"Wort,n distancu❑f243.71 feet to the easterly righf of way lfnu of Notch Black
Cat Road;
Thcnw'Kortft 01113]']0"Nest,coincident with said easterly right of way lino,a distance of 376.76 feet to
tho north lima of thc S`h IA of said Section 27,
Thcnco South 89'24'10"Bast a distance of 2,601.83 fret to the PO.1NT OF BEGINNING.
TIm abuvo dncr1cd parecicoutaiiu 8,645,194 square foci or 198.47 ncres,more or loss.
AND ALSO
Lvls 6 and 7,Black Cat BsbntcsNv.2,Book 32,Pages 1945.1946,Ada County ltccmds.
Thia]egnI deseriptba we compiled'from Data of Reaovd,
Togethor with and subjcct to covenants, ewcramts,and restrictions of'recordUt
K vin M. Barah P. . Ucen e o. I0',5 it
�
7�tlrl-I
or
Summerwood Subdivision—H-2019-0001—page 2.of 5-
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 177 of 348
Exhibit A
YOU F.'MZA SIJ]3]1711VI,S;ON D.A,A10 Data: July 11,2017
A parcel or Land being a portion of thp N M I gF,V4 of'Soodan 34,Township 4 Norlh,Ratago 1 W44t;
13aisa Marldian,C:ityQ(Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,more particislarly described as fall owsI
COWINIENCRiG at lire N 114 tanner of said SwRon 34,monumentcd by a 518"Rehiu-eyith ilIgiible Cap
(Corner Rccard No.2915.079,244),from which the northeast corner of said Secdion 34,monumonted by a
518"Rcbar(Comcr RecoA lo. I09122909),bears Sandi SSOW29"Fwl;g distance of2654.64 feat;
"Ihoma South 014314411 Watt,coincident with the west uric of said N1f2 MUM,a distanea or25.00 f4t,
to the southerly right of%fry Hue for W.McMillan Road and tho POINT OF 13EGI fffINGp
'Renee South 8$°Sb'29"Easr,coincident with saidsoutherly right of way ling a dh Mno*ON558,85 feet;
'.Phone South 52"49'13"East,coineidmtt-Aitll.said southerly rightof way line,a dislanco of 61.71)feet,to
the wrsterly right of way lino of W.Ton Mile Rood,
Thence South 04°52'46"West colneidmi;with Said Wosterly right of way line,a disinncie of 125433 feet
to 10"0l line of said N112 NRIA;
Thcacc forth 0106'34"West coincident with said south lino,a distance of 2605.15.fcotto liar,southwest
vvruor vf jaid N712'RR114(C'3T 1116 oonior);
Thor=North 0143'44"East,coincident witli tho west lino of huid NO IE114,a dismnn of 1298.36hot,
to t10 VOM OF R Gi[NNWO.
Tito abvaG dowribcA 1mrcol contains 3,373,739 squtsrofoot or 77.45 pores,more or lass.
This logal dosoription was complied from Data ofRooatd.
Togelhur with and subject to..covenants,eas:tMents,atld restTictinns of record.
NIL
a,INA I'F,q 't�s�
KdV1tl MJB_QJah2_,LZ License No. 1 561
����OFt1T1�@a
Summerwood Subdivision--H-2019-0001—page 3 of 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 178 of 348
Exhibit A
N SLACK GAT RD
R4
K
P
�s a
rl
u d R gT
H NC[Ntt ar
n�
�3'R1'SS'tl f13t;J!'
N TEN WLE RIT
pmw mob `
.VICENZA DA MODIFICNnON -UPa-c t,
S L1EfBaIY V�ENYh ya'ev wu auiw w.wbt
—►. � COTftDtVWL10Qi1E'VELtiFFmNTF11.4'. varasSr Hnza i •+-.�•
HTS rcc n afa rmcf
taus mumut ,M.
Summerwood Subdivision- <<-, t%)19 OUD.L-page 4 of 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 179 of 348
Exhibit A
I
P FYx
� n
MIR
w�_ iwrs4a•c �r+�aV ����.u•
9
��I I
gal !
p I la
47
�e
�I 1
� 1 I
I
w t�TEN WEE RD �
w
ELI
VOL ERRADA MODIFICATION "'"""° ° �� N]u pTClf cCA1Tq�MOD DEVEI OfWaN3;LEG. _ MWIT u�imv armau ►�`WA—O W
Summerwood Subdivision— H-2019-0001—page 5 of S
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 180 of 348
EXHIBIT B
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW E
AND DECISION &ORDER l IJl l�
In the Matter of the Request for a Development Agreement Modification for the Purpose of
Combining/Terminating Four(4) Recorded Developments Agreements IDA Instrument 9's
106034786(Volterra), 108087854 (Prato Villas), 111010393 (Volterra North and South)and
110051282 (Volterra Mixed-use)] to Create a New Master Agreement that Governs the Entire
Vicenza/Volterra and Summerwood Developments,by Matt Munger.
Case No(s). H-2019-000I
For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 19,2019 (Findings on April 2,2019)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Rcport for the Bearing date of March 19,2019, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 19,2019, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 19, 2019,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of March 19,2019, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
I. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at
Title I 1 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has,by
ordinance,established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Meridian, which was adopted April 19,2011, Resolution No. 11-7 84 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code§ I I-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be
signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant,the
CITY OF MERIDIAN FrNDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FILE NO(S). H-2019-0001 I -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Al{un SZ 9�' A��in2 8
Community Development Department,the Public Works Department and any affected party
requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the
hearing date of March 19,2019,incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-5A and based upon
the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted,it is hereby ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for modification to the Development Agreements for the purpose of
entering into a new one is hereby approved per the conditions of approval in the Staff Report
for the hearing date of March 19,2019, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Development Agreement Duration
The city and/or an applicant may request a development agreement or a modification to a
development agreement consistent with Idaho Code section 67-6511A. The development
agreement may be initiated by the city or applicant as part of a request for annexation and/or
rezone at any time prior to the adoption of findings for such request.
A development agreement may be modified by the city or an affected party of the development
agreement. Decision on the development agreement modification is made by the city council in
accord with this chapter. When approved, said development agreement shall be signed by the
property owner(s) and returned to the city within six(6)months of the city council granting the
modification.
A modification to the development agreement may be initiated prior to signature of the
agreement by all parties and/or may be requested to extend the time allowed for the agreement
to be signed and returned to the city if filed prior to the end of the six(6)month approval
period.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, denial of a development
application entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight(28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code§ 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight(28)days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67,Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 19, 2019
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FILE NO(S).H-2019-0001 -2-
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda AgwkZ!5�Offl9,-P&Ad8Sbfo3GR8
By action of the City Council at its regular meeting field on the 2"� day of 11 ,
2019.
COUNCIL PRESIDENT JOE BORTON VOTED
COUNCIL VICE PRESIDENT LUKE CAVENER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER ANNE LITTLE ROBERTS VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER TY PALMER VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER TREG BERNT VOTED
COUNCIL MEMBER GENESIS MILAM VOTED
MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED
(TIE BREAKER)
Mayor T• de Weerd
Attest:
C.
y col i,n �-o� SEAL
City Cler e"
Copy seared upon Applicant,Community Development Department,Public Works Department and City
Attomey.
By: Dated: 4'a'4-019
City leros Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
FILE NO(S).H-2019-0001 -3-
!Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda June 25,2019— Page 183 of 348
EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORT 1"(� �WE Nty_
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 3/19/2019
DATE:
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Bill Parsons,Current Planning Supervisor
70S-Rh4-553 i
Bruce Freckleton. Development Services Manager
20-887-''1 I
SUBJECT: H-2019-0001
Summerwood Subdivision
LOCATION: North side of W. McMillan Road between N. Black Cat Road and N.Ten Mile Road
in the S `Is of Section 27,TAN.R.I W. AND southwest coiner of W. McMillan Road
and N.Ten Mile Road in the NE ''A of Section 34,T.4N.1 W,
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant has applied for a development agreement modification for the purpose of
combining/terminating four(4)recorded development agreements [DA instrument Ws 106034786
(Volterra), 108087854(Prato Villas), 111010393 (Volterra North and South) and 110051282
(Volterra Mixed-use)] to create one(1)new master agreement that governs the entire
Vicenza/Volterra development.
H. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage +/-276 acres
Future Land Use Designation LDR,MDR,Commercial, MU-C
Existing Land Use Undeveloped,SFR,Commercial
Proposed Land Uses) SFR
Current Zoning R-4,R-8,R-15,L-O,C-C,C-G
Proposed Zoning NA
Lots(#and type;bldglcommon) NA
Phasing plan(+#of phases) NA
Number of Residential Units(type NA
of units)
Density(gross&net) NA
Page 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Ayaa2,4211119L-P§Wd f54b19 48
Open Space(acres,total ["Jn]1 NA
buffer 1 qualified)
Amenities NA
Physical Features(waterways, NA
hazards, flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date;#of December 19,2018;one attendee
attendees:
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Representative:
Matt Munger, WHPacifc
2141 W. Airport Way, Ste. 104
Boise, ID 83705
B. Owner:
Bridgetower Investments, LLC
2228 Piazza Drive
Meridian,ID 83646
IV. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 311I2019
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 2/26/20I9
Applicant posted site on 3/8/2019
Nextdoor posting 2/26/2019
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
PROJECT HISTORY
Prato Villas/Summerwood: In 2006, the Prato Villas project received annexation approval (AZ-
06-022, DA Instrument #108087854). In 2017, a new preliminary plat was approved by the city
known as Summerwood (11-2017-0083). A DA modification was not required at the time of the
Summerwood plat approval because the new layout complied with the provisions of the recorded
DA.
Volterra Mixed-ease:In 2008,a portion of the property(I 1 I acres)was rezoned and removed from
the original development agreement (DA #106034786). This portion of the property has an
approved concept plan that depicts a large business park development. A new development
agreement(instrument# 110051282) was required with the approval of the rezone.
NOTE:The Walmart store and the four(4)parcels located at the NWC of McMillan and Ten
Mile Roads will remain subject to the requirements of this DA and received plat approval in
2015 as the Coleman Subdivision.These conditions remain affect with the subject property.
Volterra North and South: In 2010,this property received preliminary plat(PP)approval for 301
residential lots on 120.6 acres of land for Volterra North Subdivision and approval to rezone (RZ)
58.33 acres from the R-4 (Low-density Residential District) zone to the R-8 (Medium-density
Page 2
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda A►pmZ�94 a�tiici3 $
Residential District)zone and preliminary plat(PP) approval for 194 residential lots on 80.4 acres
of land for Volterra South Subdivision.A modification to an existing development agreement was
approved(DA Instrument#1 1 I010393)to amend the original DA approved with the annexation of
the property in 2006 (DA Instrument#106034786). The DA approved in 2006 was to be replaced
with ❑A Instrument#111010393,but never was.The applicant is now requesting DA#106034796
be terminated as originally intended,
Further, the City Council approved an amendment to ❑A Instrument#I 110 103 93 (H-2016-0033)
to allow a tight-out only access to N. Ten Mile Road within the Volterra South development. The
right-out only access is constructed; however the applicant never signed the amended DA within
the 6-month timeframe so this approval has expired. Because the access is constructed, staff
recommends that the new DA reflect the action of the previous Council decision on the approval
for the access.
MDA Request: The subject 276 acres of property is governed by four(4)development
agreements approved with the various projects as noted above. All of the subject property is
envisioned to develop with a mix of residential and commercial uses. For illustrative purposes,
staff has included the approved plats and concept plan for each of the properties and highlighted
which DA governs the respective property(see Exhibit VII.C). These exhibits will remain as
exhibits in the new DA.
The applicant's request includes the termination of the four(4)previous agreements for the
put-pose of entering into one (1)master agreement to govern►all of the subject property
(approximately 276 acres) (see VI1.B). The applicant believes having one(1) master agreement
will Delp administer development of the subject properties.
Staff has reviewed the terms of the four(4) previous development agreements to determine which
provisions may still apply and if any new provisions should be included into the new master
agreement. Staff has included all of the ❑A provisions that govern the subject property and either
recommended modifications or removal of certain provisions as follows:
Prato Villas/Summerwood DA Provisions(DA Instrument#108087854):
1. Staff recommends that the provisions be removed as they are no longer applicable to
govern the subject property. The applicant has requested as part of the DA modification
that the Sununerwood property be included within the boundary of the new master
agreement. By doing so this property will be afforded the rights to use the open space and
amenities approved with the Volterra North Subdivision. Staff recommends the
termination of DA#108087854.
Volterra Mixed Use DA Provisions (DA Instrument#1 10051282):
L Modify:
or-diFianees in eff-eet air the time of developmeiit and The mixed-use portion of the Volterra
development(area north of McMillan Road;west side of Ten Mile Road)shall be generally
consistent with the conceptual site plan submitted with this application, excluding the
properties subdivided with the Coleman Subdivision, as determined by the Planning
Director. Any major variations to the concept plan shall require an amendment to the
development agreement and requires a new concept plan for the overall development.
2, Remove:
3. Modify: These sites have an existing development agreements recorded as instrument
#106034768, 108087854; 11 1010393,and 110051282. The entire boundary of the
property_as depicted_in Exhibit A.3 acres shall be subject to a new development agreement
Page 3
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda A►pm Z�9 'i gA��01a� 4$
fbF the VelteFFa Mixed Use Pr-a et and will no longer be subject to the previous four(4)
development agreements.
4. Remove:
fooiage ft,.this portion of the deyelr,....,en shall be 558,000 s e fear
5. Remove: T development
eansist of a nainimurn of 11 buildings With no one
6. Remove:
building exceeding 20,000 sEltiare f�et.The maximum allowable non residen6al squar
footage for-this poi4ion of the development shall be 120,000 square Fat
7. Remove: The R 15 zoned
minimom density of 8 dwellings,'bods per-aer-e and a maximum of 75 buildings pFe�Aded 4
does iiot exeeed the de ienis efthe R 15 zoning district with no one buildin
8, Modirly: The applicant shall construct five central plaza areas and associated pathways on
the site as generally depicted on the conceptual site plan for the mixed-use portion of the
Volterra development.
9. Remove: All buildings an the site shall be generally eansisten Be wkh the
attaeked poketes (IaF�ge bex, mhealth care, heiel, 4width club, gene--11 busill-51, Senior- living,
Director-.
;r�
10. Remove: The proposed non residen4ial and Fesidential buildings shall he eonswueted w4h
bi-ielk, wiIh subqtantial stene aec-enis, four sided afehiieeture.! for f-etail Uses One side ilia
or 6le reofing mierials and variations, in colors, roof planes and parapet heigh
11. Remove: A Fninimmm 25 4�aet wide bkif4f shall be eanswHeted along W+ MeMillan Read
a minimum 20 foot wide landsc-ape buffef-s en eaek side 9�the street. Any future local
be designed in accor-clance with the standards listed in UDC 11 3B 7 and shall and N+Ten N4i le Read with 5 feet d etaehed sidewalk+Any Pdnare ealleetef streets shal 1 have
eenstmeted with platting of the propeFty or%rith the issuance of the firs! building peffnit if
tile Plat has flat been reeeFded+
12. Remove: The applicant shall eamply with all landsoaping standafds described in the UDG,
13. Remove: The applicant shall be responsible to obtain a Certificate of Zoning Compliance
prop"-
14. Remove: Any 4"r-e signalization installed as the result of the development of this prvijeet
emer-geticy Fnedical seryiee vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the
de
15. Remove:
designed as a fight in/fight out djivewa�-
16. Modify: The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Department to facilitate the actual
design and exact location of the pathways in accordance with the standards listed in UDC
11-313-8 and 11-313-12, and the Master Pathways Plan. Said pathway shall be constructed
Page 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Aypo-it Z5Z9W 9-'ROgdUMN8
when the extension of the north east/west collector roadway through the mixed-use portion
of the Volterra development is constructed on the site.
Volterra North and South DA Provisions DA Instrument#111010393(terminate DA
Instrument#106034768):
1. That prior to approval of the 200'h residential lot, [including Volterra North and Volterra
South], the 10.2 acre park (James Park) shall be constructed. TUo--The park shall include
the proposed swimming pool and restrooms, the water feature (fountain), club house, the
10=foot wide multi-tise pathway and the tot lot.
Removed and added above. That 4he par4i ..hall iFieWde the p ed el ara
r-estfe ams,the walser-f�atufe(fiamaj H.),elub house,the 10 Feet wide multi use pathwa-y and
+lir+e tot lot.
3. Modify: That prior to approval of the 400"' residential lot (including Volterra North and
Volterra South), the proposed 3 acre park south of McMillan Road shall be constructed.
444 The-park shalt include the prnpos_e_d plaza area and p(aygrc�u_nd_equipm_e_i�t.
Removed and added above: That the pffk sha4l: inelude the pmpesed plaza area and
playground equipment.
S_ Modify: Future development in the C-G. C-C, L-0 and R-15 zones shall comply with the
structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set
forth in the City of Mete ion Design Architectural Standards Manual.
6. Modify: Future homes constructed within the Volterra North, aff&Volterra South and
Summerwood Subdivisions shall substantially comply with the sample elevations attached
to each of the respective Findings
7_ All future development of the subject property shall comply with City of Meridian
ordinances in effect at the time of development.
K. Modify: For Phasing purposes,Volterra North,amlVolterra South.and Summerwood plats
shall be reviewed as one project and all bet# plats shall remain valid as successive phases
receive City Engineer's signature. The same applies to any future time extensions that may
be requested.
Add New Provision:
One"Right Out,Exit Only"access point will be permitted south of the spine road(N.
Vicenza Way) onto Ten Mile Road-for egress from the adjacent commercial lots.
5tafjf s recommended AA P1-0ViSinns are in E.chihit VILE.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed DA modification as set forth in the exhibits in Section
VII.
The Meridian Cjty Council heard these items on March 19,2019,At the nuhlie hearjng the
Council approved the subject MDA request.
a, ummary of City Cottneil Public Hearin:
L In favor: Matt Munger
iy In oonosltlon: None
i:iii. Commenting:Paul Poorman.John W►-coft: Denise LaFever and Vince Rigor
Page 5 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda AypnSZtYU�9�' d98�1n38
jy, Written testimony: None
y. Staff presenting anplicatian:BillBarsons
A Other staff commenting an application: None
1h Key issue(s) of Public Testimony:
h tr_rigation_water supply to the Poorman property.
I Irrigation system developed with the Vicenza Subdivision and limited water supply for
the development.
& City_utility extensions with the Sum merwood prod it
iv, Cvnstruction of the Vket za and VQ[terra private narks and aqy modifications to the
previous subdivision au_nrovals or allowed uses.
t, Key Issues of Discussion b�Council:
L Upgradu to imnroye on the pressurized irrigation system for the development
IL Key Council Changes to Staff/Comnussion Recommendation
L None
Page 6 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Aypn52� �' A 9��fa14$
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Vicinity Map and Existing Development Agreements
RUT Y'�—OVVDC = cu-° w SUNNYW,UIjwwCOVES ti.CM
WOL5 R.Pi!75 cr z =F L• ! ros DfC w lA,"Dt7,8F4TDRw'N45�t. S'ti 1,11��� J r�Er ,., o REI lr{p 1_11 OR
"IlL !,
_^1 `J. 5T r
Volterra North 'iyu■�■ti
' -1 st■IiD- Volterra Mixed Use
w All
' jpi1111�
Prato
Villas/Summerwood f31- -
�r�is
N Coleman
MA :RJ L
yppy uos LS`C:i R-S r2as -•�_ t r �,. __ _
11�5 OF r F1.�4�5T ! ■�a1r�r. _ f
-01
l Y! �d
i r. 57
lA .R IN i ;
Rc �.—, '...' W ASTp
Gp} •,
" ❑R n ��1 i
NA
x$ - - Volterra South
—aE1't1r-33 U z
Page 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda AWk2-522W9-P&M999OU998
B. Legal Description and Development Agreement Boundary
VICENZA SE]I3DMSION D.A.Mott Date: July 11.2017
A pamef of land being it prartion of the SIl2 of Section 27,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise
Meridian,City of Meridian.Ada County,Idaho,tnoru particularly described a:r follows
BEGEVNING at the CIA comer of said Section 27,rnonutnerited by a ohiseled"X"in the wticrete
irrigu;tion structure(Corner Record No.99113299).frotn which the W114 corner of said Section 27.
wonurnented by a 3.5"H ss Cap'(Comer Record No.2015-079246)),hears North 89"20'10"Weal,a
distance of2649.83 feet;
Thence South 89021'i0"East coincident with the ncrrlh line of tine SF?l14 of said Section 27,a distance of
2626.00 feel,to the westerly right of way litre of N.Ten Mile Road,
Thence South 0t702l'16"West,coincident with said wu.*totly right of way line,South 00°21'16"Wost,o
distance of 1331.59 feet;
Thence North 89038'44"West,coincident with said westerly right of way line,u distance of 9,00 feet;
Thence South 00021'Id"West,coincident with said westerly right of way lint,a distance of 17413 feet;
Thence North 89*38144"West,coincident with said westerly right of way line,a distaucr;of 13.00 feet;
Thence North 89°15'22"West,a distance of 622.75 feat;
Thence North(r49'12"East,a disinac;e of 112.27 feet;
Thence North 88'56'29"West,a distance of434,84 feet to the easterly right of way line of Nouih Vicenza
Strce,
Thence South 60"29'30'West a distance of 62,00 feet to the westerly right of way line of North Vicenza
Street and the beginning of a non-tangent curve to the righti
Thence southerly along the arc of said curve in the right,coincident with said westerly right(Away lime,
an arc distance of 130_71 feet,said curve having a radius DI'245.00 feet,a central anglo of 30°34'bl",and
a chord bearing of South 14°13'29"East a distancc of 129.16 feet;
Thencc South 41 OY31"West,coincident with said we%lerly right of way line,a distance of 5$11.00 feet,
to tiro beginning of a curve to the lafi;
Thence southerly along the Am of said curve to the left,coincident witfs said westerly right of way line.an
grc distance of 154.00 fed,uld curve having a radius of 385.00 fret,a central angle of22'55'O6",find a
chord hearing of South 10024'02."East a distance of 152.98 ftxt;
Thence South 21°5 P35"East,coincident with said westerly tight or way line a distance of 79.91 feet,to
the heginning of a curve to the right;
Thence southerly along the arc of said curve to the right,coincident with said westerly fight of way line,
an are distance of 54.40 feet,said curve having a radius of 136.00 feet,a central angle of 2.21155,06",and a
chord bearing of South 10'24'02"East a distance of 54-04 feet;
Page 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Apt 2-1:�Wlg-P&jtgAMblia1298
Thomce Soutl►OI'03'31"Wost,coincident with said westerly right of way line,a tiislance of 170.81 foot
to the nurtherly right of way line of W.McN iilan Road;
Tltcnce North 18156'29"West,coincident with said northerly right of way line,a distance.of 751.53 foot;
Thence South 36°29'57"East,coincident with said northerly right of way line,a distance of7.57 foot;
Thence North 88156'29"West,coincident with said northerly right of way line,a dbrtwwe of 843A0 Fret,
to the southwest corner ofthe Vicenza Subdivision,Book 108,Pages 15026-15028,Ada County Records;
Thence North 00129'00"last,coincident with the westerly Iine ofsaid Vicenza Subdivision,a distance+of
595.90 foot;
Thence North 00019'01"Ease,coincident with said westerly line,a distance of659.78&act to the
northeast corner of Black Cat Estates No.Z,Book 32,Pages 1945-1946,Ada County Records;
Thenco North 89917A6"West,coincident widt the northerly line of said Black Cat Estates No. 1,n
ditirancc of 1261.80 Poet;
Tlicnec i,oilh 12"47'57"Wost,a distance of 206,31 feet;
Thcnec North Err V 16"West,a distance ai 396.71 feet;
Thenco North 50"5p'32"West.a distance of 89.09 fact;
Thence North 34^24'23"West,a distanov of 79.54 feet;
Thence North Ir38'57"Wes t,a distanim of 111.75 feet;
,rlicnco North 89134'5 5"West,a distancc of 24 3.7 1 faet to the easterly right of way Tina of North Black
Cat Aond;
Thence North D0 31'10"Host,a inuftknt wick said naxterly right of way Zinc,a distance of 876-76 feet to
the north line of llw SW 114 of said Seetiun 27;
rT'henca South 89120'l0"Feast a distance of 2601,83 foot to the POINT OF BEGWIiiNG1,
The$hove described parcel wntains 8,645,194 square fcct ex 198.47 acres,more or less.
A"ALSO
Lots 6 and 7,Black Cat Estates No.2,13ock 32,Pages 1945-1946,Ada County Records.
'Phis legal doscripticm was compiled from Data of Record.
Together with and subject to covenants,eascrucnts,and restrictions of record.
d�pL lLA�pS
Kevin M.BoralL P.L.S. 0. —r 0 _ ¢ Licensp No. 1 nS t
�,TirtJl� �
M. B4-.
rave 9
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Ap*2,'R=g-P&Md9&bfo3W8
Ally.
b
K BLACK CAT RD
N -
CD
wt
ti
� r �■i gygy
wt
� N q
M HCIAt.,i!
;
� sVYI"161 S3k.5V' I
M TEN MILE R6
VICENZA DA MODIFICATION "' "°'"� — VP.%M
COTiONW000 mwLOPWNT,LLC. qA F1kEIT UICEIf�Il u�drr mm"
alr.x��n,wmn
Nr8 sutvwr
Page 10
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Ayn&Z2211119.-P&_M99(9&U9%8
VOLTERRA SUED VMON D.A.Mod Date. ]tilt' It,2017
A parcel of land being a portion of theN112.NFlld of Section 34,Township h North,Rangy 1 Wmt,
Bviso 71 eridiaa,City of Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,mere particularly described as follows;
COMMRNCI<NG at the N 1 r4 earner of said Section 314,mottutnenicd by a 518"Rebar with illegible Crap
(Corner Record No.2015-079244).frtrtn which the northeast corner of said Section 34,monumentcd by a
518"Rebar(Cotner Record No. 1081224f19),bears South 88°56'29"East,a cllstanee of"?654.64 feet;
Thence South 0143'44"West,anincident with the west lino of said N117.WEV4,a distance of 25A0 fbat,
to the southerly right of way line far W-McMillan lined and the P00T OF BEsx.MIING;
Thence South 88°56'29"East,coincident with said southerly right of way line,a distance or2558.55 fem
'Thence South 52"4943"East,co[ricidcrtt frith said rmutherly right of way be,a distance of 61.70 feet,to
1hr westerly right of way line ofN.Ton bile Road;
Tltence South D01152146"West,coincident with said westerly right of way line, a distarice of 1254-13 feet
to the south line or said N112 NE114;
Thence]North 89'06'34"West,coincident with said south line,a distance of 2605.15 fact to the wulhwest
uori L-ta of spa Id N 112 NR I14(M 1116 comor);
Thence North Q143'44"Past,coincident with the west line of said N112 NFI14,a distance of 1298.16 feas,
to the POINT OF BEGINNING:
The above dcsctibcxl parcel u)nlains 3,373,73K square feet or 77.45 sores,more or fees,
'This legal description was complied From Data ofR000rd.
Togeffw with and suhject to.covenants,casrments,and restrictions of record,
Kevin Borah.P LS -- License No. 14561
c++�, 711 t
�rF a1F No
PA.
— Page 1 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda A4imb2-1:�M4-PRjgA9P4fra238
i
c p sa r
Rae � a€
to
� 1 I
Al
I I
F -EQ 4 �
I � I
_ 56'S7�6'M 1'lSs3i' _
� ? H TEN MILE RD p �
Nam�a
.ik5} �� SC58
w
z + M
cn
VOLTERRA DA MODIFICATION w111u pacl fiC
I1
i COTMWA)W DEVELOPMENT.LLC. __ EkHIBIT µ��.. An®71J eieM��Nb1�W1
NTS wr►suals
nv�o5ii MYG 11 rnN��
Page I? -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Ap*2,'R=9-PE"d 9&5WW8
C. Approved Plats and Concept Plan(Include as Exhibits in the New DA)
5umrnerwood:
S[alilfh'Y.TOOD FST"9TF.5 ii'I3AIS7SI4ti
serrs� w tars c d a.
Vl,na r VUCE CAF n:7,V N. a �r
fIw-V,,Y.6 IF.61 F'. 3 U. l
[SfY n_'-Wjwree AfLI LttL9'PF LaHO
a7ta ..- Y�il
{fill
.fin .uan�a.m� µr �...' - ....err�• -- —__—_—�f_—- __
- j.
� SA
111E1
+ S IXf
I
a
_ ....;i'�•... ..'w.�'......;•...._....... 5 3 is
�- 1 �yl41 K�.•4IiSdL'-xiT,R.'I�'C � a
--
,� _. ... - — -- -- -- —• - r � ya5 :^� i.:�r_,...- gay -.. ..pP1
I
+l
�.PP2
Page 13
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda hqmk 2522W 9-'mod 91°OU048
Volterra Mixed-Use/Volterra North and South
17
1. ',,. ��•y'2� �: _ .... f 'C3 - — "a. aE�+.n` ,�ji: 0+q �_r`S
i
. -. �:,_•_vim _ ;'f2 ..dl� � � 3 S
-------- ..-.'. �. u its [121% �
-ice t i_ 'r {
r fYiY�i•T• i s_li.i ':t.i •.y...'- _ w/y. �• _ y
Page 14
Meridian City Council Meeting Benda
K !1 h� V t 1 �• _ _ � �1 i _
■y l
_
1 - kj
17
�(09wk
# � 'I
• T°
LLA k
Mr. RMIP
:.
it ■ �� - �i � �.
D. Staff Recommended Development Agreement Provisions
CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY:
6.1.Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special
conditions:
1. The mixed-use portion of the Volterra development (area north of McMillan Road; west
side of Ten Mile Road)shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan submitted
with this application,excluding the properties subdivided with the Coleman Subdivision,as
detennined by the Planning Director.Any major variations to the concept plan shall require
an amendment to the development agreement and requires a new concept plan for the overall
development.
2_ These sites have existing development agreements recorded as instrument 4106034768,
108087854; 111010393; and ] ]0051282.The entire boundary of the property as depicted
in Vll.B shall be subject to a new development agreement and will no longer be subject to
the previous four(4) development agreements.
3.. The applicant shall construct five(5) central plaza areas and associated pathways on the
site as generally depicted on the conceptual site plan for the mixed-use portion of the
Volterra development.
4.. The applicant shall coordinate with the Parks Department to facilitate the actual design
and exact location of the pathways in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 1]-3B-
8 and 11-3B-12,and the Master Pathways Plan. Said pathway shall be constructed when
the extension of the northern east/west collector roadway through the mixed-use portion of
the Volterra development is constructed on the site.
5. That prior to approval of the 200"'residential lot,(including Volterra North and Volterra
South), the 10.2 acre park(James Park)shall be constructed. The park shall include the
proposed swimming pool and restrooms,the water feature(fountain),clubhouse,the 10-
foot wide multi-use pathway and the tot lot.
T That prior to approval of the 400`h residential lot (including Volterra North and Volterra
South), the proposed three(3)acre park south of McMillan Road shall be constructed. The
park shall include the proposed plaza area and playground equipment.
8.. Future development in the C-G, C-C, L-O and R-15 zones shall comply with the structure
and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines set forth in the
Architectural Standards Manual.
9. Future homes constructed within the Volterra North, Volterra South and Sumrnerwood
Subdivisions shall substantially comply with the sample elevations attached to each of the
respective Findings.
10. All future development of the subject property shall comply with City of Meridian
ordinances in effect at the time of development.
11. For phasing purposes, Volterra North, Volterra South and Summerwaod plats shall be
reviewed as one(1)project and a]1 plats shall remain valid as successive phases receive City
Engineer's signature.The same applies to any future time extensions that may be requested.
12. One "Right Out, Exit Only" access point will be pennitted south of the spine road (N.
Vicenza Way)onto N. Ten Mile Road for egress from the adjacent commercial lots.
Page 16 —
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda A►pm Z 9 't �p �fa��4$
Exhibit B
Excerpt from City Council Hearing Transcript, December 21, 2021
(attached)
Exhibit B 1
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 5 of 82
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue this item, which is ZOA-2021-0003 to January 11 th, 2022.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing to January 11 th,
2022. Is there any discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay?
The ayes have it and the item is continued.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
2. Public Hearing for Alpha Development R-15 MDA(H-2021-0094) by
Alpha Development Group, Located at Parcel S0427438410, on the
North Side of W. McMillan Rd. Between N. San Vito Way and N.Vicenza
Way, Near the Northwest Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan
Rd.
A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove the
subject parcel from the boundary of the existing Development
Agreement (Summerwood Subdivision, H-2019-0001, Inst. #2019-
055407) for the purpose of creating a new Development
Agreement consistent with a new concept plan and proposal for a
multi-family development on 16.6 acres of land in the R-15 zoning
district.
Simison: Next up is public hearing for Alpha Development, R-15, MDA, H-2020-0094.
We will open this public hearing with staff comments and let Joe talk about this one that
he knows about.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This one, yeah, I know a little bit more about this one.
As noted, this is for Alpha Development, which is the developer on this. R-15 is in
reference to the existing zoning. The application before you tonight is a development
agreement modification to remove the subject parcel from the boundary of the existing
DA, which is Summerwood Subdivision from 2019, for the purpose of creating a new DA
consistent with a new concept plan that consists of multi-family development. The site
consists of 16.6 acres of land, zoned R-15 and it's located near the northwest corner of
Ten Mile and McMillan. It's directly behind -- to the west of Walmart right there on the
corner. The site had, in 2008, a comp plan map amendment to change the property to
mixed use community from medium density residential. In 2019 there was a DAto remove
this area from a larger area, which I believe was part of the Volterra and Vicenza
Subdivisions to the south and west respectively. So, now the R-15 piece and the C-C, L-
O, and the C-G is all part of the existing development agreement. So, this DA mod, again,
is to remove this 16.6 acres from that DA and enter into a new one. There was also in --
last year we did a property boundary adjustment to adjust the property line in line with the
existing zoning. The north property boundary of this R-15 actually used to extend further
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 6 of 82
north. So, we moved that to match up with the zoning, so we wouldn't have to split zoning
on a property. As noted this property is part of a mixed use community future land use
designation. It is part of a larger MUC area that encompasses area to the north and even
a little bit on the southwest corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. So, here and, then, all this.
It's the brown with the polka dots. The current concept plan depicts a large scale business
park consisting of a private hospital or some other large employer, large and small scale
retail professional and personal services, restaurants, and specific to this property an area
of assisted living facilities with supportive medical offices. So, again, this DA and concept
plan encompasses that whole mixed use community area on the north side of McMillan.
The assisted living has been argued about with the applicant -- not this specific applicant,
with the previous property owner many many months and where that comes from,
although it's not specifically listed in the DA, is some of the original narratives all the way
back to 2008 and this DA concept plan is just kind of carried away through all the different
applications since then. As we all know that area has not been developed. There is no
large retailer. There is no hospital. In fact, the hospital that could have gone here is
probably going to go on further north in another project with a different project that we
have already approved. Because of that the applicant and the former property owner
does not believe that this specific R-15 site could develop with the -- sorry. With the
assisted living community. Staff does agree with that finding because of the existing -- I
guess circumstances. Without that large retailer or employer assisted living in this area
would be kind of a standalone use and we do not find that it -- it's been sitting like this for
well over a decade with the zoning in place ready for this type of use. The applicant --
well, for the new concept plan, which is here, the applicant depicts two types of multi-
family buildings, a townhome style on the west half, which would be on the bottom. North
is to the left side of the screen. Townhome style on the west half and more traditional
apartment buildings on the east side and the reason why I know that is because in our
pre-application meeting they submitted elevations that showed this. They did not submit
elevations with this MDA, but in the pre-app I have seen those, as well as you can kind
of tell by the building footprint these are definitely different styles of buildings. In addition,
the applicant has oriented a majority of the townhome style buildings along the west
boundary and they face north and south, rather than east and west. And they also placed
a drive aisle directly along the west boundary to provide a transition from Bridgetower,
which is on the west side of San Vito Way. This helps reduce building massing along the
street and it also creates a larger physical separation. The renderings of the site plan, I
-- like I said, the buildings were facing the other direction and they were closer to the
property line. It is my understanding the applicant had at least two neighborhood
meetings and redesigned or made some modifications to the site plan in response to
some of the discussions had at those neighborhood meetings. Staff does appreciate how
they have created a more physical separation. They are going to maintain the existing
sidewalk in San Vito Way, as well as orient the buildings in such a way that helps with
building massing where you see the end of buildings, rather than not one giant wall facade
of apartment buildings. In general the design shown on the concept plan does depict a
transition of density, building massing, and overall intensity of the proposed multi-family
use from the west to the east towards the hard commercial corner of Ten Mile and
McMillan, with Walmart being there. The apartment style units on the east half of the site
are shown framing some centralized open space and amenities, such as sports courts,
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 7 of 82
and to their south an apparent clubhouse and pool are shown along the McMillan Road.
There are several other -- several other areas of open space shown throughout the site
that appear to meet the minimum standards for qualified open space. But to be clear, this
is just for a development agreement modification tonight. The future conditional use
permit will be required because of the zoning and the proposed use. So, some of these
specific details, meaning the amount of parking spaces, the amount of qualified open
space, the number of units are not known and they are not solid -- they are not solidified
right now with this application. In the narrative they discussed building at the maximum
amount of density, which would be 15 units to the acre, which is associated with the
underlying future land use designation of mixed use community and not the zoning. R-
15 zoning has nothing to do with density. The submitted plan does show each drive aisle
as well, with sidewalks that connect within the entire site and out to the adjacent collector
streets. In terms of pedestrian facilities within a multi-family development, the submitted
concept plan shows a robust pedestrian network that would offer ample connectivity to
and through the site and to commercial uses to the east and potential future commercial
uses to the north. It is important to note that the green space at the very north end of the
site, which is on the concept plan in my staff report, all this area here was shown as green
space and there was no property line depicted, which I called out in my staff report as
being concerning, because we-- I couldn't tell where the property line was. The applicant
sent this in response that does show the property line, which staff has confirmed that this
is accurate. This green space is not part of the open space, it is currently zoned C-C and
owned by somebody else. With this green space here staff does anticipate ample
connectivity there, which would be great to future commercial uses. The applicant, again,
provided this in response to my concerns, which I do appreciate. The applicant will also
need to coordinate the driveway connection with the adjacent property owner to San Vito
Way. As you can tell this does not exist or is not proposed on their site plan -- or on their
site, so they would have to coordinate that. Staff does want this connection to line up
with this one, so that there is easier access to the elementary school further to the west.
That's Planning 101. You want easy access to and from schools. There were --there are
three public streets abutting the subject site, on the west, south, and east boundaries,
which is rather odd. McMillan on the south side is an arterial street and you have San
Vito on the west, which is a collector and Vicenza Way on the east, which is also a
collector street. Therefore, access to McMillan is restricted and access to Vicenza and
San Vito are very heavily monitored. They have proposed all their connections in line
with existing curb cuts, which is going to be required by ACHD and also matches all of
staffs -- I should say UDC or development code requirements. They did not -- Vicenza
Way and San Vito Way are collector streets that do not currently connect north of the site.
As you can see there is noted as future road here. This applicant is not required to extend
those roads, because those roads do -- the future road network, which are shown on the
master street map, is not located on this property. Vicenza Way currently only provides
access to the Walmart property that has accesses to Ten Mile through some shared drive
aisles, specifically on their north side, which would be this one here, but relatively a
straight shot out to Ten Mile. The San Vito Way is the main access point from McMillan
to Bridgetower Subdivision, which is west of the subject site. Because of the existing
conditions the applicant depicts two access points to the -- to Vicenza and one access
point to San Vito Way. Overall these connections point -- connection points and the
Meridian City Council
Item A4. December 21,2021
Page 8 of 82
internal drive aisles shown on the concept plan show adequate circulation for the site and,
again, align with any future ACHD policies. I would like to note ACHD doesn't comment
on MDAs, so that's why we have not had --received anyACHD comments. The two north
access points, one to each adjacent collector street, provide a connection that should
help capture nearby vehicle trips to and from the commercial area at the northwest corner
of McMillan and Ten Mile by minimizing the need to access McMillan and this is important
because McMillan is relatively a strange corridor, meaning that it is not going to be
widened specifically in this area as far as I'm aware, because of the existing irrigation
facility on the south side, as well as the big power lines on the south side, all those
easements that encumber McMillan. But that being said, if we can capture vehicle trips
from Bridgetower and including future multi-family uses and commercial to access the
commercial uses on Ten Mile or get to Ten Mile without using McMillan, that helps the
overall traffic flow in the area. Because this is part of a mixed use area that is not yet
developed and the site is already zoned for residential uses, staff does support the
applicant's request to enter into a new DA consistent with this development plan. Staff
does not anticipate the existing DA concept plan is attainable in its scope or its use as
noted. Furthermore, staff finds that the required mixed use policies will be met in the
future as commercial areas in the vicinity develop and provide connectivity between uses
and sites. When I wrote my outline this morning there was only one public -- one piece
of public testimony and that was from the previous owner and the existing owner to the
north, who noted support of the application, which tells me that he is probably more than
willing to work with them on the driveway connection to San Vito, which is appreciated.
Following that I did receive -- copied on two other additional pieces of public testimony
that cited pretty typical comments about multi-family, you know, concern with traffic,
school overcrowding, which is very very apparent to all of us at this point, as well as some
livability issues and wanting the buildings to be no more than two stories. I will say that
with the requirements of open space, parking, and any of the other development criteria,
I do not anticipate them getting 249 units, which would be the maximum allowed.
Granted, as I noted before, a future conditional use permit will determine that. I added a
specific condition or DA provision in my staff report that requires at least 25 percent
qualified open space, which is probably more than what they would by code and that is,
again, to help mitigate some of the concerns of -- of the unit count as one and, two, the
livability of this area. I understand that the Bridgetower folks and residents there are
concerned about people utilizing their park space. I understand that came up in a
previous application. If we can provide ample open space and amenities in this project
that should help minimize that tremendously. Part of that DA provision inclusion was from
the applicant proposing 30 percent in their narrative, which was not specific to qualified
or unqualified. I assume that if I made them do 30 percent qualified they would never be
able to meet it and we would be back here again asking to modify that. So, I did some
calculations in my staff report. I won't get into that, but I think 25 percent is attainable and
very livable for the community. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 9 of 82
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Thank you, Mayor. Joe, what mechanism does the city have for that property to
the north that's already zoned and annexed to ensure that that connection that you
reference is the --
Dodson: You are talking this San Vito connection?
Borton: Correct.
Dodson: In this DA-- in the MDA I have required that they work with that applicant to get
that connection. With the adjacent property owner I don't have anything in place. I guess
technically we don't have a specific mechanism yet from his side of it. My understanding
is I have met with Mr. McCollum multiple times and we are probably going to start kicking
-- kicking the tires on this property to the north here soon and at that point when that
redevelops or some new plan gets put into place we will very likely be requiring this
connection as well. I have very good faith that this applicant will work with that and they
do have a DA provision required to do that.
Borton: Follow up, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: That property to the north has a DA provision requiring it to --
Dodson: No. This project will.
Borton: Okay. What's -- but what's the procedural mechanism? I'm thinking of the worst
case scenario. Is there some process or application that C-C property to the north --
Dodson: To require it, no, we do not have a procedural path.
Borton: So --
Dodson: We -- they will have to revise the staff report -- or I should say the concept plan
slightly to move that access point if they want another -- which we would require another
access point to San Vito if they can't get that one for overall circulation and fire
requirements, but we do not have a mechanism to require that other property owner to
be a part of that, no.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Dodson: You're welcome.
Meridian City Council
Item i�4. December 21,2021
Page 10 of—
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, Joe, I wanted to understand -- so, this is -- this is
-- the overall original or existing DA, how many acres is that? Did you say it was 55?
Dodson: I muted myself. Wow. Council Woman Perreault, I believe in total it's closer to
80 acres I believe from my last project that I did on this site. The remaining area of
commercial is give or take 55, because some of the zoning is right of way, so --
Perreault: So, I anticipate that-- and that includes the -- the Walmart property, too. So, I
anticipate that all of the -- the acreage that exists farther away from the arterials will not
want to develop into commercial. So, I guess I'm just -- and I will also ask this question
to the applicant, but are we going to be looking at this entire 80 acres as the mixed use
area and are the different owners and applications going to have to meet the ratios
required in the mixed use category? In other words, if they build residential here is that
going to limit the other property owners to the north from building residential as well,
because they are not meeting the ratios for mixed use as a whole?
Dodson: Great question, Council Woman Perreault. First, the 80 acres -- or I believe it's
76 to be specific, does not include the Walmart area. It is actually this --
Perreault: Oh.
Dodson: -- 16.6 and, then, the remaining C-C and L-O and C-G to the north. So, exclude
this little square here. I don't know what that acreage is. But the 80 or 77 is all this.
Secondly; this property is already zoned R-15, so we --they are going -- they are already
allowed, technically, to do some type of residential use. Our mixed use community does
not have a minimum commercial ratio, which I have my own personal feelings about, but
that's not one of the things and our Comprehensive Plan has a minimum residential
component, which I believe is 40 percent in mixed use community. I anticipate that not
all of that area will be commercial. Yes, I do anticipate that the remaining area to the
north, which will be another DA modification before you at some point, but this specific R-
15 area it's already zoned for residential, so some residential use should go here,
because we are not dealing with the rezone tonight. It's just a matter of whether that's
going to match this concept plan, which I just don't see feasible. Even if I took out the
use these look like some form of multi-family anyways. The reason why staff, myself, and
my supervisors have determined that a development agreement modification is required,
rather than just saying, hey, it's multi-family and multi-family go ahead and do a CUP and
move on, is because of the narrative that was part of that. So, again, I have -- I have
gone around and around with legal, as well as the other property owner, about why DA
mod is necessary and I think we have threaded the needle appropriately in order to
require that, but residential uses should go on this property.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Then is the applicant here,
like to come forward? State your name and address for the record and be recognize for
15 minutes.
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 11 of 82
Holt: Dustin Holt. Salt Lake City, Utah. Mr. Mayor and Council Members, thank you very
much for your time this evening. Traveling quite a bit in -- in what I do, I appreciate the
time that it takes for you to serve your community, even though I'm not a member of your
community. Alpha Development Group, just very quickly, is a joint venture between my
company dbURBAN and the Ball Ventures family-- Ball family out of Idaho Falls that you
are familiar with. We are extremely excited about this property. We are extremely excited
about the opportunity of this property. I want to thank Joe and Mr. Parsons both for their
time on this. I think Joe mentioned it. Initially there was conversations about whether or
not a DA modification was even necessary for us to go through this process. In our
meeting with the neighbors we actually learned and understood that they very much
wanted it to be a part of that process. So, this process for us has been ongoing for about
seven or eight months. We started with initial conversations with Bill Parsons and the
property owner. Mr. McCollum was a -- was a difficult property owner. He has a
tremendous vision for this property, for this area. As you know he put cobblestones down
at -- at Bridgetower when others probably wouldn't have. So, I appreciate that he sent a
letter in support and we have a wonderful communication. We went through a process
with him -- I'm going to call it an interviewing process. There were multiple groups that
were vying for this property with him or from him and in going through that process I think
we learned -- we earned his trust and his respect that we will bring forth a tremendous
project to this community and to the greater community and to Bridgetower itself. We
acquired this property back in July. Shortly after that -- and I don't know-- oh, Joe, thank
you. The mouse is squirrely. Might take forever to click through here. You guys know
where the property is. The Bridgetower master plan. So, we --we met with --we brought
a concept plan to Joe and Bill in September. That's this plan here. We showed a couple
of these different orientations of roadways and access points. They were quick to correct
us on making certain that we hit several drive aisles. Again, we understand this is not
part of the CUP or the design review process right now, but we tried to make certain
everyone understands the intent of what we are trying to do and we are willing to put this
into our DA modification. So, we -- we showed this plan to Planning staff, they had a
handful of comments that -- that we, then, took back, presented to the community, the
neighborhood on October 25th. We presented this plan. Again, multiple points of ingress-
egress on the Vicenza, as well as San Vito. You can see on the -- on the bottom of the
screen here some of those townhome units facing San Vito. From an urban planning
perspective we -- we like that, our planners liked it, but, admittedly we were working in a
little bit of a vacuum, so we got -- we got comments back from the neighbor -- or the
neighborhood. At that meeting we -- we heard several things. So, we heard -- I will
actually click down here. So, we heard that they did not want this community to be part
of the Bridgetower master planned community. They did not want our residents utilizing
the amenities provided by the master plan. So, part of the intent of this is to remove this
community from that master plan and provide the amenities as Joe has pointed out on
this site for residents of this community. So, we started with that as a -- as a really big no
no that we heard from the neighborhood. Second, we heard that the fence along this
southern or western property south on the screen, they want -- it's a fence that exists.
They did not want units up against that fence and so we oriented the units and changed
the orientation on that -- on that western property line to be respectful that. In addition, in
working with Fire, we needed a 26 foot fire separation road around here and so we added
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 12 of 82
that, which creates an even greater buffer along that western property. And, then, along
McMillan they -- there were concerns about a three story under the zone and also inside
of the mixed use it permits up to a 40 foot height. That really in our role is three stories,
but there were concerns about that 40 feet or three stories up against McMillan and so
we, as you can see in this image, agreed to move the amenities, the clubhouse, the
leasing office, the coffee shop, cafe, some of that up along McMillan and move the -- the
building -- the three story building a little bit further inland. We went through a couple of
the pros and cons that we saw. So, in updating this it did provide less open space. This
one got us down to about 30 percent. I know there is a qualified and an unqualified. For
the record if we are planning a 4,000 square foot area of sod with a -- with a bench and
a spot for a dog wastebasket, we will do that, even though the qualified needs it to be
5,000 square feet. So, we will either increase it to 5,000 or we will do it anyway. But
that's part of -- in working with Joe that's part of the qualified, nonqualified ratios where
we are looking at, compared to the city ordinance. But we show the -- excuse me. We
showed the residents that in doing that we lost overall space. We went from multiple
clubhouse and multiple pool areas to one larger clubhouse, one larger fitness facility, pool
facility. We turned our backs to some -- what we feel are basic urban design principles
along San Vito. Traffic was -- was a concern. We wanted units facing that as natural
traffic calming measures. We understand the concern and we are okay with that concern.
So, we presented this concept plan on the 15th and, really, with -- with a slight
confirmation or verification of the -- of the site boundaries, this is what is proposed to be
part of the -- the DA. So, our DA modification -- again we want to remove ourselves from
that existing DA modification, allow our open space and our amenities to service this
portion of the community. We want to include this concept plan and we are in agreement
that we will -- we will develop substantially in compliance with this or a plan as approved
through the CUP and the design review. We understand that those are forthcoming steps
in this process. I think that the-- the last maybe comment for me to make is in discussion
with Fire this road out to San Vito is not necessary from Fire's perspective. From a
planner's perspective -- and I agree with Joe from kind of Planning 101, instead of forcing
residents out on to McMillan and all the way back up and around and in through a loop, I
think it is something that should be integrated. We have had conversations with Mr.
McCollum about this. He is in -- in favor of it. I am confident, as Joe is, that we can work
that out. We are willing to say that's a condition of our development agreement
modification. That -- that being said, we have submitted an initial traffic study to ACHD
and we are awaiting their -- their formal approval, formal feedback. We are initially
hearing that probably a right-in and a -- or not a right-in, a decel and an acceleration lane
along McMillan will be required and then -- because it can only occur on the north side it
will be required to be on our property, which in the -- in the staff report we have said that
we would adhere to and make any mitigations required by ACHD. So, we have -- we
have read the staff report. We are in agreement with its findings, its recommendation,
and respectfully this evening we would request your -- your approval as well. Thank you
for your time. Happy to answer any specific questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
Item#4. December 21,2021
Page 13 of 82
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Holt, question if you may indulge me. Mr. Holt, appreciate you kind of
providing some flavor in addition to staffs presentation. I guess my only question for you
thus far is --has it always been envisioned for you and your team to do high density multi-
family or were there any other concepts that you guys tossed around before you landed
on this?
Holt: No, not ours. So, in our conversations with Mr. McCollum multi-family -- some --
some type of medium and higher density transition from commercial to the west to the
single family was something that was envisioned. I think that there was a conversation
about some of the assisted living potential when the hotel--or hospital was --was planned
for being here. For --for us residential is the product type that -- that we do and we look
at. We are in agreement that a variety of product is something that is necessary. It's
needed. Different housing stock for the area allows for a lot of variation as well and that's
something that we are comfortable with.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I did want to clarify my point about residential uses should be here. I saw Mr.
Cavener's face to that and I recognize that the appropriate responses are appropriate
here because of the existing zoning. Should or should not is subjective and I'm not here
to design anybody's project. I don't get paid enough. None of us do and that's fine. That's
just not our -- that's just not our -- our purview being a city planner and I'm trying to help
the development community, as well as help the residents build a better Meridian.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Joe, first for saying that I appreciate your clarification on that. Mr. Holt, maybe
an additional question while I have got you here. My assumption is that there aren't any
plans to market this to a specific age demo. You are looking to attract anyone and
everyone in Meridian that needs this type of a housing product.
Holt: Correct.
Cavener: Okay. Thank you.
Holt: We do have plans through the -- the flats, as well as the townhomes, to have
everything from a studio to a three bed. So, the townhome is a three bed, two and a half
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 1 of 82
bath, two car garage and, then, the -- the flats would be able to provide something of a
smaller scale.
Cavener: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions? All right. Thank you much. Mr. Clerk, do
we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I believe so. On the sign-up nobody marked they wanted to testify,
so I will just call them, because I think some intended to. First Christian Jensen.
Simison: As your name is called if you would like to testify, please, come forward and
state your name and address for the record and you will be recognized for three minutes
and if there is anybody online that would like to provide testimony, please, indicate in
advance by using the raise your hand feature on Zoom.
Jensen: Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Christian Jensen. I actually live on 3833 Daphne
Street, so I'm in the first loop that -- as you enter Bridgetower West and out my backyard
I would look into this neighborhood. So, I appreciate the changes that were made and
the -- I think the developer has been very open in conversation with us. I think the biggest
concern that I would like to bring up is traffic. I don't see parking on here and I know it
was said that there is work to be done to figure out what that is, but the two access points
to McMillan are pretty busy as it is. That is the -- one of the only ways to get into Walmart
from our way is on that street behind on the east side of this development and it's quite
busy as it is. There is also a lot of semis that park there that -- as they are waiting, so I
think the traffic and congestion -- to put a facility like this in I would like to suggest that a
more substantial decision made on access to McMillan -- or, excuse me, to Ten Mile is
made, so that there is a more significant exit point to a bigger street, because I don't
believe that McMillan is big enough to handle this and the -- the additional traffic through
the neighborhood with all the kids running around I think would be potentially dangerous.
The other point that I would like to make if I could -- it was mentioned earlier by the Council
Woman on the screen about the north piece of property and 1 was a part of the Zoom call
last January when we spoke about that. A different developer was trying to do work here
and they wanted to --a developer wanted to do housing on the north side and this Council
made a very clear point that we are not changing the zoning there, because we don't
need more housing, we need more jobs and we need to stop people from driving away
from the neighborhoods to work. So, I just want to remind the Council of a -- of a pretty
salient point that was made then, so that we don't create too much housing density on
this property.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I remember that. I don't think it got to us. I think it was -- I think he removed it
before he got to us. I think that that conversation happened at Planning and Zoning.
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 15 of 82
Jensen: Yeah. You are right. I agree that it was moved. I just wanted to remind, because
the question was asked what if we put more housing there and I think it was even said --
and I would guess that we will. I just wanted to remind the Council that you guys had
decided that that was probably not something that we wanted to go forward with.
Simison: I think what -- Planning and Zoning is not Council, though.
Jensen: Pardon me?
Simison: Council never heard that conversation.
Jensen: Oh.
Simison: It was the body below.
Jensen: Oh, I'm sorry.
Simison: That's why --
Jensen: I don't -- okay.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question, Mr. Jensen. I want to make sure I understand your comment about
the access to Ten Mile and so on this map -- we use that. So, are you saying a more
robust connection to that northern part that goes on the north side of Walmart to be able
to connect to --
Jensen: Right. Joe, I think -- is your name? Would you mind putting the -- the map up
that was the whole piece? I could point it out better there.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Jensen: It was the black and white where you were showing the 80 acres or the 72 acres.
Apologize.
Hoaglun: No. It's all right.
Jensen: Okay. So -- so, you can see that the only -- the only road where that -- really
where the arrow is pointing, that's where the -- about where the road is that goes from
behind the Walmart out to McMillan and the traffic on there, especially in seasons like
right now, it's very congested. But I believe that Ten Mile is the best avenue to get traffic
out of that -- out of that development to the rest of Meridian and if we are -- if this would
develop without having that secured, then, we would be relying on two very small roads
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 1 U of 82
to lead onto another small road, which is McMillan, and I believe the traffic congestion
would be -- if not very congested, potentially dangerous.
Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Mr. Jensen. And what I'm wondering -- you know, they show in the
other slide that we had up coming through their development it looked like you would
have to come through their development and connect into that road. But in the future
looks like there is a future road. That's marked. I guess for now we talked about
something more robust, is that what you are talking about through their development
or--
Jensen: A road through their development is of no consequence to me. It's their ability
to get out of their development. So, they have got three exits, which is fine, but the
development -- the exit on the -- I guess it would be the northwest side that comes into
Bridgetower West, that road is only two lanes. It's already pretty congested. There is lots
of kids running up and down the street and so to have the amount of occupants that would
have cars using that as a thoroughfare out would be I think dangerous for the kids running
around our neighborhood and, then, for those that are just trying to exit to go to work, if
everyone had to go through those to going south and to get on McMillan and get out, I
don't think would be sufficient. So, what I would say is to approve a concept plan like this
I would ask that whomever would require a more significant exit that goes to Ten Mile for
the reasons I mentioned.
Hoaglun: I see. Great. Thank you.
Jensen: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor on Zoom is Patricia B.
Simison: Do we have anybody else in the room who is --
Johnson: We do. She's had her hand up since 6:00 o'clock. So, switching back and
forth.
Simison: All right.
Fritschle: Am I free to speak?
Simison: Yep. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Fritschle: My name is Patricia Fritschle, actually. F-r-i-t-s-c-h-I-e. And my address is
5524 North Botticelli Avenue in Meridian. I'm a resident of Bridgetower West. I appreciate
the changes that the developer of this has made and as has been stated we are aware
Meridian City Council
Item#4. December 21,2021
Page 17 of 82
that this is going to be developed. However, everyone in this subdivision was believing it
was going to be something else, as opposed to what is being provided to us now and
when you look around this neighborhood and what is being developed, it is nothing but
residential and while I appreciate the fact that we are in a need for housing, I don't believe
our area is a need for this kind of density and I really don't believe that this development
meshes with what our existing development is and, yeah, I'm just -- when this was
developed this was discussed with us at one of the neighborhood meetings it also was
not open for anybody just to be able to qualify and rent, it was stated to us that it would
be an extremely high end project that would require people who are more of a transitional
phase where they are building a home, coming here and renting while that house is being
developed and they had an expectation of maybe about 15 months, maybe a little bit
longer with the townhomes, but it was not just an open -- 20 college students can rent
one unit and have those additiDnal cars to take up for their traffic and parking and space
and that's all I have to say. I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay.
Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, these I do not know if they want to testify, but I will call them.
Curtis Dabb. Thank you, sir. John Wycoff.
Simison: If you would like to testify just come -- when your name is called just come
forward.
Wycoff: Hi, My name is John Wycoff. 5099 North Bolsena Avenue. Just there is going
to be a lot of changes that have gone on in this place. I had purchased a house next to
a very wide open area, a house set back from my property and, yes, I knew there was
going to be growth in this area. The last time there was nothing going on in there, then,
the house gets wiped out. Find out it's been purchased by some event -- some company,
which was nowhere near the name of what we are dealing with within the area right now.
But, then, it became Bridgetower West. I think what we are dealing with here is an
expansion of this area that's going to go above and beyond what this is right now. We
have water that is just nonexistent sometimes in the summer, where we have been
allocated only specific days on which to pull water from the system and, then, only to find
out that it doesn't work on the days that you are working. The person that's developed
this property in this area is doing so at minimal cost to him in order to expand his budget.
The HOA my belief is will continue so long as any property in that area has his name on
it. Meaning for years I have been there and we still don't have an HOA where I get to
contribute to what that property area does. So, I would hope that you would consider -- I
know you want to have what's best for your city and helping it, but if it's not benefiting us
and the people that are paying the property taxes in that area, it's -- it's a disservice to us.
Okay? I really like Meridian. I chose this of all the places in the United States to move
to, because at that time you were the number one state -- number one city in the United
States to go to. But yet what I'm seeing right now is you are crowding. And also it
reminded me a lot of Irvine where I live near. They did a fantastic job down -- they did a
fantastic job down there and I kind of pictured it doing the same thing, especially when
you had areas that were using Irvine locations. Subdivisions. So, that's really -- you
Meridian City Council
Item it4. December 21,2021
Page 18 of 82
know, be cautious, because the water is being restricted now. Couple that with the last
meeting they were talking about cutting into the park. When a person has an HOA control
they can do a lot of stuff that the owners in that area really don't want to have happen,
because they get to control the HOA. So, that's really -- there is going to be expansion
within this area. I understand it. I'm not that naive. But that's all I --
Simison: Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Wycoff.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I want to make sure I understand, because I think I heard staff say if the DA is
modified, development agreement, that they would not be part of the Bridgetower West
Subdivision. So, they would be excluded and, then, your-- your subdivision, then, would
have, you know, control over your particular areas. There wouldn't be sharing of any
parks or playgrounds or what have you. Is -- that's -- that's what you would like to see?
Wycoff: I kind of hear that happening, but when -- when Mike controls the HOA and he's
selling supposedly to Ball Ventures, which is I know a very good company, but I sense
there is a lot of control there, still, even with what's going to be happening and so that
really concerns me as a resident of that area. So, you know, he -- he gets to control the
HOA. If you want to sell off a piece of property to somebody or take some -- you can do
that. It's an LLC. So, not a whole lot there.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: So, you would like to make sure there is a clean break between that
development and your subdivision?
Wycoff: Definitely would want that at least as a minimum.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Wycoff: And, then, you know, water expense -- there is -- we are just really -- you will
probably hear it from other people, but that HOA-- I love the area. I bought in that area.
A lot of areas I could have chosen from. I wanted to go there just because of the streets,
the park, the pool, but I didn't know that that pool was going to be a service for 500 houses
in the area. Everybody stands up in the pool, because you can't swim in the summertime.
Literally. I mean -- and you are getting hit by kids jumping in and when you are into there.
So, you know,just -- I would ask that you think of the citizens of the City of Meridian and
the residents of that HOA before you would really do anything to just say let's expand and
go with it and -- but I understand. You got to put in those sorts of buildings, because the
law now you can't just not have it, because you don't want it. So, thank you.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 19 of 82
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Robin Moore. Okay. And, then, Eric Waite.
Waite: Good evening, Council. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I'm a homeowner
in Bridgetower West. My concerns are not personal.
Simison: Can you state your name and address, please, for the record.
Waite: My name is Eric Waite. W-a-if-t-e. My concerns are not personal. My concerns
are truly about traffic. I believe that the project that's proposed to us tonight should be
denied until the developer finds a way to expand the entrance from Ten Mile, McMillan,
to five lanes, dedicating one lane only to turn into Walmart where the heavy traffic goes.
Allowing two lanes going each way to make it easy access for emergency vehicles. If
they have to pull over there would be room to do that. I propose that five lanes should
end at the terminate -- at the entrance point -- it would be the north end -- no. The east
end. I'm sorry. Now I'm backwards. Sorry about that. Going down McMillan it would be
the entrance going into the right. Five lanes down to that point and, then, reduce to four
lanes minimum to San Vito and I think that the development that's coming in that is west
of McMillan, the whole western part of -- of Meridian is developing like crazy. We all see
it everywhere we go and I think that the developer needs to help us plan for future or the
expansion of the traffic that's going to happen. With this proposed 249 units there will be
at least 500 cars added to our traffic pattern that's already there and there may be even
more than that as some families might have three cars or what have you. But, in any
event,there is no way for an emergency vehicle to access McMillan Road going west with
one lane going in and one lane for turning to Walmart. Other than that it's -- I think the
developer can find ways to pass that cost on, either through tax assessments or through
added percentage of the rent dedicated to the cost of that road expansion and that's my
feeling, that project should be denied.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you.
Waite: Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Chris Williams.
Williams; Good evening. Can you guys hear me?
Simison: Yes, we can. State your name and address for the record, please.
Williams: Chris Williams. 4476 North Girasolo Avenue, Meridian. 83646.
Simison: Hold on one second, Chris. Okay. Go ahead.
Williams: Okay. Do you need me to restate my address or are we good?
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 20 of 82
Simison: Nope. We got -- we got it. It was just trying to make sure the buzzer wasn't
going to go off on your testimony.
Williams: No worries. I don't think I will take all two minutes. Number one, I am against
this proposed development for a few different reasons. I am in the Bridgetower West
community and, believe it or not, I'm not actually as close to some of these residents are.
It's not in my backyard. It's not in my front yard. I am over on the south side of McMillan.
So, I'm further away from it. However, with children that are in school there is a few
concerns that I have. Number one, at the beginning staff reported, you know, that there
wasn't very -- very much public comment, which kind of surprised me based upon some
of the conversations we have had locally with the Bridgetower West residents here, but
the brand new elementary school in Bridgetower West, it's -- we are in its second year
and it's already almost at capacity and we want to go ahead and add in all this extra
housing, you know, right there. Traffic. I'm not going to beat that up. We are aware of
that. Again, staff and Council -- I shouldn't say you guys tonight, but in the past we have
heard -- we are aware that that's an issue. Great. If we are aware that it's an issue, why
are we continuing to recommend expanding and not doing something about these issues
and, then, talking about growth? So, I would ask that, you know, the Council Members,
you know, consider that before considering approval. Parking. Again, I know earlier staff
-- that I was listening, you know, that parking, you know, shouldn't be an issue. That's a
lot of units and I know they think they won't get that many units, but that is a concern.
Sometimes some of that stuff overflows and, again, it's not going to affect me, my house
is further away, but I like our community and I don't want it to --you know, traffic to overflow
out on the main streets. Next concern that I do have is that apartments -- you know, we
say, hey, we need housing and I agree we do need housing. We know Meridian. You
know the growth that we have. But looking around at some of the recent apartment
developments and rentals in the area, but particular apartment developments, there is
actually quite a -- quite a bit of vacancy available. The apartments aren't busting at the
seams. You know, earlier today I called around to just a few in this area just to make sure
my data was correct and still current. There is quite a bit of availability. So, I don't really
think that we need that. Another -- I don't mind having a neighborhood there, but I don't
think that we need that high density growth there. Again, you know, you look around the
area, it's single family homes, it's not townhomes, it's not condos, it's not apartments. So,
you know, I just ask for smart growth. And, lastly, I just want to wrap this up by saying
that, again, with the meetings that we have had to kind of local in our area amongst the
residents here, there has been a lot of concerns. Unfortunately, the fact that we are doing
this meeting three, four days before Christmas did affect a lot of people from showing up
and commenting, even though they could have done it ahead of time. I understand that.
But a lot of people that I talked to they are not even aware that they can call or send in an
e-mail with their comments. So, those-- again, I just ask you to either consider a redesign
-- have the developer consider a redesign or deny it altogether for now and come back
with a better plan.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Dan Buffham.
Meridian City Council
Item#4. December 21,2021
Page 21 of—
Buffham: Hello. Can you hear me?
Simison: Yep. We can. If you would state your name and address for the record.
Buffham: Yep. My name is Dan Buffham. I am -- I live at 3554 West Balducci Street and
that's here in Meridian in the Bridgetower West neighborhood. My home is actually on
the corner. It's a keystone lot that is the north -- northwest or northeast, actually, corner
of that across the street. My first concern is, to reiterate, traffic. I have cameras in my
backyard and I record accidents at that intersection at least, if not weekly, every other
week by -- whether people turning around out of Walmart or the big rigs coming out of
there, being parking in there. I don't care how you slice it that just does not look like
enough, you know, parking for the density of that--that neighborhood that they are putting
in and if I -- if it's not clear I'm fundamentally opposed to this, as well as, you know, even,
you know, the -- you know, separating it from our Bridgetower community, you know, one
half of me says, you know, where the HOA is that's a loss of revenue and -- and control
of what goes on over there and whether they are, you know, using our resources of the
four parks that were supposed to be here, of which we only have two. The -- there is no
way to expand McMillan. You can't make it into a four lane. You can't do anything about
it. You could put a merge lane in there, but that puts -- that recesses back this
development, but it's still not going to happen. Then, you know, if they put a stoplight,
that-- you know, my third of an acre, you know, almost a million dollar home. The density
is -- is really what gets me going here, because the developer -- the owner of -- the
developer of Bridgetower West already wants to put tons of smaller built homes that was
denied as the first gentleman was speaking talked about, my first neighbor there. They
want to put smaller homes --you know, barely 1,400 square feet and that was what I was
told the absolute minimum this place is going to be. They are on top of each other. That
was denied. It doesn't mean they are not coming back and they are going to try and do
the same thing. From there you got water problems. I want to reiterate what the other
gentleman said that we got notices from our HOA that we are only allowed to water our
lawns, you know, the second year in a row, third year in a row -- I have lived here for
almost three years now--every-- every summer-- every other day at a specific time and
all that and, you know, even if these guys are on a separate water resource, the water's
got to come from someplace and we clearly do not have it today. I can --you know, brown
lawns, you know, in my home and, yes, we are in a drought, but not that much of a
drought. So, the water wasn't planned well here at all and --
Simison: Mr. Buffham, if you can, please, wrap up your comments.
Buffham: That's it. And the other thing is is they were telling us they were higher end
apartments and townhomes. I just don't see it, even though they-- I like the improvement
they have done, I just don't think it's what we need here. They are already building on
the north side of us and -- and -- you know. And now they are going to do the west side
of it and for -- where are you going to put the people? Where are you going to put the
cars? Where are the kids going to go to school? That's it. Thank you for your time.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay.
Meridian City Council
Item#4. December 21,2021
Page 22 of—
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Janice.
Borchard: Good evening.
Simison: Good evening.
Borchard: I just want to thank you very much for listening to us. Some of the main
concerns that a lot of us have --
Simison: Janice, if you can state your --
Borchard: Janice Borchard. B-o-r-c-h-a-r-d.
Simison: And your address, Janice.
Borchard: 5466 North Botticelli, Meridian. 83646.
Simison: Thank you.
Borchard: So, with some of the concerns, Brad and Dustin, the two gentlemen from Alpha
that have made the presentation, have really been very good about listening to our
concerns, turning the building so we don't have three stories looking, you know, into our,
you know, backyard so to speak. The main concern really truly is traffic, because we
have been paying attention to the fact that McMillan is not going to get widened, but
everything to the west of us is -- is high density. You have apartments. R-15. You have
Prescott Ridge, the hospital with all of the high density around that dumping down into --
onto McMillan. You have that Jamestown or James Place, whatever, senior community
going in at the corner Black Cat and McMillan and other R-15 going in on that corner.
McMillan right now is virtually impossible to get out onto that and the road to the north of
Walmart -- I would encourage you guys to take a look at that, because that's really just a
service road. That is where the semis go and the reason why I'm familiar with that is I go
out of Bridgetower West and the southern road to go into Walmart is blocked because
they have done an expansion to the south, so you can only go into the Walmart
subdivision on the north side. Well, that's already really impacted and it's barely a two
lane, very narrow road with a divider down the middle. So, I would really really encourage
-- if you are expecting, you know, two, three, four hundred cars to exit onto Ten Mile via
this road, it's already extremely impacted with the traffic just coming into that retail
complex there on the corner. So, I really would like you to take -- you know, please think
about that as far as improvements made there and I don't know if this is -- this is kind of
part two. Our concern -- a lot of people's concern is the elevation and I don't know if that
will be addressed at another meeting, but some of the initial pictures that we saw were
for -- on some of the apartments that we are seeing out on Franklin or anymore urban
business industrial area and we would like to see something that is a little more of the
modern farmhouse or goes -- and not just -- is not a white square cube and I did address
that with them and I don't know how they are going to, you know, come back with this and
we would like to see along San Vito perhaps some more trees, a little bit more of a -- you
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 23 of 82
know, evergreen buffer. So, these are the things that the people in the neighborhood --
we all knew it was R-15 when we moved in here and we just really appreciate, again,
Brad Investments in working with us on making this the nicest, most complimentary
complex and thank you for letting me testify about the traffic.
Simison: Thank you, Janice. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was all that signed up.
Simison: If there is anybody else in the room that would like to provide testimony on this
item if you would like to come forward at this time to do so or anybody else online that
would like to provide testimony use the raise your hand feature. Seeing no one else, the
applicant could come forward for final remarks. Be recognized for ten minutes.
Holt: Unless you guys have a lot of questions for me I won't take ten minutes. I certainly
appreciate neighbors coming out. I appreciate that their -- their passion for the
neighborhood. I have appreciated that they have come to two or three different meetings
in person and virtually with us. I think you --you heard from Janice at least -- and a couple
others that we have responded to what -- what I think are actionable items. We look at
items that we -- we have control over. Some of those actionable items -- open space, the
exterior cladding materiality, some of that we certainly know that that's a next step in this
process going through the CUP and the design review and working through those.
Parking is something that -- that you heard multiple times. The site plan isn't up here.
Under the larger buildings, the first floor is parking. What you don't see in some of the
surface area is because it's -- it's carports to comply with your zoning ordinance
requirement for covered parking and, then, as I mentioned, all the townhomes themselves
have garages on a first floor as well. So, we have been through the -- we have been
through the code, we have been through the ordinance. Preliminarily we are in excess
of the parking required for this ordinance, but, again, recognizing that -- that that will ebb
and flow a little bit as we finalize the site plan. The very first gentleman, Mr. -- Mr. Jensen
I think specifically mentioned a rezone request, which was a down zone, which I talked at
nauseum with Mr. McCollum about and that -- that was an attempt at -- at taking
advantage of very hot market and changing to residential and downzoning property from
commercial and other uses to a different use. As I think you have heard from Joe and
myself, this is a use that is inside of the current R-15 zone and it's a use that's inside of
the current master plan anticipation. So, as far as the mixed use component, mix of
commercial, residential, restaurant, hopefully medical office and other things that will
come to the north. I think traffic as you heard was the biggest one. This -- this plan with
the 250 units with the anticipated demographics of those users has been shared in a
memo to ACHD. We are awaiting ACHD's formal review and approval and, again,
recognize and as part of the DA modification will adhere to any mitigating measures. I
hope it's not five lanes through Walmart, but we will adhere to mitigating measures that
ACHD has in association with this project. At a minimum, like I said, we are hearing it's
probably an acceleration lane and a deceleration lane on the north side of McMillan on
our property that we would be not only responsible to give the property right of way, but
also make those improvements and that's something that we are -- we are willing to do
Meridian City Council
Item it4. December 21,2021
Page 24 of 82
So, sincerely appreciate your time this evening. We -- again I have read staff's report,
the conditions, their recommendation, and would respectfully request your approval this
evening. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, additional questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Mr. Holt, I don't expect you to watch City Council meetings on a weekly basis
here in Meridian, but last week Council had a -- a single family residential application
before us that would have had students that have attended the same schools that the
project that you have brought before us would also send and Council really wrestled with
that project because of the amount of students that -- that would go to the area schools
and Council didn't make a decision, we have continued it for a few weeks, but I guess the
question exists last week that kind of exists this week is, you know, how does your project
help to enhance or support our need for -- for school space for our students in Meridian?
I'm struggling with that particular piece and, obviously, a -- a senior or an age focused
community, which was kind of previously presented I think helps towards that and I'm
struggling to find the nexus about how this also helps.
Holt: Sure. And I appreciate that, Council Member. So, a couple things. As far as direct
implication accommodating a school or trailers, obviously, we can't do on the site. So, a
couple others. Generally inside of our demographic we are 1.7 residents per unit. So, if
you were to -- if you were to compare this to 50 or 60 -- and we had this conversation in
the neighborhood -- in the neighborhood meeting. If you were to compare this to 50, 60,
70 single family homes right now that are running 3.2 to 3.5 with two -- one and 1.2 to 1.5
of those being children, we are generally half of that. So, our -- our direct impact to
schools is directly roughly half of what a single family home would be of a proportionate
size and scale. Second just overall timing. So, that's one thing that we talked through.
For us to go through and make this, you know, 60, 65 million investment we understand
we have got multiple months and multiple steps and phases ahead of us. So, finishing
the CUP, finishing the design review process, then, actually finalizing construction
drawings. I would love to tell you that I will break ground a year from now, I think that is
unrealistic. I think it's a year to 15 months from now, depending on how much snow you
do or don't get in -- in winter of '22. It's probably spring of 2023. This is a two year 20,
22 month construction duration. So, one of the things that I'm looking at is I'm two and a
half, three years out from now before I put an individual in that school --occupying a home
and putting an individual in that school. Secondarily with that 1.7 residents if there is a
child we tend to be on a younger age and many of them are pre-K or younger or
kindergarten and first grade. So, as we have looked at what first and -- kindergarten, first
and second grade occupancies are right now, by the time we move -- they move up there
would be capacity in the school. What I don't know is -- is everything else that is -- is
planned or could come in to --to fill into that school. But those are a couple of points that
Meridian City Council
Item it4. December 21,2021
Page 25 of 82
we have absolutely looked at and that we, unfortunately, address all the time with -- with
what we do.
Cavener: All right. Thank you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: To dovetail on that, though, you would agree that -- that this use might be less
intense in generating students than single family residential, but it's more intense than
what's originally in the concept plan with assisted living and a senior community.
Holt: So, the assisted living pieces is -- is a building out on the corner. I have not seen
any senior housing component as part of that master plan.
Borton: Okay. And what -- and you can describe or maybe Joe can describe that -- the
existing concept plan or the parcels within this project area.
Dodson: Right.
Borton: They look like little pods.
Dodson: Very -- Councilman Borton -- and maybe you don't understand what he's
referring to. The DA, not the overall master plan of the area, but the -- on the east side
of Ten Mile there are --there is a 55 and older community that was approved and still not
under construction for some reason, but that's there. But assisted living not in this area.
But intensity, yes, this would be more intense than an assisted living community, but,
again, I -- I don't know how viable that is, it's not my purview, but I do understand the
analysis has been provided by the applicant, as well as the property owner --
Holt: Council Member Borton, you are -- you are correct. On the -- on the hard corner of
this 16 acres in the -- in the current DA--
Borton: Right.
Holt: -- it was anticipated that there could be an assisted living facility. All the pods behind
it are -- according to Mr. McCollum are multi-family, either high or medium density uses.
So, recognizing that the assisted living facility is really something that should be adjacent
to a hospital or in close proximity to a hospital, that is not something that--that we believe.
So, otherwise -- and I think it's part of the reason Mr. McCollum sent his -- his letter in
support. We are -- we are doing something that he -- with the exception of the assisted
living building -- big building on the corner, we are doing something that was anticipated
as part of this greater 80 acre mixed use.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 26 of 82
Borton: Okay. And maybe some of the disconnect was those -- what's depicted here in
the existing concept plan and those pods, there is no connection to that being a senior
community housing adjacent to this assisted facility. Those were regular multi-family --
Dodson: Councilman Borton, that --
Borton: --four-plexes?
Dodson: It's difficult to say. I had to go back and read the narrative from 2008 in order to
find that and -- which is a -- it's a mess, because this is very difficult to decipher all the
different moving pieces that have come through these applications. When Summerwood
Subdivision had this DA and the DA modification in 2019, there was -- the Bridgetower
developer and owner Mr. McCollum did not have any necessary plan for this area. So,
he agreed that, hey, we will just carry over this site plan from 2008. This one right here
that's in the existing DA, but it was not what he anticipated to do, he just said --we require
a concept plan when we do DA mods and comp plan map amendments. So, we carried
it over at that time. That narrative about the assisted living and some senior housing or
any kind of multi-family was kind of in there and kind of not and, then, again, this is why
we have -- it's been difficult to get this through as a DA modification, because I can
understand the applicant's perspective of pushing back and saying that this is not
specifically written in the 2019 DA and I -- I can understand that perspective, but because
this concept plan is there we tied it back to the 2008 narrative that did describe this area
with assisted living on the corner, which is why that lake is there. In addition to some form
of multi-family, potentially senior housing in that area. There is -- there is like two
sentences in the DA--or the 2008 narrative that talks about this. So, that's where this all
is based from and what has caused a lot of this hoopla.
Borton: Okay. Thank you for that, Joe. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: That's the reason for the question was just trying to understand is the change in
this DA application going to provide a more intense residential use than otherwise
originally required or intended. So, was it originally in '08 to be a less intense perhaps
senior component community, adjusted to assisted living or not, and it sounds like
perhaps maybe not as much?
Holt: In '08 1 can't speak to it. The 2019 modification is clear that it's mixed use and it's
the R-15 residential zone and nothing specific to a specific use -- specific product type. I
think that's where -- our conversations with Mike are -- this 80 acres that you are seeing
on the screen here is intended to have a variety of mixes, a variety of uses, with a range
of residential product, commercial, retail and otherwise.
Borton: I'm just talking about the -- in the red box only though. That's the --
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page— of 82
Holt. Sure. I -- I don't-- in 2008, yes, I think there was a plan that this was assisted living
and a different housing product when the -- when the hospital was planned to be there.
Completely different use. Completely different. 2019 that modification changes it just to
underlying R-15 zone and it amends with not a defined plan. The narrative about assisted
living and other product types is not part of that narrative. As I understand it from Mike.
Borton: Okay.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Just for clarification, are we modifying a 2008 development agreement or a 2019
development agreement?
Dodson: Technically a 2019 development agreement.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Joe, regarding traffic and the expansion of McMillan, I have heard lots of things,
you know, right turn lane, acceleration lane. What is the plan for McMillan west of Ten
Mile? In that first half mile are there going to be turn lanes? Are there going to be four
lanes, five lanes? What -- what is their future plan by ACHD?
Dodson: Great question, Councilman Hoaglun. I'm glad you brought up the
transportation side of it. I have just looked on their integrated five year work plan, they
don't have anything noted for McMillan. Not in -- not even labeled as future. Again, I
believe that's because of the constrained nature of it with the irrigation -- irrigation facility
on the south side, especially in this first half mile from McMillan west to about that
Jamestown Ranch project. However, in the previous application that we had before P&Z,
without this residential,just the addition of potential residential on the north side and those
rezones, they were going to require -- I believe it was on San Vito, a right-hand turn lane
westbound and an eastbound left-hand turn lane on McMillan. I would assume that at
least that will be required with the future TIS, as well as something on Vicenza Way as
well. More so at this point, because two access points are going on Vicenza -- probably
more on Vicenza than San Vito. ACHD could require additional widening for McMillan in
front of this property. I don't know their purview on what they could require off site. I
would anticipate not much and, then, in terms of access to Ten Mile, again, we cannot
require that they do off-site improvements, especially on Walmart's property for that
connection to Ten Mile. I do believe that people would utilize -- I mean I would. If I lived
to Bridgetower I would definitely cut through this site to get to Walmart and not go to
McMillan, because it is difficult. I understand that. So, I did analyze that in my report as
well that this layout should capture some of those trips. But in terms of integrated five
year work plan, I do not anticipate ACHD widening McMillan.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 28 of 82
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Kristy Inselman is online with her hand up.
Simison: Okay. Why don't we go to ACHD and hear from them. Kristy, go ahead.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, City Council Members, thank you. Yeah. So, with regards to
McMillan Road --so, in this--both in the CIP and in the master street map that we develop
in coordination with the cities, McMillan will be restricted to a three lane roadway in the
future, unless that changes with the city. But it's that -- that's currently the extent of what
that roadway would become. Staff is correct that there can be some on-site mitigations
that would be required. Obviously, a future development application and full review by
our staff would vet out what improvements potentially could be, but likely it's just -- we
cannot require the -- the off-site improvement with regards to going through the Walmart
site, because that's a separate development that's already been completed. So, we don't
have the authority to require those off-site improvements like that. We can ask sometimes
and the city can ask, but we can't -- we can't require those. So, yeah, if you talked to
ACHD likely there is potentially some -- you know, maybe a right-turn lane -- right-turn
lane in or a decel lane and acceleration lane, but, yes, future McMillan is three lanes as
identified in the master street map.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Kristy,this is Councilman Hoaglun. Thank you --thank you for that explanation.
In the future land use map that we are looking at right now that's on the screen -- I hope
you can see it. It looks like there is planned a residential collector that says new going
north of San Vito -- yeah. San Vito Way and, then, coming and connecting into Ten Mile
and oftentimes those collectors -- I'm trying to recall would that be a light there at that half
mile point -- although there is a light farther down at the Costco intersection, but is that
kind of a future plan that actually to access Ten Mile might be the best way, instead of
going out McMillan, but, of course, we don't know how long that -- that takes to have that
property develop.
Inselman: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Hoaglun, thank you for the question. So, yes, I
do see that. We do have future plans for the collector roadway to continue north and at
some point connect over to Ten Mile Road. Whether that connection would be signalized
or not, that's a lot of what a traffic impact study would dictate to us as to whether there
would be a need. We typically on our arterial roadway systems we do have mid mile
collectors if the volume dictates the need for one of those and I think -- it's hard to tell on
the map. That may be around the point where it would be a mid mile collector. So, it's
likely that there -- we would have one there given the constraints to McMillan, but, again,
that's -- that's a future -- that's a future answer. I hope that answers.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mayor and Kristy, I understand. Thank you.
Inselman: Uh-huh.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 29 of—
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Is that -- oh, Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. I do have a question for the applicant. So, was there consideration
made of-- of putting in townhomes, duplexes, a little lower density, still -- still, obviously,
denser than single family, but did you analyze that at all in terms of your cost to construct
and -- and your return on your investment?
Holt: Council Woman Perreault, thank you. We --we did not and -- and that's something
that we can look at. So, part of the reason that we did not is in our initial meeting with Mr.
Parsons and -- and Mr. Dodson we looked at a variety of-- a need for a variety of housing
stock opportunities. So, variety of product, variety of range of unit size, to hit a variety of
price points and to accommodate a variety of individuals. But I think to -- to Joe's -- Joe's
point, finalizing a -- again we have -- we have read -- we have read the report, we are in
agreement with the report, we are willing to accept the report and with that is the 25
percent, which I think is ten percent over the current zoning requirement, if my memory
is right on open space. So, to -- to Joe -- or Mr. Dodson's point, I think that there will be
some further refinement. It will probably require introduction of some more product type.
We looked at it -- we looked at it from an urban scale; right? So, not only intensity, but
density. What is the most dense use? It's Walmart today and over the next five days.
And, then, it's Walmart in any other given period of time frame. So, that intensity and that
-- that density or intensity on the corner and, then, fanning out and what is the lowest
density is the single family that's directly to the west of us. So, for us it's -- it's looking at
urban planning and looking at the intensity and the density from that intersection and,
then, fanning outward and so a three story flat product is more intense and more dense
than a townhome product blended across this site and that's where we end up with the
15 units to the acre.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Yeah. I understand what you are saying. Within -- within the development
itself you are wanting to provide -- or the mixed use concept is to provide a variety of
housing in addition to providing a variety for that entire area geographically. I would argue
that -- and -- and -- and I -- and I understand -- I understand the R-15. I understand the
future land use map. I would argue, though, that we actually really have a shortage of
townhome type of products in this area and in Meridian in general. We have approved a
lot of-- of multi-family three story projects in the last couple of years. A lot. But we really
don't have a lot of that in between type of housing product not for purchase and not for
rent and there is a huge demand for it and so I'm just --that's the reason I'm asking about
whether you actually analyzed that or not.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 30 of 82
Holt: I appreciate that and Dan Parolek calls that the missing middle and I think you are
exactly right and so for us making certain that we are providing a product that does hit
that missing middle was something we absolutely wanted to do and, then, hit that -- that
cross width. So, I -- with this -- with approval I take that with Joe and -- and go back and
assess what that can look like and how it could look.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, I do have one more question.
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I'm sorry. Just looking at this concept plan -- I realize that that will come back
-- you know, this isn't the final plan, this is just a concept plan. It does get tied to the DA,
but I want to understand where the parking is on the -- the apartment buildings. Is it on
the bottom floor? I'm not seeing -- I'm seeing a small amount of parking around the tennis
courts.
Holt: Yeah. Thank you, Joe. Right there. So, under every one of the buildings on the
first floor is parking and,then, you are seeing surface parking around some of the amenity
space and, then, the -- the white is carport and we are exploring a variety of solar and
other things, but all of that is carport and, then, surface parking and, then, again, the --
the townhomes have a garage on the first level.
Perreault: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions, comments for the applicant at this time?
Okay. Thank you.
Holt: Thank you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I think -- we haven't closed the public hearing. I'm going to motion to close the
public hearing on R-15 -- or, excuse me, H-2021-0094.
Cavener: 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: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
Item it4. December 21,2021
Page 31 of 82
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Hopefully we don't reopen it, but this one might not necessitate reopening it., So,
for discussion I thought the -- that question that the applicant and Joe helped answer
provided a little more clarity I guess to the record, which wasn't crystal clear. But it's a --
it's an R-15 zoned property; right? It's already entitled for some residential uses, it's just
a kind of the method and manner we are going to provide residential uses here. I think
the explanation was sound. I think staff did a good job in vetting the application and --
and the applicant working with the neighbors to try and create some harmony with those
uses and the way that's been done I'm supportive of. I think it's been well done and well
explained. So, I will be in favor of this application.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I land on -- on kind of the opposite side of the coin. This request before us to
me, while somewhat in line with, you know, a change of at least the -- the intensity of the
use, the amount of students generated from this project is I think one less than what the
Aviator Springs project last week generated. I see the nexus between the two. So, I'm
not in favor of the request before us tonight for -- tried to kind of walk through to find a
less intense use to maybe give me some comfort around it. The fact of the matter is the
previous--while, again, from 2008 project associated with this piece of dirt wouldn't have
generated a lot of student impact and this one will and I'm -- I'm -- I'm sensitive to the
impact on the area schools and don't see an immediate need to support this request
tonight.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: This is a tough one, because the applicant's technically-- technically within --
you know, trying to work within the R-15 designation--would have to say I'm leaning more
towards agreeing with Councilman Cavener. I -- I think that, you know, we -- the -- the
DA from so long ago and I -- I thought I heard Joe say that the concept plan that he's
been showing on the screen is from 2019, but that -- that may be incorrect. I just -- so
much has changed, even just in the last two years, and I just have a lot of concern,
actually, about putting residential in this location in general, because I think that the
residential will likely build out to the north of this and -- and I'm really hesitant to not leave
this area open for a nonresidential use and I know that right now that's not currently how
we have it -- you know, our mixed use classification is -- is not that specific. But I just --
we have had several discussions over the last few years about critical space on our
arterials for nonresidential uses near -- near important corners and in my opinion this is
one of those and I feel like that--that there would be --now, I understand that this property
has been sitting for a long time. However, it's been sitting with the current DA that shows
a residential use and if there was a DA modification proposed that showed a
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 32 of—
nonresidential use, I don't know how that would change whether or not there would be,
you know, tenants for this property. But I -- I just am not in favor of residential here in this
location. I would like to see it further up north and I know this -- that that has nothing to
do with this applicant, but as far as the DA modification goes, I don't -- I'm not in favor of
changing it. Perhaps residential if it was a lower density, but in general I just-- I don't see
that being a great location for this corner and I am welcome -- I mean I'm -- I'm open to
any thoughts that might be shared or any other information that could be shared with me
that -- that might cause me to think differently about it, but that's where I'm at at this
moment.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just a titch of context. For me the unique feature is that it is entitled property and
if this application didn't come forward the applicant could build multi-family here tomorrow
and have -- it's not -- it's not encumbered with senior only, so I think it already has, for
better or for worse, the potential impact on schools, so that was a different characteristic
which made me comfortable proceeding today. So, it's entitled property.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Councilman Borton brings up a very critical point I think is the fact that
this use is already allowed within this zoning and it's just a matter of the type of density.
You would have, you know, some sort of commercial entity over here, whether it's a --you
know, assisted living or what have you and maybe there would be a fewer less residential
units, which I understand. The conundrum I'm trying to unwind is the fact that McMillan
is not going to be widened and there are entitlements to the west of this property as we
know going out The Fields district that is going to send traffic down McMillan and it's going
to make it worse and there is nothing we can do about it. Those are decisions made long
ago. So, to me are we allowing -- if we allow this use to come in, they are providing some
access here north of Walmart to allow a relief to get to Ten Mile and, eventually, as this
develops --you know, commercial follows rooftops -- having that road exit out to Ten Mile
farther down and, hopefully, have a signal to that to allow that access. So, that's -- that's
what I'm weighing here is the fact that development will help push that road to be done
sooner and --and allow West Bridgetower to not have to use McMillan, but come out what
we call a backway, but where I live not that far away from here we do that, we take the
back roads and try to get out a little closer to where we want to go going in the right
direction or -- or get to a signal. So, that's just the way it is now. So, that's -- I think that
helps start a solution for -- for the traffic loads that will exist on McMillan. It sounds like
forever. It sounds like the applicant will have to mitigate, you know, exit and entrance on
their property, which is just -- certainly doable and necessary and -- and, Councilman
Borton, we are -- this --this is entitled property, so we are affecting very little of it that --
that we could --we would have control over that would impact schools and certainly traffic.
Meridian City Council
Item A4. December 21,2021
Page J3 of 82
So, I'm inclined to--to support this and, hopefully, allowing mitigation of traffic by alternate
uses of that -- the property, so --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: A question for Councilman Hoaglun. So, if I'm looking at this concept plan
correctly, so we allow residents of Bridgetower West to access the -- the Walmart area
and off to Ten Mile -- if this little section that's not on the current property in question is
connected — and we don't have any idea when or if that will happen in the near future.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Perreault, yeah, that's correct. That -- that is
something that they are going to have to work out and make sure there is that access
point there so -- and I think it was Mr. Jensen -- I can't recall now -- when I questioned
him to make -- and he wanted that access point to the east bigger to make sure that that
was allowed, if I understood him correctly. But -- you know. And that's -- that's part of the
site, too. If people want to use that, that's going to be a -- yeah. Yeah. Right. Down here
-- down to the northwest corner we have to make sure where it's in the red triangle that
that easement is allowed, because I assume that's what it would be and, then, I think
going to the east, the exit to the Walmart, that would be larger. But that -- that draws
traffic through their-- through their development, which is something that I think you have
to look at the design and the CUP and say do we do something a little different or does
the developer come along and do a connection out here? I -- I don't know what that plan
is. We can't force them to do something that's not on their property, but I think we have
to help -- if this goes in there has to be some mitigation for that traffic load there on -- on
McMillan, which is just going to get worse.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: In response to that, I -- I'm not overly concerned with them having an access
point to San Vito, because we will require that. Where that placement is is kind of more
the question. We originally -- if I had my planning way they would have another
connection to San Vito in line with the other connection on the west side, but in response
to the residents the applicant removed that. I understand those concerns. I understand
that. But some connection to San Vito needs to occur for overall traffic flow, as well as
the issue specifically discuss of getting to Walmart and, then, Ten Mile through another
avenue. I -- if they need to modify the site plan, if by some reason McCollum doesn't let
this happen, they will just have to meet offset requirements and have another connection
probably near the northwest corner of the site still and they will just adjust the driveway.
I do not anticipate why they would not want a connection to San Vito, so I don't have -- I
don't have a specific DA provision that says they shall connect to San Vito in some way,
but it does discuss that they will make this connection happen and work with the adjacent
property owner. So, if the Council -- it's in your purview to say if that doesn't happen that
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 34 of 82
period, one, a connection will happen to San Vito, you are more than welcome to add
that. And, then, generally in response to the density I do agree with what Mr. Borton has
said with -- I wouldn't say they are entitled to do multi-family, so much as saying they can
do a conditional use permit, yes, and if they match the site plan better then they could still
do that at 15 units to the acre without -- you know, well, I think they could propose it at 15
units to the acre per the future land use designation. So, would it be this site plan? No.
If it fit the other one that would be a little wonky with the way they have it designed, but
technically they could. So, I -- that's, again, why it's more of the nexus of why staff has
supported the development agreement modification as well.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I guess it's my turn. Get ready.
Simison: So, you are abstaining and leaving it up to me?
Bernt: I don't know. Certainly. Just relax. It's early. So, I -- I agree with Councilman
Borton and other fellow Council Members this evening. Each has information and has
discussed, you know, opinions that I agree with and some I don't agree with, but at the
end of the day this -- this property's entitled. It's going to be R-15 unless the developer
wants to, you know, propose a different development agreement to make this into a -- like
a curling facility or a pickleball court or a huge trout pond with huge brown trout. Other
than that it's going to be R-15. So, I --the one -- all kidding aside, I think that-- you know,
that there has been a lot of thought involved with it from making, you know, the transition
from commercial from Walmart over -- you know, westward to the residential subdivision.
I like the layout. The only issue is -- is the density for me, being very familiar with this
area, it's just -- it's just a bad spot and I know what's going to happen, I just wish it was
less dense. Council Woman Perreault mentioned earlier about townhomes and -- and I
have said this a million times, the last thing you want is Council Members, you know,
designing this project on the dias and I'm not certainly going to do that and maybe giving
direction, maybe a little bit, but I lean not being in favor -- maybe opening up the public
hearing and maybe continuing this so you can work on the density. This evening I
probably -- as proposed I probably wouldn't be in favor. I wish it to be less -- less dense.
Just -- there is so much going on in this area of our town. Directly to the east there is a
really big multi-use, you know, apartment complex. It's really big. There is other entitled
properties that's going to be multi-use that's nearby. I can understand why the residents
are unhappy with what the -- you know, with the traffic issues that are occurring in this
area. So, that's where I stand at the moment.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Bernt: That's two weeks in a row, Mayor, that I have made a joke about a trout pond.
Simison: A ways away from fishing season. Council Woman Perreault.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 3J of 82
Perreault: Thank you. I -- I appreciate Council Member Bernt's thought process on this
and I would be comfortable with the public hearing opening again and allowing the
applicant additional time to adjust the density. I can live with that.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Honestly, the question is -- we just need to decide right now whether this is going
to be continued or whether we -- it's the purview of this Council to make a motion right
now and to decide what we want to do with it.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Bernt: I would like to hear what fellow Council Members have to say about that.
Simison: Yeah. Well, I will entertain two motions.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor? No. Joe.
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: I can't make a motion, but --
Simison: I know you can't. That's why --
Dodson: Yep.
Simison: I was going towards two motions from Council. I didn't even make my
comments. But go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, sir. I just wanted to -- I have heard density a lot and I completely
understand schools, transportation -- got it. A hundred percent. Planning perspective,
completely get that. And personal perspective of the residents. Understand. Council's
purview is to limit -- you can add a DA provision that limits the density. I understand the
issue, because I have the same issue from when I write these DA provisions of what is
the number? What is the appropriate number? Do you -- 170? 1 don't know. Just random
numbers don't make sense. I get that. But you do have the purview to limit density based
upon the existing uses, both to the east and to the west, perhaps it's a specific dwelling
unit per acre range that they can work with. We have done this on other projects. That
way it gives staff and the applicant flexibility in that. I'm assuming they would prefer that
over a denial, obviously. Continuance. Understood. You would still see that. I assume
that it would be very same site plan, just now some of the buildings are two story or they
have less of the internal apartments and maybe more townhomes. I don't know exactly.
But if that's what Council determines that they want, perhaps that mitigates the need for
Meridian City Council
Item$4. December 21,2021
Page 36 of 82
a continuance unless it's your purview. I just wanted to remind you that you have the
power to limit the density.
Simison: And that's -- that's the question I was going to ask, essentially, is what's -- the
process for this property to develop is either a CUP or a DA. Which one does Council
feel most -- is most appropriate for where this is in the process to -- to affect the potential
development of this parcel? And, unfortunately, McMillan is never -- it's not going to be
-- it's going to be the last road in Meridian that is probably ever widened or improved,
because of the extreme cost to do so. So, a CUP would probably slow the process down
beyond the three years we talked about, because they would have to run that through,
but what project you are going to get through that process --
Dodson: And Mr. Mayor?
Simison: -- that you would want.
Dodson: They will still have to do a CUP regardless of this DA mod. It's just you can --
Simison: I take that back then.
Dodson: -- help dictate the density and the potential impacts that that could have.
Absolutely.
Simison: So, those are --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Joe, I really appreciate you pointing that out. I just -- I would be a lot more
comfortable seeing the concept plan that they -- that they put together after they make
their changes, since it's going to get attached to the DA. I don't-- I don't -- I mean is there
going to be a point at which we can see that concept plan when they make adjustments
or -- or if we were to just limit their -- the density with a vote this evening, we would not
have that opportunity; is that correct?
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, that is correct. Yes. If you wanted to see the concept
plan come through again before you make another decision, then --then, yes, you would
have to continue it.
Perreault: Thank you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 31 of 82
Bernt: You know, I'm okay with opening up the public hearing and continuing this for the
applicant to work on this. I mean I think -- I mean it's going to -- it's going to be R-15. 1
mean there is just no way of getting around it. There is just nothing we can do, you know.
I get the homeowners' concerns, I get it, but I would be in favor of continuing this to let
the developer, you know, look at it, see if they can lessen the density and that would --
I'm okay with doing that, if my fellow Council Members are open to that idea.
Cavener: Is that a motion?
Simison: Yeah. We need a --
Cavener: I second it.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to reopen 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 reopened.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Do you want to hear the applicant's perspective on what you have been
discussing to see if there is any interest from the applicant in regards to the density?
Holt: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council Members. I -- I know that density is -- density is
a concern. Density done wrong scares me. Density done wrong scares me immensely.
Density done correctly does not scare me. We had -- we had this conversation with the
neighborhood community in a couple of our meetings. To try and take this -- and the four
big buildings that you see on the north side have a bigger hindrance to views, to
opportunities for pedestrian connectivity to those thoroughfares, which is why we changed
that product type on the -- on the west side of this site. My legal counsel is -- is texting
me and under a -- under a CUP, conditional use permit, if we meet the conditions that are
required, then, the -- it's -- it's a process that's approved. So, under that CUP process,
which as long as we adhere to all of the conditions therein, we can get 15 units to the
acre, which is why we are saying we know we have to go through that process. So, what
I don't want to do right now, without my land planners and other people who are a hell of
a lot smarter than me, is say I'm going to agree to X. What we wanted to do is say we
want to know that what we are trying to accomplish meets the intent of what it is. The
zone's there. We want to get ourselves out of the master --the Bridgetower master plan,
which is what we heard from the neighbors, and we are still going to go through the design
review and CUP process to make certain that we are addressing the 25 percent open
space and the other things that -- that staff has done. So, I think inherently -- Joe said at
the beginning -- I think he's right -- there is going to be an impact to the density. What --
what I don't know is what that is and what I don't want to say is it's X; right? I just don't
know. Confucius said if you ask a group to design a horse you will get a camel and that's
what I don't want to do right now, without much smarter people with me. So, I think what
we are saying is we know that's a step that we are going to have to go through. We know
that's a process that we are going to have to go through. This isn't a rezone request. We
Meridian City Council
Item A4. December 21,2021
Page 3O of 82
are not trying to get more density. We are not trying to do any of that. We are trying to
say get us out of Bridgetower, let us work through the CUP and work through the design
review process with staff to come up with something that meets all the criteria, has great
connectivity, both from a pedestrian perspective, as well as a vehicular perspective. I'm
confident, as Joe has said, that Mike -- Mr. McCollum will work with us on that and, if not,
we can accommodate it somewhere else. l can tell you in my meetings with the neighbors
we removed the one a little bit further south, because they did not like that and they said
if we have to have one we want it at the far northwest corner of the site. So, keeping it at
the northwest corner would allow me to do what I committed to do and keeping it within
-- if Mike won't work with us, keeping it within a distance that still meets your stacking and
queuing is something that, in and of itself, is going to change this site plan. So, I don't
know if that answers your -- your question, but this is a -- this is a process we know we
have got to go through and answer and we are comfortable with providing more open
space than the zone currently requires and other things, which I know will have some
further impact on -- on this site plan and as well as other things that I have heard tonight.
So, is there any -- any specific questions?
Simison: I can produce less trips?
Holt: So, to me producing less trips is providing ample opportunities here; right? So,
ample opportunities inside of our clubhouse for a coffee shop, a little cafe, something that
individuals can walk through, we -- we showed the neighbors that we did not -- so, again,
part of this -- I designed this project initially in a silo. We, then, went to some of the
neighbors and got some input and now we are getting even more neighbors in a bigger
-- a bigger band. I would love to have pedestrian connection points and I think Joe would
as well through the fence that goes along that-- that property. The neighbors have made
it clear that they don't want that. They do not want pedestrian connectivity through this.
They are -- they are fine going back out onto the McMillan. Why? I'm not sure. To me
that pedestrian connectivity -- that vehicular connectivity east and west through this site
lessens trips, to your point, Mr. Mayor. If somebody can drive through to Walmart or walk
through to Walmart or walk in — inside of my R project, once they have come they are not
leaving to the -- to the greater area to go recreate, they are recreating right here. They
are not leaving to go grab a coffee in the morning, they are grabbing it right here. Those
are opportunities that I can control. Those are actionable items that I can do right here
that I think make this site more porous that I would love to work on with planning staff in
a final CUP.
Simison: So, Council, you have heard from the applicant.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Holt: I need water.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Holt: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
Item iF4. December 21,2021
Page 3V of 82
Bernt: So, Mr. Mayor, question -- one more question for the applicant. Are you wanting
to -- what is -- what are you wanting us to -- I mean do you want to continue this, so you
can make this less dense or do you want us to close the public hearing and vote on it?
Holt: I'm -- I'm open to a continuance to review this and to work through it more. If you
have got any other thoughts of what you -- what you want to see I'm open to
understanding that better. Again, I'm going to go through the CUP process to me one
way or the other, so -- so, part of it is getting the Council's thought, instead of just going
to the Commission. It was how does the Council look at this? Do a DA mod, it's a CUP
for me either way. So, working through those conditional use requirements for that permit
I have got to go through either way.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to be very clear real quick. I agree with everything that
Mr. Holt has said, except for -- that they are allowed to get 15 units to the acre. I think
that there are other parameters. Both the Council and the Commission can limit density
period, regardless of dimensional standards and the future land use map. So, I just want
to make that clear that that is in our purview to do that based upon these issues as
discussed, the trip generation, school impact.
Bernt: And, Joe, what would be those options? I'm not quite sure exactly, you know,what
that density would look like that you are speaking about.
Dodson: Yes. Exactly. How arbitrary is it? I understand that. And I don't -- I don't have
the brains to tell you what a magic number is. I don't know who -- who does. This is
where Planning staff does work with the applicant and we work through this. But if 15
units to the acre -- if 249 units are too much, what is an appropriate number that Council
finds is -- is --can be met here; right?
Simison: Somewhere between eight and 15.
Dodson: The range is six to 15, so -- agreed. Yeah. There is -- there is quite a range
with the future land use map. So, 15 is at the high end. Again, other projects we have
said, sorry, you are -- you have to do eight to 12 or, hey, you are 12 to 15. You know, if
we want density in an area that is definitely within your purview. I just don't want it to be
assumed that we are going to go through the CUP process and if they meet parking and
open space that they automatically get 15 units acre, because that's not always the case.
The Commission could turn around and have the same exact conversation, which I
anticipate they will, and could limit it even further than Council does. That is their purview,
because it's a conditional use.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Knowing our Commission I anticipate they actually would be more
conservative than Council will. I can't speak for them, but having served on the
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 40 of 82
Commission myself prior and knowing how they view things, I -- I -- I guess I'm stating
this right now to the applicant that the Commission could very well be more conservative
than we are, because I feel like I'm hearing from the applicant that they are not seeing an
opportunity with us continuing this and I think there is an incredible opportunity, because
they need to say, well, I'm going to go ahead and do a CUP either way, I'm kind of like,
well, why didn't you just do one in the first place I mean -- and not do a DA modification.
I understand the purpose is to remove this section of property from the existing DA and
that's the whole reason, but -- but when it comes to the CUP, if you don't want an
opportunity to look at the density of this and you want to just take it to the Commission, I
feel like you would be bypassing a very good opportunity, but -- but that's -- if that's what
we are hearing from the applicant, then, that's what we will do. Just being very candid.
Holt: No. I appreciate that. And I don't think that's what you are -- you are hearing from
me, at least I hope that's not what you are hearing from me. I think it's a process that we
understand we are going through either way, so any -- any further direction that--that the
Council can give me -- give us I'm happy to take it back. What I didn't want to do was
design on the fly right now.
Bernt: Right. Exactly. Do you mind if we continue to -- will February 1st be a good date
for it? Do you need it to be sooner or later? Did you have a -- a date that you prefer?
Holt: That -- that's probably fine.
Bernt: Okay.
Holt: That's a month of time for --
Dodson: I will be somewhere -- yeah. Here, probably.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I want to say one more thing about it. The applicant's asking for kind of what
our expectations are with this. First of all, we have already shared that we would like to
see some different density, whether that's a change of actual housing product or however
the applicant wants to do that. For me I know this area exceptionally well also. Getting
around here is complicated. Maybe in five years when that collector street goes in on Ten
Mile and there is a light or maybe when -- you know, when just--just even getting through
the Walmart parking lot is a nightmare and, then, if you are -- if you have people turning
left from — you can't turn left from -- is it Vicenza that -- however you say that street name
that runs to the west of Walmart. Can't turn left there. So, you have to turn left off of San
Vito and it is really not easy to get around here right now and, then, adding all these
additional --these additional units is not-- it's not just about the level of traffic on McMillan
Meridian City Council
Item tt4. December 21,2021
Page 41 of 82
-- that's a part of it, but physically getting around this whole section, getting through the
Walmart parking lot, making left and right-hand turns, it's complicated and I would like to
really hear what ACHD has to say before 1 -- you know, before I make a decision on this.
That was another reason why I'm in favor of continuing, so you can get that information
back from them.
Holt: They told me that's four months, so I hope we can do it before then.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor? I was going to say regarding the TIS, they weren't even required to
technically submit it yet, because it's not -- ACHD will not make comment on the MDA,
but with the future CUP with --once they are over a hundred units, which, obviously, we
are going to get more than a hundred units here, that that's going to happen.
Simison: With that do I have a motion?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we continue this application, H-2021-0094 to February 1st.
Simison: Do I have a second?
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this until February 1st. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and this item is continued until February 1 st.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Council, we will go ahead and take a ten minute recess and we will reconvene
at -- actually, take a 12 minute recess and reconvene at 8:20.
(Recess: 8:08 p.m. to 8.21 p.m.)
3. Public Hearing for Black Cat Industrial Project (H-2021-0064) by Will
Goede of Sawtooth Development Group, LLC, Located at 350, 745, 935,
and 955 S. Black Cat Rd. and Parcel S1216131860.
A. Request: Annexation of 130.19 acres of land with R-15 and I-L
zoning districts
Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess at 8:21. And
for the record Council Woman Perreault has left us for the evening. Next up is a public
Exhibit C
Excerpt from City Council Hearing Transcript, February 1, 2022
(attached)
Exhibit C 1
Meridian City Council
Item tt2. February 1,2022
Page 2 of—
Simison: There is a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the agenda is adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, any signed up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing Continued from December 21, 2022 for Alpha
Development R-15 MDA (H-2021-0094) by Alpha Development Group,
Located at Parcel S0427438410, on the North Side of W. McMillan Rd.
Between N. San Vito Way and N. Vicenza Way, Near the Northwest
Corner of N. Ten Mile Rd. and W. McMillan Rd.
A. Request: A Development Agreement Modification to remove the
subject parcel from the boundary of the existing Development
Agreement (Summerwood Subdivision, H-2019-0001, Inst. #2019-
055407) for the purpose of creating a new Development Agreement
consistent with a new concept plan and proposal for a multi-family
development on 16.6 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move right into our action items this evening. Our
first item up is a public hearing continued from December 21 st, 2021 , for Alpha
Development. We will continue this public hearing with staff comments from Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council. Good evening. As noted, the project tonight
was continued from December 21 st, which we -- we had some lengthy discussion about
it then. I'm not going to go deep into detail about the original project, but in general it is
near the northwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick -- or sorry. Ten Mile and McMillan.
Ustick is the next one. The proposal is for a DA modification. That is the application
before us tonight. Because the site has a different -- this is the original concept plan.
They are proposing to change the concept plan consistent with multi-family. This was the
original concept plan discussed at the previous hearing. At the hearing there was
discussions about trip generation, overall circulation, really, was the biggest takeaway
that I got out of that discussion about how people can get to the other commercial on the
actual commercial -- or that's on Ten Mile and McMillan. So, the applicant went back and
revised their site plan and has now proposed this. They have included a new road here,
which after discussion with the applicant they are proposing to build a public local road
here and not just a drive aisle in order to help get people from Gondola to the Vicenza
Way, as well as to the road that's here that is a --just a secondary -- I believe it's public,
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 3 of—
but it's a--you know, a commercial drive aisle road that's on the north side of the Walmart
property. They also moved a little bit of the open space around. It does appear -- if you
flip back and forth some of the central open space seems to have decreased, but they
have also gained some open space along the perimeters. This is -- you know, dimension
wise it's hard to tell right now, but this is a pretty significant area, as well as this area here
that was not previously here. Really that's all I had for my presentation on this, unless
the Council has questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to
come forward. If you could state your name and address for the record, please.
Holt: Dustin Holt. Alpha Development Group. 801 Reserve Street, Boise. Mr. Mayor
and Council Members, thank you very much. Happy New Year. Merry Christmas. I think
we were here right before the holidays last time. Thank you for doing the Pledge of
Allegiance. Surprised that some cities that I go to that don't do that, so thank you for that.
Mr. Dodson, thank you. I want to --we want to appreciate and acknowledge Mr. Dodson,
as well as Mr. Parsons, in all the conversations that we have had thus far. I think when
we left the meeting last time we really heard two points. I think one was Mr. Dodson's
point. Another that we heard certainly was density. And so I do want to address both of
those items with you tonight. So, first in regards to density, as Mr. Dodson noted in his
brief staff report or his updated staff report, he noted that no major changes have been
made to that and that is --that is correct and there is three or four points as to why thus
far no major changes have been made. So, one, since inception in starting this process
with staff, as well as several neighborhood meetings, we are now on our fourth or fifth
concept plan. In each of those concept plans I think we have been able to show how we
maintain two different product types. Maintain what we are looking at is about 30 percent
open space. I know that there is conditioned open space and the alternative, but about
30 percent open space, all while still maintaining about that same — that same density.
So, knowing that we are going through a PD process as well, we want to make certain
that we are allowed to go through that due process without what feels like might be
shortcutting it or arbitrarily capping that as we go through that process. We think going
through the ordinance there are means and methods and mechanisms to -- to provide
everything that's required through the ordinance and we recognize that that --that density
will be somewhere permitted for the comprehensive plan and the underlying zone.
Number-- number two to that is we know we still have to provide all and adhere to all the
other conditions that we have proposed. So,that open space--this new road, the concept
plan, the access points, all of those items are items that we know will have an impact to
what that final density is going through the PD process and, then, the fourth in part is with
this extra land dedication and part of these improvements that we are now agreeing to
resolve and work through on this north property line. That's kind of a fourth -- minor, but
fourth point as to why we have not directly and specifically addressed density. As to -- as
to traffic, really had to think through this one, to be honest with you. So, we had
conversations and meetings with the property owner to the north. His biggest concern
owning 55 acres to the north of us -- as part of his master plan he knows he has got to
get roads all the way through the north, through this property, and that it has to be
developed. He has very grave concerns that we -- we or he puts a road in meandering
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 4 of—
all the way to the north and the next day a commercial user or some application comes
by and says you have put the road in the absolute wrong spot and so trying to think
through that, trying to think through making certain that that stretch of McMillan in front of
this property doesn't become something that our residents have to frequent to go to
schools, that other residents of Bridgetower don't have to frequent to get to shopping. We
came up with this alternative of a road along the north property line. You should have
received -- I think Joe and Council Members, the Mayor, you should have received an
acknowledgement from the property owner that he is in agreement to work with us, that
he is in support of what we are doing. We are willing to make that as we work for an item
of the DA modification and so we are proposing that road and proposing that it's a piece
of the -- the DA modification. I think that all the other conditions that were previously
proposed by staff we are still in agreement with. We are in agreement with the alterations
that were made to point number four regarding the landscaping and this roadway in Mr.
Dodson's letter on -- on January 25th. So, we are in agreement with those alterations.
We would propose one new ninth item and what that item would be is it would relate to
this road and it would be that we will work through getting this road built, dedicated --
inspected, dedicated and everything prior to the first issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. So, prior to any resident of ours moving in this road would be open and
operable. That's --that's a ninth condition that we would propose and self impose to make
certain that you know that this roadway connecting San Vito and Vicenza make sense.
The other point that I failed to mention, we actually think this helps with traffic on Gondola.
So, some of the comments that we heard are people coming north on San Vito. There is
not a stop sign right now at the north end of San Vito turning left onto Gondola and so
individuals, motorists are able to carry a rather high speed of pace turning left and flowing
onto Gondola. By the creation of this new extension of Gondola, if you will, that will force
a three -- a three way stop. So, there will be a stop sign there. Individuals will not be able
to just free flow left, they will have to stop,they will have to acknowledge and think through
is somebody coming from the right, is someone coming from the left going straight. So,
we actually think it has other mitigating -- traffic mitigating factors as well. Those are all
the reasons that we ended up with this road alignment along the north property line. So,
as -- as stated, we are in agreement with the other conditions, the alterations to number
four. We would self impose this point number nine if the City Council wanted to add it to
that list. Otherwise, we appreciate your time and respectfully request your approval of
this matter tonight. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. I was not present at the original meeting, but I did review the meeting
in preparation for this one and all the materials. So, I just wanted to state that. I saw in
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 5 of"
COMPASS's analysis that they were suggesting specifically a crosswalk. I was
wondering if you are going to be addressing that?
Holt: A specific crosswalk at --
Strader: If you could pull up the -- it's not San Vito, it's I think Vicenza. In COMPASS's
letter they specifically said that there should be a crosswalk to get to the shopping.
Holt: Yes. And I think -- I think staff actually had made that recommendation in one of
our first meetings as well, whether it was down at our ingress-egress point a little bit
further south, certainly at this new road at the north end. That's something that we would
look to -- to implement.
Strader: Okay. So, you will be completing that as part of your--you are amenable to that
condition?
Holt: Yes.
Strader: Okay. And, then, I guess maybe just one more, Mr. Mayor, if I can.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: So, I -- I appreciate that you are very proactive on providing a road solution.
That's -- that definitely seems like a step in the right direction. I guess what was your
thought process in terms of not addressing density head on and either a reduction in units
or some other type of approach at this point?
Holt: Only that we haven't gone through the full process. So, knowing that we haven't
gone through the full PD process to assess exactly exteriors of the buildings, exact
condition to open space, going through that in whole -- whole process, we have not gone
through it. So, to do -- to do something short of that feels like we have shorted the due
process and feels arbitrary.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Just one second, Joe. Council Woman Strader, did you get enough from that
answer?
Strader: Yeah, I got the answer. Thank you.
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Sorry. I just wanted to clarify Mr. Holt saying PD, because a lot of other places
do planned developments as a CUP. Just want to clarify that that's the process is the
conditional use permit, not a planned unit development.
Meridian City Council
Item tt2. February 1,2022
Page 6 of—
Holt: Thank you.
Dodson: Yes.
Simison: Thanks, Joe.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Question -- Mr. Holt; right?
Holt: Yes.
Cavener: This is -- this is kind of interesting. I -- I recalled when you -- when you
introduced yourself the last time you were here you said you were from Salt Lake and
now you said you were from Boise. So, are you a resident now of the Treasure Valley or
was there just a change in address?
Holt: Change in address.
Cavener: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I guess my question falls somewhat in line with Council Member Strader's in I
guess maybe helping me understand -- pretty clear from Council concern about density
and you had a great opportunity to lead and say this is what we are proposing. Any advice
for me as a Council Member who won't know how many units this unit will have at the
conclusion of this meeting, except for it can't be more than 249? How do I explain that to
our community who has voiced some real strong concern about density?
Holt: That's a fair question. I think -- I think what -- what we looked at as we tried to
assess this is -- is two factors. The underlying comp plan with the density range up to
that, that would never exceed that number and we are not asking to exceed that number,
as well as an underlying zoning ordinance that has other restrictions as it relates to open
space circulation, as well as a now third step, the CUP process that we will get even
further into that. So, this is -- this is a concept plan that has not been fully vetted. So, did
not go through that process and be allowed to go all the way through that process, feels
like it's being cut short. Right on the heels of that is that three or four or five concept plans
have now been shown or presented that I think address issues, are still providing, in our
math, that 30 plus percent open space. I think that we will exceed the -- the requirement
in the ordinance itself and so --but if we don't I think Joe was pretty clear-- Joe was pretty
clear last time, he doesn't believe we will. He thinks that in order for us to achieve that
open space requirement it will require a reduction in density. So, I'm not here tonight
saying lock me hard and fast at 249 units, what I'm saying is let us go through the process.
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page , of—
Let us understand it. I think we heard multiple times from Council Members that the
Planning Commission going through that will have issues, will want us to address things,
may or may not get 249 units and I think that's what you are hearing from us is instead of
arbitrarily and capriciously setting a number, go through the process. We think the
process was designed to work. I think there is an underlying comp plan and zone in place
with some forethought. So, let us go through that process.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate the feedback on that and I think it's -- I'm just -- I'm just one vote
and, obviously, this isn't -- this isn't an annexation and -- but as one who is in favor of the
existing development agreement it's hard for me to waiver from saying this is worthy of a
change or a modification not having all the details for me to feel satisfied that a change is
warranted. I'm just--
Holt: Sure.
Cavener: -- trying to be direct with you.
Holt: Yeah. And I can appreciate that. The other thing that we didn't hear is if there was
a number that -- that's the other thing; right? So, we went away and we have now come
back with a new road and a new public road and I didn't hear if it was one hundred units,
107, 207, 220. So, to --to just state a number doesn't feel like we have gone through that
process.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I appreciate that and I think that we as a body try not to prescribe this as the
number, but that said you did hear the concern from Council and you chose not to
respond, which, again, totally your -- your choice and you have got your own reasons for
doing so, but I guess I'm going to push back a little bit to say, well, you didn't do something
because you didn't get a number from Council. Council was pretty clear that they had
some reservations -- some Council Members were pretty clear they had some
reservations about the density.
Holt: And I -- again, I didn't try-- I didn't try to -- we are not trying to shirk away from that.
I -- I'm not, which is why I brought it up as a point that we clearly heard walking away. It
wasn't just traffic that we heard, it was density, but for those three or four reasons that's
why you have not seen massive or significant changes to the concept plan.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant?
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 8 of"
Holt. Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item this
evening?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we have two advanced sign-ups. First is Dan Buffham. And, Dan,
you are unmuted, so --
Buffham: Hi. Can you hear me?
Simison: We can.
Buffham: My name is Dan Buffham. I live at 3554 West Balducci Street. I'm on the south
side of this development. I just wanted to bring up a couple of things, you know, that --
you know, thank you for the Council Member recognizing that the developer didn't address
-- in my case I think everybody that lives here in this area is the density problem. I think
the road is, you know, a good start, but I also see that it's actually going to cause more
problems, because that gives a new throughput from people avoiding McMillan and/or
Ten Mile to go through that neighborhood on the north side. So, I think, you know, my
neighbors over here are going to have a big problem with that as well and the road does
nothing to mitigate the traffic on McMillan and, in fact, you know, I think it's -- it's going to
cause more -- because it's a shortcut, essentially, down the center from people coming
out of the Walmart center and whatever else they develop in those other areas there. We
already have a problem and I wanted to, you know, bring this up the last time, with -- with
cars and coming -- and commercial vehicles coming down in Vicenza, because you are
cutting the corner of Ten Mile and McMillan. If this is allowed I would like the City Council
to recognize that that's already a safety hazard and the more traffic we have coming down
that and with all of -- I mean they are right now currently building on the -- on the south
side, the north side, there is a lot on the west side on Black Cat, tons of things going in
there and multi-family, single family, hundreds of homes. There is no way to expand
McMillan, so all of those people as a main artery are coming down there and I just don't
-- you know, I would like the City Council to understand that, you know -- and I think you
guys do, you are hearing us, that you can only make this place so dense and the more
stuff you put in there the more dangerous it's going to get. You have to have schools.
Personally my kids are all grown, but, you know, my neighbors' kids go to school and it's
just packed. I ask that, you know, if -- if -- to consider to at least, you know, Vicenza to,
you know, put speed bumps in there. I don't care if you put three or four speed bumps in
there and I have to do ten miles an hour, that means everybody else who uses that to cut
corners would do ten miles an hour. But I really think the density problem is really key
here. Not -- not just a road and whenever they address it, whether it's today or it's next
month or three months from now, it needs to be addressed. We have way too much going
on in here and as the big picture goes, you know, the developers, you know, even though
they are trying to be, you know, accommodating in some ways, they don't live here. I live
here. There is -- I believe a City Council member lives in this area. They don't have to
do this and they are not taking into account everything else that has been already built
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 9 of—
and they have broken ground, trucks, trash, everything flying all over the place and
hundreds of homes and that's it. Thank you for your time.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Buff ham. Council,any questions? Okay. Thank you very much.
Next up, Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Next is Jennifer Fedewa. Jennifer, if you are online if you can raise your hand.
I don't see your name.
Simison: We do have someone with their hand raised, so why don't we go to Chris
Williams online.
Johnson: Mr. Williams, you can unmute yourself.
Williams: Thank you. Can you hear me?
Simison: Yes.
Williams: Chris Williams. Live at 4476 North Girasolo Avenue. I am on the south side of
the development as well. Again, just as the Council Member said, density. I mean that's
huge and I know they don't want to put a number on there, but to have so much density
there in this area, given all the other developments that we know and the other
intersections very close by, it's too much density. The roads that want -- the new road
that they added, that's -- that's only going to solve so much, not to mention the stop sign.
I mean we are going to have to have a stop sign there anyways once the rest of the
property to the north gets developed, but it's just with even -- I will even say 225 units,
even if they lower it, on average every person has two vehicles. I mean we can all do the
simple math. It just doesn't make sense and it's a huge safety concern for me with my
kids who I have going into elementary school right there. I mean just going down, you
know, that street, you know, right off McMillan it's dangerous enough. It's a pain in the
butt to get in and out of that as it is with all the traffic and I think until we solve this density,
you know, it's just not a smart move to approve this kind of blindly and hoping that maybe
down the road they will lower the density in the best case scenario. The other piece
outside the density is I'm all for trying to keep, you know, wealth and money in the
community. All these are going to be rental units. That's not keeping any of the money
within the community or help, you know, individuals building wealth, building equity for,
you know, a better life, in my opinion, you know, with that. It's just a massive rental
complex. And I'm sorry to say it, but to make another buck. That's what it is. But -- so, I
would, please, ask that Council recommend to either deny this or have it redesigned that
we could get a number in mind for density. I think the neighborhood would be better
suited. I think, you know, commercial, smaller retail would be better suited given the
issues. We know that McMillan in that area can't be expanded. We, I believe, addressed
that at the last hearing. So, I just kindly ask you guys to keep that in mind in making your
decision.
Meridian City Council
Item tt2. February 1,2022
Page 10 of—
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Council, any questions? Thank you very much. Is
there anybody in the audience who would like to come forward and provide testimony on
this item or anybody online that would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your
hand feature, so we can include you into this public comment period. Come on forward,
ma'am. If you could state your name and address for the record.
Freeman: My name is Michell Freeman. M-i-c-h-e-1-I. I live at 3931 Riva Capri. My
concern was on San Vito and Vicenza. Right now we have no parking signs on both sides
of those roads. I'm concerned with when this development is built that there will be
overflow out onto those roads with cars parked on both sides of the street and you see
that a lot in areas around and I don't think that's safe for the amount of people, especially
in the spring and summer riding their bicycles and that type of thing and it just adds activity
out there. So, that's my concern and I don't personally want to drive into my neighborhood
with cars parked on the side of the street. So, that's -- I'm wondering if those parking
signs will stay there, so that there is no overflow, because I know he has mentioned that
there is two car garages under the townhouses. Well, more than likely a good percentage
of those people are not going to be parking in their garage. Apartments are short lived,
even has mentioned that, that people won't be here for maybe a year to a two year and a
half, which means at least half that garage is full of their things and I don't feel like that
should be considered a hundred percent of parking for what's available there, because
they won't park there. That's my concern is parking on the street.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Ma'am, I got a question for you. Ms. Freeman. Yes, ma'am. I certainly would
appreciate it if you did. And so would Dean. He don't like you screaming from the back.
So -- so, are you saying that currently there are no parking signs on those two streets that
you referenced?
Freeman: Correct.
Bernt: Okay.
Freeman: On both sides of the street.
Bernt: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. That was easy.
Simison: We are seeing someone online.
Johnson: So, Michelle Banda. Michelle, you can unmute yourself.
Banda: Am I good?
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 11 of—
Simison: Yes, you are.
Banda: Okay. My name is Michelle Banda. I live at 3801 West Milano Street. I back
straight up to this property. I back straight up to San Vito. I have been at all of the
neighborhood meetings. I did miss the first City Council meeting, but I have been at both
neighborhood meetings. I will acknowledge that at first the developer seemed very willing
to listen to our requests. Originally they had no fence along San Vito and we
unequivocally stated that that was not acceptable. They have since put a fence up. But
now tonight it seems like they are kind of backtracking and even though the city told them
to make this development less dense, they didn't listen to that and in my opinion they
have made it actually more dense, because it seems like they took their original plan and
squished it all to put this road in and I will, you know, say like others have said, it doesn't
make a whole lot of sense for that road to make a whole lot of difference for this
development, except like others have said, to create a shortcut through the neighborhood.
But I just wanted to add my voice to the fact that I don't think that they are continuing to
try and work with us on this. I don't think they are trying to continue to work with the city
with their request to make this a less dense project. I don't think this area can handle this
high density. We have got another development going up on the north side of Walmart.
There is more going in off of Black Cat. It's just -- it's going to make this area just a
nightmare in terms of traffic and density and we specifically came to this side of
Bridgetower West because it was less dense. So, I just wanted to add that. No real
questions, but just wanted to add those few comments.
Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Is there anybody else in the
audience that would like to come forward on the item or anybody online?
Bernt: Ms. Freeman, do you want to say anything again?
Simison: Would the applicant like to make final comments?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Are you saying you don't want to say anything? Okay.
Simison: Yeah. She waives.
Bernt: Okay. I will start off the conversation with my thoughts. My thoughts are in line
with what was said before from other Council Members and also some of the folks who
testified publicly. One thing that I will give kudos to the developer for is activity, you know,
between the two areas that --that road makes a big difference in my opinion. So, thank
you for listening to us and making that improvement. On the other hand, you know-- and
it's really interesting for those who -- and just to be clear in what we are -- what's before
us this evening is this -- this property is already zoned R-15. The zoning is not going to
change as far as density is concerned. What the developer is wanting to do is remove,
Meridian City Council
Item#2. February 1,2022
Page 12 of—
you know, the -- the development agreement that says there is going to be an assisted
living on the property. So, that's what they are asking for right now and so whether --
whether or not -- well, I guess what I'm trying to say is that the density is not a question.
The project has already been -- you know, he can build whatever -- you know, he can
build R-15 on it currently and so with that said, you know, Councilman Cavener mentioned
something earlier that I -- that I completely agree with and that is I would like to have
something. I would like -- I would like to know something. And the reason I say that is
because we just came off an election year and I have knocked on thousands of doors, as
did, you know, Council Member Borton and Luke and that's probably the reason why we
are probably here more passionate about this than others, because we have talked to the
folks in their front doorways and they all said basically the same thing, you know -- you
know, growth is an issue and so I would like to -- I would like to know what that looks like
and we spoke about it, you know, last time you were here. I -- I know that you are not in
-- it would be very difficult for you to give an exact number based upon the CUP process
and what that looks like and for those who are -- don't know what that is -- so, basically,
to approve the project, you know, which would include the exteriors and -- and what the
project looks like, what the buildings look like, the amount of units, so on and so forth,
that would -- that would be at another public hearing at the Planning and Zoning level. It
would never come to us. So, this potentially could be the last time we hear this -- this --
this and I would really like to know what that number is ballpark and so before -- before I
would vote to approve this I would need to know that number, you know, at least fairly
close and I think that you have been doing this long enough -- it sounds like you have
been in other cities doing other projects and so I don't think it would be too difficult for you
to come up with that number, in my opinion.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I agree with Councilman Bernt about the connectivity. I think that's a critical
element of this, considering that it's, you know, been a priority of the City of Meridian to
have these connections from one arterial road to another and this will accomplish that. I
do have a couple questions for the applicant if he wouldn't mind coming up. So, the
memo --
Holt: I forgot my water last time, so I'm trying to make certain I don't do that again. Yes,
Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. The memo -- the memo with the new concept plan stated that this
would be a public road. On that drawing it appears that these would function more like
private roads. I just -- I'm having a hard time seeing this as a public road as you have
presented it different from the roads that run internally and how that will flow and work for
safety and -- I mean, obviously, there aren't a lot of buildings that are facing this, so you
are trying to keep the residential piece isolated from it, but I just -- help me understand
more about how this is going to appropriately function as a public road in relationship to
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 13 of—
how traffic will flow through the interior. And, then, the second question I have for you is
who will want to sit in their bathing suit right next to McMillan Road?
Holt: I would. No. I'm actually going to have to rely a little on -- on Joe for some help on
the road. So, what I understand is the local public right of way, it's 47 -- 48 feet; is that
right? Versus our internal. So -- so, the road along the north end -- and I don't know if --
if Joe can pull it up on the screen, but the -- the proposed road along the north end, the
local road, is a 47 foot right of way. So, it allows for a couple lanes of traffic, the -- the
necessary curb-gutter on both sides, land strip or -- or park strip and, then, sidewalk.
Contrary to most of the ones inside the project, those are closer to 30 foot to make certain
that we accommodate the fire truck --fire truck aerial -- or our aerial apparatus. The long
truck, the circulation, the radii for those roads. So, it's hard to tell on a 16 acre site plan,
but just off the cuff I think there is a 17, 18 foot plus or minus discrepancy in those road
sizes to be a local road, which is what's proposed on the north end compared to anything
else. Is that fairly said, Joe?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, I would prefer you answer the second question and I will come back.
Holt: Oh. The bikinis out on the street. I'm a little disappointed, actually, to hear Mr.
Buffham's comment that--that we haven't done anything, because I can tell you the entire
reason that that clubhouse at a single story is on that corner is from our first neighborhood
meeting. Our first concept plan that was one of our three story buildings out on the street
for the reasons of visibility, a leasing office, banners, accessibility, flow and his concern
was that our residents on the third floor would look at his wife in her bikini in their backyard
in their pool. So, there is a direct and specific reason why we moved a single story 'ish
foot -- so, not just a ten foot simple structure, but a single story clubhouse and common
area facility on that corner to move the building to the north of the pool -- to the north side
of that to create an even bigger buffer from some of those residents on the south side of
McMillan. So, I was a little disheartened to hear that. As far as who is going to want to
be out there, you would be surprised. And going --again, part of-- part of this is we know
there is more steps and that's the frustrating part to me. I can appreciate, Council Member
Bernt, that you have went out, knocked doors, heard -- heard concerns. Part of it to me
is we haven't even gotten to the -- all the fun part. Landscaping. Orientation. Some of
those designs. We haven't even really gotten into it, which is what we do in the CUP
process, which is where you are hearing that -- that hesitancy come from the density side
of things. He's absolutely correct. I could tell you right now to lose ten percent, 25 units,
it is not going to impact things. I don't know if that's the number. To go to 200, yes, that
impacts things. I can't do the road. I can't do the common areas. Again, part of the
reason this whole thing came about that we seem to have forgotten about -- in our first
neighborhood meeting the residents did not want me to be a part of the Bridgetower
master planned community. They want us to do our own amenities. They don't want our
residents in their facilities. So, part of it is spending several million dollars for a road.
Several million dollars building amenity spaces for our residents to keep them out of that.
That's a big piece of this. And so, yes, I have been doing this long enough to know that
roughly an eight, nine, ten percent haircut, 25 units, I can live with. If the number is 200
1 can't and at that point I would have to go back and readjust the road. I would have to
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page —of 44
go back and readjust-- hey, you know what, maybe I need to be able to use your facilities,
even though I told you in my first neighborhood meeting -- if that's cut and dry what you
don't want, what I heard is, hell, no, we don't want to be -- you to be a part of our master
plan. We don't want you to get rid of the fence. Tried to honor those two -- those two
points. So, that -- that's the hesitancy. That's the reluctancy in -- in saying is it -- is it
222? Is it 227? Right in that range I know works. Less than that I have got to go back
and address bigger things that have me going back on other items that I tried to address
or--or comply with. To answer your question very specifically, landscaping. Landscaping
can do a lot. So, part of the reason we want a pool close to the open space, landscaping
and screening, fencing, other things can do. We want that view right next to our common
area, right next to our clubhouse. Our clubhouses end up with barbecues, they end up
with full indoor-outdoor kitchens, so that someone can gather, watch the Super Bowl. Not
be watching the Super Bowl in bikinis for the Super Bowl, but have a Fourth of July party,
interior-exterior flow in and out, and that space needs to be -- be connected. Can we
figure out ways to address it? If that's a concern you have viewing the pool from that
street, I'm more than happy to address that as part of the CUP process. What kind of
screening, landscaping, fencing — where does the pool equipment go? We have used all
of those things. Pergolas. Canopies. We have used all of those things to screen the
pool when we have had city -- cities or residents that are concerned about a view shed
directly onto a pool on a public right of way. I think Joe was going to address the road.
Sorry.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, if you have a follow-up to his, then, I will go after you.
However you want to do it.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Let me ask one more question, please. So, the pool was just a curiosity
question. It's very unusual for us to see it on a main corridor up close like that. So, it
really has nothing to do with our decision here this evening, but I just -- I'm glad to hear
that you will put in some -- some privacy measures in that regard.
Holt: It was interior. If Joe has our first concept plan, it was interior to the site.
Perreault: We just heard an application off Eagle Road that was denied due to flow of
traffic through with -- internally and, then, surrounding the -- the property. A little bit
different layout, but they also had to access part of their property through another
property, which is -- and thank you for getting the letter from the neighbor, because that
was a critical element of this for me. In that development there -- similar to this -- there
were 30 foot wide roads and one of the conversations we had was safety of cars moving
through, backing out of carports. You know, in this case they probably would circle around
to that east side and stop and unload their groceries and try to come back, you know,
park -- park in their parking spot and there is going to probably be a lot of people driving
and stopping and getting out and hauling things and whatnot the way this is laid out.
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 15 of—
Thirty foot -- the 30 foot private roads and the flow of traffic with this level of density
concerns me for safety issues within the development internally. We have had some
other recent applications where I have voiced this where I have driven through them and
seen where there is significant opportunity for fender benders, somebody backing out and
not seeing a pedestrian and those kinds of things. So, if you have developed this similar
type of project with this similar density and had success in not seeing issues with
pedestrians, you know, safety, children at play, you know, fender benders, please, share
that with me, because there are some projects here that have significant issues with --
with similar designs.
Holt: I can tell you we have. I would also tell you we have also had issues; right? I have
had a U-Haul hit a -- hit a carport. So, it happens. The things that we tried to do to
mitigate it, signage, lighting and delineation. So, for example, between some of the --the
open space areas going to --the middle open space area, basketball court-- I don't know
if this mouse works. Oh, yeah. Some of these areas. Nope. North of that. I think it's
Joe that's controlling it. Those areas; right? So, making certain that some of those areas
get connected with well lit, well delineated pedestrian access points through -- through
the block is something that's critical. Lighting on the underside of carports or on the
exterior of the buildings in the -- in the garage areas. The other thing that is worth noting
is because these are fire sprinkled buildings we have got that --that road width and, then,
on -- on the townhome side of things, because we are going to build under the IBC -- so,
not the IRC, but the IBC, we will be over 35 feet, we have to provide an aerial apparatus
access. So, that's the big ladder truck. So, I -- the truck cannot be -- and you can correct
me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chief-- Fire Chief, we cannot be closer than 15 feet and further than
30 feet. In addition to that -- those 26 to 30 foot drive aisles, there has to be another spot
where we have at least 15 feet. We can't be closer than 15 feet and further than 30 feet;
is that correct?
Bongiorno: Somewhere in that neighborhood, yeah.
Holt: That is an additional buffer in addition to the actual driving corridor space. You are
-- you are looking at a very ten thousand foot level and so back down -- zooming back
down closer, inside of those 15 feet to 30 feet, again, planting the correct materials in the
right spot so that you don't impact visibility. Getting lighting right. Getting signage right.
Getting other delineation to try and keep residents and people where we want them to be,
which is through the paseos, through the well intended, well lit common areas and those
connection points. Is it a -- is it a hundred percent failsafe? No, it's not. It's drastically
better than turning your back on it or not -- not addressing it, if that makes sense. More
specifics than that I don't know that I could give you, but -- but certainly landscaping,
signage and, then, because we are building under the IBC it requires us to have a greater
-- some greater areas of separation than if we were building under IRC. We don't have
to have that extra aerial apparatus access buffer. So, some of those areas that we have
that extra 15 feet we would not have to have under IRC.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 1Uof"
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: Go ahead and answer the local road portion. I didn't -- the concept plan that I
received and I put in my presentation actually wasn't the correct one, because I had three
access points right here, which Dustin and I had a conversation and I told him that it's not
going to meet offset requirements for ACHD, so you got to move it. So, they have moved
it to the interior, which I think makes it a lot better to just have this access point and this
access point. You see this a lot with a lot of different projects with, you know, a private
multi-family drive aisle connection to a local street, which is why initially I was concerned
that they were going to propose this as the Gondola extended and have a -- have the
collector road, which I think would be a bad idea, because, really, that collector street
needs to connect further north in the future. So, the fact that this is a local street I think
is a benefit compared to a collector. Secondly, local versus private functionality probably
won't change much, to be honest, whether it's local or private. The benefit of it being local
is you will be allowed to have on-street parking on the local street and if it was a private
drive aisle we more than likely would not. Now when I say private I do not mean private
roads or -- I anticipate they will not have a private street application, which is separate to
put these roads within an easement and/or a common lot, but they will be multi-family
private drive aisles, private in the sense of ownership. You know, the multi-family
development would own it. They will be at least 26 feet wide pavement minimum because
of fire. I will say looking at the concept plan I see quite a bit of -- I guess you could say
driveways of some sort in front of these garage areas, which I have actually not seen in
any of the multi-family developments that I have seen. It's always been right up to that
property line and you have no room between, which I have lived in places like that and --
but, you know, I have also lived in places a lot more dense than this. So, just a different
dynamic. It is livable. It -- I haven't seen -- to your point, Council Woman Perreault, the
-- some of those issues. I will admit I haven't spent a lot of time within a lot of multi-family
developments. The one that I did live in we were -- a miracle able to afford a home. It --
I didn't see that happen. I actually didn't see -- there was a lot of issues and they did not
have drive aisles in front of the garages. It was a pain to get a U-Haul near the garage to
put some stuff in it. But I -- I see your points. I see Mr. Holt's point regarding the density.
I see the Council's points. I see both sides very clearly. From a staff perspective I do
anticipate that Commission will deal with density in some regard if the DA mod is
approved, regardless. If the DA mod is denied this will sit and we will have to do this all
over again with someone else, whether that -- whatever that might be. I would just
recommend that if we go that route that there are specifics so that if Mr. Holt wants to
come back around or somebody else, that if it's going to require a commercial or if it's
going to require other things in order to get an approval from this Council that -- that we
delineate those very clearly, whether it -- you know, because we can't necessarily require
a rezone, but we can discuss, hey, we want commercial here, we want things like that,
which, then, in turn, would instigate a future rezone. So, I just want to be very clear on
that as we move forward to the deliberation.
Holt: Mr. Mayor, if I may? This came up in Ms. Freeman's comment on the no parking.
It-- I don't -- I think that's actually tied to the Bridgetower master plan, so I have no ability
to remove those signs or to permit on-street parking. So, I think just on the record that
Meridian City Council
Item tt2. February 1,2022
Page - of—
should be noted. To Mr. Dodson's comment, as we look to accommodate the aerial
apparatus access, yes, there are certain townhomes where all of a sudden we found an
ability to do an 18 or 20 foot driveway behind the unit that otherwise we wouldn't have
had. Part of that is trying to be responsive to individuals. You --we provide a lot of storage
opportunities in areas inside of our buildings, but if-- if a resident were to choose to utilize
that -- their garage for storage, it's an extra attempt of additional parking stalls for visitors,
for individuals with more than one vehicle, without actually being a parking stall that's
counted. So, we really did try to take those things into consideration and I think that's the
hard part for me. Do I want this application denied? Absolutely not. We --we bought the
ground. We bought the ground back in the summer. Knowing or hearing some of the
comments from staff it was -- you are going to address a bunch of this stuff with the
Planning Commission anyway. So, I feel stuck. We are trying to show a plan. I think to
my point before, an eight to ten percent drop right now I know I can withstand. Something
greater than that I would have to go back and revisit probably the entirety of it. So, if that
answers your question more specifically. Thank you. Any other questions for me or --
Simison: Council, any questions?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Yes, Joe.
Dodson: One last comment regarding the road. I -- in addition to the letter from the
previous landowner and the landowner to the north, I had a lengthy discussion with that
owner as well regarding the road and he anticipates fully cooperating should this get
approved. I just wanted to be super clear on that, that those conversations happened. It
wasn't just a --
Boson: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: We have received information necessary to at least get the question going. I will
provide some -- some comments and thoughts. You know, the context Counci Member
Bernt hit on it, I mean some helpful framework to know what is before us and what isn't.
You know, the property is already annexed, encumbered with the development agreement
that has this concept plan to it. So, yes, it's zoned R-15, but that concept plan back in '08
was tied to this and this development agreement for a particular purpose and it's mixed
use community, but still tied to what that intended and just, frankly, it's much different than
what's before us now. It's the reason that this DA modification is necessary. So, while
it's not an annexation, I look at it similar to that as if this was a request to annex R-15 with
this intended use and would it be in the best interest of the city to have this be included.
That mindset made of all of the information that we heard from the applicant and heard
from the public, concerns about density among other things, that I'm not convinced that
the concept plan from '08 is improved with this application. I believe the property,
awkward as it is, hasn't yet developed. We try to think of these decisions in long term
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 18 of"
generational type decisions. Still can feel convinced that the concept plan that was tied
to the R-15 annexation in '08 is most appropriate. Some of the elements that have been
addressed in this application, road being one of them, that principle my sense would be
incorporated into that future development. Some of these really clever solutions I think
would probably go into that future plat that's consistent with the existing concept plan.
So, for those reasons I think I'm not supportive of this application as presented and think
the existing concept plan should be given more time to see its day.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Question for Joe -- maybe it involves Bill, but to that point if Council were to
turn this application down and say, no, you have to stick with the existing DA, it's still R-
15, we know that, and according to one report, the one concept plan that is specific to this
property is an area of assisted living facilities -- or facility. Or medical offices. Could a
developer carve out a land section for that that makes it vacant for a number of years, as
it has already, and still put in units that meet the R-15 designation?
Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, good question. I would say there is multiple -- multiple
ways to answer that. Would it be -- would it meet R-15? Yes, I think it would. Would it
not require a DA mod? I don't think so. I think it would still require a DA modification,
because the concept plan itself will not match or the plan would not match to this concept
plan. Again, we -- we, staff, we have discretion in that. We have some leeway in that,
but -- but I would have to say the only way, Bill, my supervisor and Caleb, Planning and
myself, would not require a DA mod on this site would be if something came in with a
similar enough site plan where you have these like four pack kind of units. If they did that,
single family, multi-family, I don't care, I -- I think that that would be close enough to the
concept plan to, then, just go straight forward to a CUP if it was multi-family and apply if
it was single. But either of those options would comply with R-15. Yes. I hope that
answered your question.
Hoaglun: It helps. Thank you,
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: The brief historical context is, you know, in almost all cases, especially back then,
we wouldn't approve an annexation without a plat. Then the rare exception is the concept
plan was kind of the plat light, sort of not set in stone, but intentionally set, I guess, to
know exactly how the remainder of the properties would exactly develop. So, this
purposeful piece, I guess, into some of the structure of the concept plan, which I
appreciate your -- your hesitancy. It is a difficult question until you see it and I don't
know--
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 19 of—
Dodson: Right. Exactly. It--any of these that require DA modification with concept plans
it gets murky pretty fast, just because of, you know, without being a lawyer, because I'm
-- yeah. I didn't -- I did not choose that route. It is -- yeah, it's just hard to say. I don't
know how far I want to go down that rabbit hole there. But it can be difficult to do that,
yes.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I have been -- you know, I -- following up and reviewing the information
from the last meeting and I was really hoping to see a different concept plan that had less
density. That's really hard, because, you know, on the one hand you sort of -- the
applicant is saying, hey, this is all a different process, but that process doesn't come
before City Council; right? And I -- you know, so I struggle with that. I think if -- for me
the density is a huge concern in this -- in this area with the traffic concerns in McMillan. I
do think the roadway is an improvement. You know, I -- 1 could probably wrap my head
around something between 200 to 225 units would be a pretty significant reduction, but I
don't think the applicant has, you know, necessarily stated they are firmly in supportive of
that. Yeah. I -- I -- so, I'm trying to weigh the fact that it -- you know, it is zoned this way.
I'm not sure if someone came forward with the exact concept plan from the previous DA
if that is actually a huge improvement or not, if I'm just being really honest. So, I would
be in favor of possibly approving it if there was a reduction in density that we could agree
on, but if we couldn't, then, I would probably be in the camp of a denial today, hoping that
it could come back if they had some more time in the future with a different concept plan
that maybe addresses the density concern. I -- I just feel that that concern needs to be
addressed, that it's a high enough -- it's a big enough issue in this location that to not
address it is a mistake. I don't think it's in the interest of Meridian in the future to move
forward with up to 250 here.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: A quick question for Joe about a comment in the staff report. On page four it
says the following mixed-use policy should be met with the proposed plan and the second
bullet point says supportive and proportional public and --and/or quasi-public spaces and
spaces not included, limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering spaces. Do you feel like
this concept plan meets that? I -- I'm -- I'm struggling with this being truly mixed use and
not just a residential development.
Dodson: Council Woman Perreault, I -- I do not anticipate that this site itself is mixed use
and meets all those policies. Absolutely not. Just like the last one that came through that
was recommended for denial by Commission didn't meet all of them and that was for the
60 acres to the north. When you have smaller sites and, quote, unquote, smaller -- you
know, 16 acres isn't that big when you try to fit in multiple land uses. Public, quasi-public
Meridian City Council
Item tt2. February 1,2022
Page 20 of—
spaces, I -- the revised concept plan, honestly, with that open space on the north end of
the -- the north side of the local road, I do think that would be a little bit more of that. I
don't know if they would hit five percent. That's a pretty big area. But I say that because
other discussions with the other property owner to the north is they are -- that buffer
between this potential site and, then, future residential or commercial on the north side of
the extension of the collector road, would be additional park space, because they were
-- they had discussed at the Commission hearing on that previous application about
where the existing line or the fence line is for the park and how much should actually be
there is not the same per the approvals and so instead of taking that park or -- or if they
did take some of that area of the park to add it some -- some back here and then -- then
you get some shared common area, even if there is some commercial there, which was
previously proposed, you have some shared quasi-public space between commercial
plazas and some open space. Really when I look at these I'm not anticipating that this
project does, but this project, in conjunction with the existing commercial, in conjunction
with what the commercial that's zoned, but not constructed on the south side and, then,
everything in this little bubble will meet those, yes. This project itself, no, and I -- I wouldn't
in good faith, you know, require that normally, to say, hey, on the 16 acre parcel you are
going to have commercial and office, you are going to have multi-family and you're going
to have single family. Really, the mixed use community in this area actually doesn't have
any residential in it technically right now. It's all commercial right now. But a lot of it's
undeveloped as well. So, they are --we don't have a minimum commercial, which I would
think is a bad thing in our mixed use standards, but we do have a minimum residential
and that is not met technically right now. So, this would be working towards that goal,
correct, to have those mixed uses within that. Like I said, lots of facets to all of this.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Joe, again, to follow up, then, to meet mixed use in the R-15, they -- someone
could propose a commercial building along McMillan and have that buffer McMillan and,
then, inside of that go with residential units, townhouses, apartment complexes and do a
layout however, you know, and some of the testimony we hear is the fact that, well, we
don't want anything over two stories and that sort of thing and someone can propose four
story commercial and it meets the mixed use. So, is that a correct view of that?
Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, yes, that is one outcome that could occur. If a rezone
accompanied the DA mod, with the intention of doing, you know, bigger office buildings
along McMillan that is something that planning staff in a bubble would love. I would much
prefer that personally. But that's -- you know, I don't get to design these, so it doesn't
come out that way. But that was something that we had discussed with the applicant from
the beginning previous. I can't tell you how many people I have met with on this site
before it was sold. So, those are things that have come up, yes. A rezone occurred and
there was some commercial along McMillan, absolutely. Depending on the zoning would
probably be at least 40 feet as a maximum.
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 21 of—
Hoaglun: So, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I guess what -- what makes this so difficult and to address the residents and
people who testified, whatnot, is we could turn this down tonight, but what you get coming
later may be something even less desirable. That's -- that's the rub here. Yeah. I mean
you --you could have -- someone decides with that Walmart-- and we know how that Ten
Mile and McMillan intersection is building up, my folks live kitty-corner from Walmart, back
there. They are backed up against a couple restaurants. It is not a good thing to have
behind your house is a restaurant. Delivery trucks and noise and whatnot. So, I -- that
-- that's -- that's kind of the tough part. We don't -- we don't know. We --we -- if this gets
turned down what may come later -- they may not be so amenable to suggestions and
concept plans and different things like that. So, that -- that's what makes it difficult. We
dealt with one on Chinden Road where there is a hospital going in and there is homes in
the area and the amount of time we spent on that from they are ruining our sight lines,
the distances, the height of the building, the lighting, all that good stuff-- needless to say,
you know, it -- it -- it changes things. That property will change someday and it's just what
we are dealing with. It is zoned. It's got plans for it right now. This developer wants to
do something different, okay, it's -- it's before us tonight. But what those future plans are
if this doesn't go as they want, don't know what's going to happen. So, just -- just fair
warning I guess. Just one of those things and, then, we will have to deal with it at another
time. So, anyway --
Simison: Council, are we at a place where we are thinking to close the public hearing?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Get the discussion going. Be more than happy to. But for now I will move to
close the public hearing on H-2021-0094.
Bernt: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? 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.
Meridian City Council
Item fit. February 1,2022
Page 22 of—
Borton: I think it's been a good discussion. I think it provides historical context of how
we got here and what might come in the future. Councilman Hoaglun's comments are
spot on in that regard. You know, this is the one that you know--we don't know if-- if this
is denied what the next application might come before us, whether the use is more
intense, greater mass, but I do believe that future application would, nonetheless, come
back to some council at a public hearing or a DA modification, perhaps a rezone, and that
Council with that public can vet it at that time. So, with the application that's before us for
the reasons that were stated on the record earlier at tonight's hearing, I'm going to make
a motion that we deny the DA modification request and application H-2021-0094.
Bernt: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to deny the application. Is there discussion on
the motion? 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 denied.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
2. Public Hearing for 1160 W. Ustick Annexation (H-2021-0092) by The
Housing Company, Located at 1160 W. Ustick Rd., on the north side of
Ustick Rd. Between N. Linder Rd. and N. Venable Ave.
A. Request:Annexation and Zoning of 4.54 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district for the future purpose of constructing an
affordable housing, multi-family residential project.
Simison: With that we will move on to the next public hearing. Item No. 2, which is for
H-2021-0092. We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Give people just a couple minutes just to get out of the
room. Thank you. As noted, Item No. 2 tonight is for 1160 West Ustick annexation,
located -- go figure -- at 1160 West Ustick. The applications before you tonight are for
annexation and zoning. The site consists of 3.81 acres. Currently zoned RUT in the
county. It's on the north side of Ustick Road in between North Venable and Linder Road.
So, west of Venable. The future land use designations on the site are actually two as
mixed use community, as well as medium density residential. The annexation and zoning
before you tonight is actually for four and a half acres, which accounts for the right of way
that's required, because you go to center line when you annex properties. This is a
request for R-15 zoning district and it is for the purpose of constructing a future affordable
housing multi-family residential project by The Housing Company. As noted the project
site has two mixed future land use designations. The majority of the site is the mixed use
community, with a sliver of medium density residential. West Ustick abuts the site along
Exhibit D
September 1, 2022 Presentation to Commission
(attached)
Exhibit D 1
IL
D
T O
H
aZ
W
0.
Ja
QW
� o
Q
z
O
F
Fm N
� N
z
N
O
Ii F
z
LL
V
W z
0
W
o�
a m
O W W
L W
W
cr
W
cc
N
v ¢ yLL,1
Q Ix EL D
w �
JF-
� E J Z
Lu
a • r■� m
J J J
wN � QCz
O
* z
CE
iE
W ■
ea N s a
z
in
W
v x `
V=C -_
,
or_, I�4 44
CL
E
[--� a r '
a w
ki
u �
as =2 Z, ,z
LU
A Ire r m
O zm
z n
LT3
mm win
116 is. 0. Mi ti e-'
IF
All
.lam
-�
ILI�
Z•
L.
YR !
tI 1
�►--O�i.�-4 Gera r
I -
._
1
LU
'`
1
L
iC U` L
LM
c
v �, � v
c n ,a D
4-10
--- O '
o Q—
E v c o
cu U O fV
of ai 0 p 4-
V) a-1
a) c aJ
7 aJ c c U
s E c o aJ c
v a aJ
L
U TU
v v a) (v
0 ,4-1
4-1
E � Q� v
Ln a cu
>
3 -0
o
4— CY
N
aJ 'C
U
> U
— +J ra
.E
4,
c
N O
E +'
Q 4-1v
J
o ai
0
� Q Z
a� o
Z 4, v
Q J
C Q
c� �
C
Q
�L
O O
O O
U +1
Q)
N
4-
N
L O
E --- •
bn
•�_
O c
v L
r O E O
Q
v J
4- ai
�1 O >
x •. N
_—• E p t
O
w O N a
a) E
Q u
A
a,
A vE ,
� 0
�
�vE
O > aJ - a
,c v ago
X bA l i2
vaa �
QU
�o
N
Z D
W O c6
� O
v SS!� •'�«."�,.� �,. '$WOlI-R7� o-,.ra a s'„or f k iw.«++ ..13I� -�
w
-
^ W r Fes^
W C V N r� , Q &I q FIs mT
0
F T S
I � � 1 f
!
O C6 i QC � gI �—
+-j
ui
Z '� tU0 gyp a v
Q J_
O ,
l7
�F y
�-as�C7f6�T���,3a�e.a"o`+i�-_—.....it�+ro�-_"-1�—
— i
Ell
Lo
N M Nn.24 � ¢s
pig Mug
�s
f�Tm'17 rv. Ik ACK Cws iv9aar�
N �
rl
N a
O �
O
0
N �
a�
W �
x
LL N
°
LU
r
o
-
A
1 V
P6. �If1iCI0�� I �1
cn
Wx oz
0 +�
o
V o i
w p Iml
;r
t
ro
ev
• #l�;t. - Imoror
t 1 �■R' � �' ,■ice .�
•
r , . ��■■ ■rss���� �a<����it� ���. ,� �,111111111� •
• - ''tllltatt_'�3�J■� FI�M 'illtiHl: '■'~T �" — !
- � y, lei •ii'i. ,�l:r �l#:° .. �! :;(:.:��'� � '� ! ���� i
' x t
•
•
m
C: Ln u 0 CD /T77
r
o �
v '� O
a tbw s
L
4..i
O {•'i
a a ?
ZtU0 E ao
a a
0 �' Q
c cw
a a w o
— d) 0
Q � E E s '
� a Q r *Ca CL x
M..� a LJ O V, r- E t7
W bA a V ' x
L1 4� Q .
W Q a _ 93
E
E °
2- Qj
> a t
Z 4 a
L E
o o
..
a
bn
bn 7
a a ad
ej
> Oa
ws
W s 0 L F - -TZ
o E . o
U c do .�
0
N
a--+
� � Q
ate--+ N
O U a--+
N E
in O
O E
ro> O O cr
O O N N v Q)
Ln dJ E O N dJ
U
ca n N c6 �O
a-J
i ro •—
l� 4J =5 _ —
O ro E O
a
O O LL r
Q) N +-' W
ro O O c6 O c
cc z
}, N Q G p
i V Q � Q J
Q `~ N n p Lo
v > U U r _
° b.0 >. O 4- ro
+-' }, }, U c
C: }, f6 U -0 Q) - a--+
a-J N
N E c m D E
O
U E C
Q Q c6 cn O
0 a� t Ln M 4-
O ri ro c6 E N o
NO }' -0 -o 4-1n
E m
E >, > N �
O N fV °
W o � p v O � � N
> N f6 4- N
> � -0 v O C O
N >. dJ _0 N dJ (V
Z O
w °' E a) Q u 4- Q) `r'
V 0- o yip v
W Q0- cnU � 0-Q
09 Vu
r
N
N
VICENZA WAY
Ln
N V w
4 2
i
V
N f f
V
J
a
r
_ w
SAN VITO WAY L6- z
co
7 1
r
O Lo
" r w
f
�, VQ
D
U
O
I N 4-j
E ca
N U
_ N
N Q
c 6 4-j
� O
O 4 N
I cc
U U
m C7- L C6
I N _0 O O
+-+ _0 U
I a� v m
N
Q cn
Qj � o
buO
z
O o
N
U v toLo
ui
z o v
O
uw o o
V = v
a O I p
N O
r-I �
Z I O Z _
LU p N Z UO
N N
C N I I
N Ln N N
Q rl N N
O N O O
i N O N
E li N U N
O o > >. _
a
°o O Z Q
W
Z
M
a-I
I
ru! r! r!
u
f a u
!i • 21i
■! ■! .�
LL
u u r!
r! r! r! u s r!
u u u
o • � '� �■ 4fs
l! .■ r. ■� ■w r �- 6N
■! r! r!
IRE
i.
r■ rrr 1H rr■r!
r
FHu u
a! r. r! u r! dR.
r! r! H u a! ode• u
� o ae ea
e � n
.! w n■
is �, ■_ ■- e"a
a
iii i■s
i.i
■ ■.. �� ■ iii 1
■•• iii ���
.ii
Y!
rii ■.■
m
.... ■
..■■■ ri
o■e ■.s
ui
� �: J.I.i �■ra ���A ■
w� . -
�6 ■u � ® _
s
■ iii ■ !Ids �
w.■ ri 11 ii�
ri. r■i ii ii■
Vidl
•
LLI
M
0
N _ �
p N L
aJ Q +-+ 4-+ ca
u p �O N •� M
p
Q i 0 +-+
O O N O O
CL v Q N
• p O p >
O u > O
O O X a) ca
O w Q
co
co (.0 Q �
N M
U
H
Z
� +i
W +
�
W W Qj W v o
Z Z — p Ln a
W v E D rn -- Z
> j bn CAA N i f6 N M o
N N
W f6 +- z
_ c�i) O 0 ateJ > o
Q Ln X X M U 41
Co E E O
• O O O
N V
H
Z
W a..,
C
Wu� _
c6 O
cy oc
aA wo
Q � a; 'a
ru
Z .N _ N �
N
Z CO LL CO LL O i.n Q n-
o
N
o
O
Q
4J vi
U i
4-, O
U N c/) U
ate--' aJ -0
° Q Q a—+
U � o
c N LL N +-+ Q
c6 N > LL N cn
O Q +� ° " CLO
C7 �
Z_ O E Q v ° v
4-1 mN _r_ m >-
+ Z c6 � +
Z O U
Q Q 4J U
G/� N J Q O � N c
N o U > M -0 +., ° x
— -0 N v -0 o c cn :3 LD
" -0 c U f6 cn =
W u u � v N — O c6
2 W
Q Q Q N cn � � >
Ln Uj
O °
>, ;n >
V i >. v 0 o � v ° v Q
W 4-j ° v t�A O Q c6
Q U N +) Q w N a--+ Q
�. O v N Q W ro N O O
Q cn O
W Q � O v u m u M 0 � u a°io O �
m m � Ln
G
z aJ C: Q c� — _Q N
� v v
LLI
v v CU
° O vN o > oa•' +�—Q �
C: w +� +v�
D D- 0 m D- m � cn in
,
O l=
Vu
N
It m�
>3 it i� ��ec..•�d• uJ ���� ❑
III dB l
I
----_ l
k f uw
z
L
III �-
H
--
w - -- I
1 � I
w G _
a ■ S
00
'37
ill +
14
mmmmmmmm mmmmmmmm--".%
IWMNIIIIN�
L6
El
0 17, mr
0
00 1
------------
----------- --------------P
I�±11� U�►'.1.��1"'�• '� ,,,.„MNA1 MINM",rr.�.���M IMMI�r ,.ri+v�rr..,ly�w_x.w�. ri1�111!�,"�Y�
-- `—�._— � �" � � I -•n.�i1�M1�+�114�,My1nwMMF��x...........,,�w�.f„..�n..,w�.Mwnrliiwrw�,
I ; I ..► , .,I,I r..l..l..r I I1„IC .I,I•�. 1 !
� c. �
Irll 1 9 b. v�
I''lv Id ::JdV )S(.Irdv I I Ir.'ly Irk IdVDSCINVI I
r.w,
) w
14 III II II..I I II II :�,, 111 I I I
VI" I C'V I¢1d III 4fd
III V Id Ir�l�r"I III ,► �.� I�1 : IfIv:;.IEIrJV I ICI,
I
1••1 I I I I
I I
� I i i I , I� ( � li^ I I I I• I I :II�� I I I I
x III I � l91 III ., IIII III I, I, I
I19f I",
1•� 11 I I '��� I 1 , ,Ij ,t '� I
1 '
---- I III ICv II II II I II II 11 GnI1 i.vowV /
< i I I
W 1 NV Id I--,-I '081INV'-1 hJ1J1cl :ql: � 1�Nb+`I4a
I ,r 11 j` l
40
i I10
�,..
f�a
�' fo
I� �n
rA U
� 2 V❑w
IIL4 111 rl �� D N 7 N O � p�m�x❑x Q � � F 0�
U q 8 4 C ¢ O N
d o
} j N f ❑ N � �= O � � ~ a OF
w r d
�..-.. ^"'i.IA I',1p•,MXiM'Nhr r' �,ii uur�w5,lrrw'arw.r�. n n..ww.n--• _ -J Z
IL �a N f7
W Q W ¢2 O m 2
a
2 U
-------'�1 nUl � 'NNlrrll�ulN�y r . .,r.�.. ar" ❑ d
�.------ w I ua nne uo �
- � rnl ll�I I`f II13T'nS �� Ir��� '^ W F W W W
r f" ti, Q a
A �
1� III{I Ir III IIq IIII p� � �� u
ail;• Z ° a
g � J W �
CD
loll n,ll� ° r
I '
.Inw„
'•r' a
lu •�.. - I 'I W
I III c I
L6
Z
LD
It v
IF
"1M III
F� I'AI111 L�.Ixlw ld — i� rI[ �
�NM yy'II1�XA1 YY_ Iml I r rr�•IA - I 11
a
"
I
1 ��, wA y xrw„nww„�"Il•yrf �r
�uldh'lulfill'll�rrI I�INWwMANW.yIY".�,,,,NA�,....`.L J
� 'oc
Exhibit E
Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, And Objections Are Unsupported
By Actual Data
(attached)
Exhibit E 1
DEVELOP14ENT REAL PROPERTY ZONINC
CLARK
WARDLE
Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, And Objections
Are Unsupported By Actual Data
Far too often at public hearings, there is an unnecessary and uniformed vilification of multifamily
residential development and the residents of such developments, by project opponents.
Contrary to public belief and public perceptions, Census data show that household distribution is
changing from the majority two-parent, 2.5 children household, to majority single person, single
parent, childless couple, and empty nester households. The housing needs of this new majority
is different than the "traditional" household. With this shift, comes a shift in demand housing that
"offers a more convenient lifestyle" than traditional suburban housing.
Multi-family development does not serve, transients, criminals, minorities, the uncaring or
uninvested in a community any more than single family residential development does. Those
who rent and those who reside in multifamily developments are your divorced colleague who
has recently had to sell the home they shared with their children and ex-spouse; your young
nephew who has a good job as an engineer but has yet to save enough money to try to buy a
starter home; your recently widowed mother who is active but cannot maintain her longtime
home; your sister and her family who need a temporary place to live while they build a new
home; your brother who despite good insurance has had significant medical bills due to illness
causing a bankruptcy wherein he lost his home and lacks the ability at this time to purchase a
new one; or your friends who just like the flexibility of renting. We have all been renters.
Those who have recently purchased detached single-family residences in this community and
are unaware of the historic underinvestment and under development of multifamily residential
properties, need to be more understanding as municipalities scramble to meet the demand and
implement their preexisting housing plans. In making their objections, they unfortunately trot out
and rely upon too man misconceptions that are not accurate. As such we provide the following
review and rebuttal of common myths or erroneous arguments regarding multi-family residential
development (MFR).
A. MFR Negatively Affect Nearby Single-Family Residence (SFR) Values
A study by the MIT Center for Real Estate examined the effect of introductions of large-scale,
higher-density MFR into SFR neighborhoods in Boston, Massachusetts over a period of 20
years. As shown in Chart 1, the MFR was introduced through three different phases throughout
study period. Overall, the growth rate in sale price in the impacted area and control area
increased simultaneously, showing that higher-density MFR did not affect the sale price of
nearby homes. 2
t Dorothy Ives-Dewey, "The Multi-Family Myth: Exploring the Fiscal Impacts of Apartments in the
Suburbs" (West Chester, PA: Middle States Geographer, 2007), pp. 39-46, 40.
2 "Over the course of the entire study, the compound annual growth rate for sale prices was 7.9 percent
for the control area and 8.1 percent for the impact area." Henry O Pollakowski, David Ritchay, and Zoe
Weinrobe, "Effects of Mixed-Income, Multi-Family Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family
Housing Values" (Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Real Estate, 2005), pp. 1-62.
I Hethe Clark Ceoffrey M.Wardle Joshua J.Leonard Preston B.Rutter T:208.388,1000 251 E Front St,Suite 310
F 208.388.1001 PO Box 639
clarkwordle.com Boise ID 83701
Another study conducted in Tallahassee, Florida found that SFR located 300 feet or closer to
MFRs experienced no reduction in sale price. In fact, many experienced an appreciation in sale
price no matter what type of MFR was introduced (apartments, townhomes, etc.). 3
A study conducted in Little Rock, Arkansas found that "over the long run, most forms of multi-
family housing... have either no effect of a modest positive effect on price." 4 (See Table 1)
Studies conducted around the nation are consistent with these two studies. MFR have either no
impact on nearby SFR, or they create a slight appreciation in sale price depending on location.'
Appreciation may happen because: first, new MFR can be an indicator that the area's economy
is growing, second, MFR "may increase the pool of potential future homebuyers, and third,
because well-developed MFR (particularly mixed-use MFR) can make a neighborhood more
attractive than nearby communities "that have fewer housing and retail choices." 6
B. MFR Result in Disproportionate Crime
There is a common misconception of higher crime rates in MFR. This is largely based on the
fact that MFR share the same address when counting police calls by address. A study in
Arizona found that when "police data is analyzed on a per unit basis, the rate of police activity in
apartment communities is no worse than in single family subdivisions, and in many cases, is
lower than in single family areas." '
Studies done on the subject have found that while there is no correlation between density and
crime, there is a correlation between crime and poverty rate, unemployment rate, and education
rate. Regardless of whether the area has predominately MFR or SFR, when there are higher
rates of the factors listed above, there likely a higher crime rate. $
While there is a common (incorrect) association between MFR and low-income, studies show
that at-market MFR housing has no correlation to heightened crime. However, there have been
multiple studies done that do show evidence that some forms of subsidized housing increase
crime levels in the neighborhood; presumably because the factors listed above are more likely
to be found in subsidized MFR.9 Other studies show the correlation between subsidized MFR
3 "Single-family properties adjacent to townhouses sold for$5,679.47 more on average, and single-family
properties near townhouses sold for$6,330.26 more on average." Huston Gibson et al., "Smart Growth
and the Challenge of NIMBY: Multifamily Dwellings and Their Association with Single-Family House
Selling Prices in Tallahassee, Florida, USA," 1st ed., vol. V (Tallahassee, FL: Journal of Urban and
Regional Analysis, 2013), pp. 77-88.
4 Dr. Michael Craw, "Effects of Multi-Family Housing on Property Values, Crime and Code Violations in
Little Rock, 2000-2016," 2017, pp. 1-66.
5"Well-placed, market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the
overall value of detached houses nearby." Richard M Haughey, "Higher-Density Development: Myth and
Fact" (Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 2005), p. 14.
6 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" p. 14
'Out of a random sample of 1000 calls, 35% came from SFR and 21% came from apartments. Elliott D.
Pollack and Company, "Economic& Fiscal Impact of Multi-family Housing," Phoenix: Arizona
Multihousing Association, 1996, Part II.
8 Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, "The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: a GIS Application,"
The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application, accessed July 21, 2021,
https:Hproceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.htm.
9 Craw, "Effects of Multi-Family Housing" (2017).
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-2
4882-5698-7445,v.2
and crime exist because the subsidized MFR are often placed in areas where higher crime
already exists. 11
One study regarding at-market MFR concluded, "Higher-density developments can actually help
reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24-hour community that puts
more eyes on the street at all times." 11 Studies have also emphasized the importance of
physical design in relation to crime. Various conclusions include: land zoning that includes
mixed-use residential and commercial buildings reduces crime, mixed-income housing may
reduce crime, where concentrated low-income housing increases it, and reasonable changes to
the environment to reduce "physical signs of disorder" (like installing a security system) reduces
motivated offenders. 12
C. MFR Overwhelm Local Schools
MFR house a much different population of families and individuals than SFR (See Table 2).
57.6% of MFR are comprised of single, widowed, or divorced individuals without children. On
average, an individual SFR adds 0.70 school-age children to the neighborhood, where an
individual MFR adds only 0.35 school-age children. 13 Residents of wealthier MFR have even
fewer children per household (adding just .12 school-age children to the community). 14
Additionally, the age of MFR tenants is largely between 18-35 and over 80 years old. Therefore,
the majority of adults with multiple school-age children do not live in MFR. 15 Because of the
difference in school-age children and tax contributions between MFR and SFR, in many areas,
MFR subsidize local education for SFR children.16
Cities with primarily SFR must struggle with the issue of building public schooling infrastructure
needed to support sprawled housing. "Introducing higher-density projects into a community will
actually increase that community's revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure
and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities can help pay for
schools without drastic increases to the number of students." 17
10 A study evaluating the effect of low-income housing on crim in Austin, Texas found that"crime rates
tended to be significantly higher in the pre-development period of neighborhoods around future public
housing sites than in the city of Austin as a whole, indicating that development occurred in higher crime
parts of the city." Craw, "Effects of Multi-Family Housing" (2017).
11 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" p. 21.
12 MacDonald, John. "Community Design and Crime: The Impact of Housing and the Built Environment."
Crime and Justice 44, no. 1 (2015): 333-83.
13 Nico Larco, "Suburbia Shifted: Overlooked Trends and Opportunities in Suburban Multifamily Housing,"
1st ed., vol. 27 (Eugene, OR: Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2009), pp. 69-82.
14 "Wealthier" MFRs referring to residents earning more than 120% of the area median income. Mark
Obrinsky and Debra Stein, "Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing," 7th ed., vol. RR
(Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2006), pp. 1-27.
15 Larco, "Suburbia Shifted," p. 76.
16 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" p. 11
17 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" p. 12
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-3
4882-5698-7445,v.2
D. MFR Negatively Affect the Local Economy
National surveys show that MFR development costs 38% less on average than SFR on upfront
infrastructure (roads, water lines, sewer lines, etc.). Additionally, when MFR are developed in
already-existing infrastructure, they do a better job of reusing the existing infrastructure. 18 A
study on the subject estimated that "more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be
saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more compact forms of development." 19
MFR save about 10% on public services (medical, police, fire, etc.) because of the concentrated
volume of MFR and their geographic locations within communities. Additionally, MFR generate
"ten times more tax revenue per acre" than SFR on average. 21 (See example in Chart 2). As
the value of MFR increase, the "tax burden" on SFR decrease.21 While SFR can generate large
amounts of tax revenue, the highest generating SFR usually occupy larger parcels of land. This
was proven true in both metropolitan and rural communities.
It is important for communities to provide plenty of different housing options to aid the local
economy. MFR aid the local economy in that dense, mixed-use buildings in growing urban
centers often attract new employers and startups as they chose where to locate. Corporations
are less likely to locate to a place where there are not different housing options nearby for
potential employees. "The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain
workers needed to keep any economy thriving." 22
There is a common misconception that the construction of new MFR (particularly in low-income
areas) ultimately raise nearby MFR rent prices. However, a 2021 study has found that this
correlation only exists because "new buildings are typically constructed in areas that are already
changing. In In fact, new MFR actually reduce nearby MFR rent prices by 5%-7%.24 Restrictive
land-use regulations actually boost local rent prices. Increasing the housing supply in
neighborhoods through new MFR construction is a well-proven way to aid in the present
housing affordability crisis.25 Finally, new MFR increase low income in-migration, "implying that
18 "The upfront savings figure is a conservative average reflective of available data on the matter." "Some
studies have concluded that this number(upfront savings on MFR infrastructure) is as high as 50%".
William Fulton et al., "Building Better Budgets: A National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart
Growth Development" (Washington, DC: Smart Growth America, 2013), pp. 4.
19"Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic
infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protections, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and
environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core of the community."
Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" pp. 9, 22.
20 "Increasing the per-acre tax yield from property that is developed will reduce the pressure to either
increase taxes or allow additional development on land that is currently used for low-density housing,
agriculture, or other activities important to a community." Fulton, "Building Better Budgets", pp.6.
21 Ives-Dewey, "The Multi-Family Myth." pp. 39-46.
22 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development" p. 32.
23 Brian J. Asquith, Evan Mast, and Davin Reed, "Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings in Low-
Income Areas," The Review of Economics and Statistics, July 6, 2021, pp. 1-46, p. 31,
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01055.
24 "Translating into savings of$100 to $159 per month." Brian J. Asquith "Local Effects" p. 31
25"While new buildings may increase average income in the area (by about 2%), our results suggest that
they do not increase rents in the existing housing stock. Policy makers should recognize that new market-
rate housing can improve affordability both locally and regionally, making it an important component of
strategies to address the growing affordability crisis." Brian J. Asquith "Local Effects" p. 5
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-4
4882-5698-7445,v.2
this improved affordability can foster more integrated, economically diverse neighborhoods that
may improve economic mobility." 26
Not only are MFR good for communities financially, they are good for communities
environmentally. MFR produce fewer carbon dioxide emissions (because they drive less) and
they conserve heat during winter by sharing walls. SFR "consume 85 to 99 percent more energy
than houses of equal size that share a common wall."27 Additionally, higher density growth helps
protect and maintain agricultural and natural land.
E. MFR Have a Negative Impact on Local Traffic Congestion
On average, MFR tenants own fewer cars and drive less than SFR owners (See Table 3).
Condominium and townhouse residents make even few trips a day than other forms of MFR at
an average of 5.6 trips a day, compared to SFR at 9.57 trips a day. These MFR trip numbers
are even lower when the MFR is mixed-use.28 SFR house more residents on average and are
usually located further away from employment, shopping, and other attractors. 29 "Concentrating
density around suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near
offices, and planning of pedestrian and bike access" all help reduce the number of trips per day.
Additionally, "higher-density, mixed-use developments...create efficiencies through shared
parking.,, 30 The cars from SFR create the most traffic and take up the most parking spaces at
places of employment, shopping, etc.
In addition, the amount of MFR that can be built near local public transportation is much higher
than the amount of SFR. Therefore, in order to maximize the effectiveness of local public
transportation, it is better to build MFR nearby. 31 Additionally, when dense, mixed use MFR are
built, other business follow, creating even less of a need for tenants to make trips with an
automobile
26 Brian J. Asquith "Local Effects." p. 31.
27 Julie Campoli and Alex S MacLean, "Visualizing Density"(Cambridge , MA: Lincoln Institute of Land
Policy, 2007), pp. 1-36.
28 "A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home." Haughey, "Higher-Density
Development" p. 17
29 Obrinsky and Stein "Overcoming Opposition." p. 8.
30 Haughey, "Higher-Density Development' p. 18
31 Obrinsky and Stein, "Overcoming Opposition." p. 9.
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-5
4882-5698-7445,v.2
CHART]:Woburn house value indexes
W.13 ,Ito :E vawe tmaa:a
Phase I Pn Il PM1ese III
J6C
Im
xa
wr>�
�CwNd
uG
1S,
3G
0
Year Sold
TABLE 1:Estimated long run effect of multi family housing development on single-
family home prices in Little Rock,200-2016(by type of multi family development)
Areas,price A_Z yrice Are V lon6•ren mice
premlumfd lscount x pr more premlumldle,pum x or mpn premruFn)dp lJM attrlhulaWe
yNrs aftrr M,•drvnropmrnr yrurs prlgr to rtn,drvrMpm�n[ to F A-A.pmrn[I_nF sa,r
INS%nl tale prue) fa[%ef yle prkel pricey
Co,dpminlum
MINn 19M feel U,6% -h.d%• r.tac'
ees w 1f100 and 20DO feel 1.0f6 -J.2%• $.1%
Loge mmAp[-rew epartmen,t:pnpfex
MINn 111W feel 1.4% 111% •2.9%
ee Kw 10m eM 20w fee, 4.0%• 2.$%• 1.5%
.1r moApt-mte np4nnsrnrr L..
WdNn 19M feel U.6%
6e,ween iwo aM 2100 fee, 4.3%• -J.1%• 8A%•
$LNkNmdpppneenrcw*x
WirNn 1ppp feet -16.0%• 16.9%
14xvrt+•n tom avl]Una nxd S.4% 1l.]%• 7.316
FrprM.vnp
witfl 1%9 fee, -1.6% -a.9% 6.2%
Rawl...tpnp.02wn rna
Orh•rmWri frxnlfyl xrJrq
M, 1pppfeee 23% 36.rA• -)e.rw
r4+•arn two rd 7wa rMl 9:6K 0.q% &M
Craw,"Effects ofMulti-Family Housing"(2017).
TABLE 2:Family Structure,Living Situation,and School-age Children
Veakc e-Fami Mu r' r n
Gahurbou Harting Nnufiin f5+ unfrunfdg.7
Wciotrd 'k or Coue] 1f,Yightcd U. of Total
#of fJrets d of U Is
r'mrrih Sfraerure
Mmned wt dmklredr 11,750,772 32.R% 962,$50 12.5%
Memed wrout children 12.416,446 34A% 1,083,947 I5-7%
N family 8,706,1156 24.3% 32983,798 5105
d3wtned wfoul chddrm)
(llher Family(single--*idowed 2.907,101 0.1% 488,393 14.3%
diuurced wt children)
TntaJ 35,8U],U85 ][1U.U� b,91R,988 1W.U°7o-
Ldwngg %d1iQfhM
Llvmg with x1at[ves 29,522,478 79.7% 3,033,589 43.9%
Lwln@ with nmtr-relwves 1,295,9$2 3.68% 747,992 10.R%
Lmng ne alo 5,992,624 16.1% 3,137,.s07 43.1%
7'ota] 35,R01,094 1111f.10% 6,918,9sR 100.11M.
5rhao� a ChMirewLnir
7'dal # of school¢ge{5-lR� chlldreo 24,929,020 2740R,21I
Total 4 of units 35301,0$1 6,918,988
#of schmSla c childreolma 0.70 0.15
U.S.Census Bureau,(1973-2005)
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-6
4882-5698-7445,v.2
CHART 2:Municipal property tax yield(per acre)in Raleigh,NC 2011
Outside central
Walmart $2,078 business district
Within central
business dlstricl
Single-family residential 1 $2,837
Crabtree Valley Mail 922,175
3-4 story residential 52(5,1398
3 story office S30.057
6 story mixed-use 1110,451
$20,000 $44,i)00 $60,000 $M.000 SIM.OM S120,000
Silver,M.(2012),Presentation for the City of Raleigh
TABLE 3:Automobile Trips Per Housing Unit
Single-family detached Apartment Difference
Weekday 9.57 6.72 42%
peak AM hour 0.77 0.55 40%
peak PM hour 1.02 0.67 52%
Saturday 10,10 6.39 58%
peak hour 0.94 0.52 81%
Sunday 8.78 536 50%
peak hour 0.86 0.51 69%
Institute of Transportation of Engineers,Trip Generation,7"Edition(Washington,DC.2003),volume 2,pp.268-332.
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data - 7
4882-5698-7445,v.2
Bibliography
Asquith, Brian J., Evan Mast, and Davin Reed. "Local Effects of Large New Apartment Buildings
in Low-Income Areas." The Review of Economics and Statistics, July 6, 2021, 1-46.
https://doi.org/l 0.1 162/rest—a-01 055.
Campoli, Julie, and Alex S MacLean. Rep. Visualizing Density . Cambridge , MA: Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy, 2007.
Craw, Dr. Michael. Rep. Effects of Multi-Family Housing on Property Values, Crime and Code
Violations in Little Rock, 2000-2016, 2017.
Fulton, William, Llana Preuss, Alex Dodds, Sarah Absetz, and Peter Hirsch. Rep. Building
Better Budgets: a National Examination of the Fiscal Benefits of Smart Growth
Development. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America, 2013.
Gibson, Huston, Mathew Becker, Kansas State University, USA, and Sentinel Real Estate
Corporation, USA. Publication. Smart Growth and the Challenge of NIMBY: Multifamily
Dwellings and Their Association with Single-Family House Selling Prices in Tallahassee,
Florida, USA V. 1st ed. Vol. V. Tallahassee, FL: Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis,
2013.
Haughey, Richard M. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI—the
Urban Land Institute, 2005.
Institute of Transportation of Engineers, Trip Generation, 71" Edition (Washington, DC: 2003),
volume 2, pp. 268-332.
Ives-Dewey, Dorothy. Rep. The Multi-Family Myth: Exploring the Fiscal Impacts of Apartments
in the Suburbs. West Chester, PA: Middle States Geographer, 2007.
Larco, Nico. Rep. Suburbia Shifted: Overlooked Trends and Opportunities in Suburban
Multifamily Housing 27. 1 st ed. Vol. 27. Eugene, OR: Journal of Architectural and Planning
Research, 2009.
Li, Jianling, and Jack Rainwater. "The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: a GIS
Application." The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application.
Accessed July 21, 2021.
https://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/procO0/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.ht
M.
MacDonald, John. "Community Design and Crime: The Impact of Housing and the Built
Environment." Crime and Justice 44, no. 1 (2015): 333-83. Accessed July 30, 2021.
doi:10.1086/681558.
Obrinsky, Mark, and Debra Stein. Rep. Overcoming Opposition to Multifamily Rental Housing
RR. 7th ed. Vol. RR. 14. Cambridge, MA: Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2006.
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-8
4882-5698-7445,v.2
Pollack and Company, Elliott D. Rep. "Economic & Fiscal Impact of Multi-Family Housing".
Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996.
Pollakowski, Henry O, David Ritchay, and Zoe Weinrobe. Publication. Effects of Mixed-Income,
Multi-Family Rental Housing Developments on Single-Family Housing Values. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Center for Real Estate, 2005.
Silver, M. (2012), Presentation for the City of Raleigh
Bridgetower- Multi-Family Residential Development: Myths, Fears, and Objections are Unsupported by
Actual Data-9
4882-5698-7445,v.2