2022-11-22 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT ABSENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader Councilman Luke Cavener
Councilman Treg Bernt Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting the 2022
Development Impact Fees Study; Adopting an Amended Capital Improvements
Plan; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2)
Concerning Development Impact Fees; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances,
Resolutions, and Orders; and Providing an Effective Date
Link to Impact Fee Study: https://bit.ly/2022-impact-fee-study
2. Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting the 2022 Development Impact
Fees Study; Adopting an Amended Capital Improvements Plan; Repealing and
Replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2) Concerning Development
Impact Fees; Voiding Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders; and
Providing an Effective Date Approved
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Borton, Councilman
Hoaglun
3. Public Hearing for Substantial Amendment to 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and
Program Year 2019 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant
Program
4. Public Hearing for Rockbury North Easement Vacation (H-2022-0075) by Ronald
Hodge, HMH Engineers, generally located at 4253 W. Lovegood Ln. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0075
A. Request: Vacation of a 6-foot wide strip of land containing utility easements
within a portion of Lots 4-5, Lots 27-28, Lots 29-30, Lots 32-33, Lots 45-46,
and Lots 49-50 in Block 1 of the Rockbury North Subdivision.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilman Borton, Councilman
Hoaglun
5. Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley Horn,
located at 2610 E. Jasmine St. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0045
A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots
on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun, Mayor Simison (tie-breaker)
Voting Nay: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 8:54 p.m.
Meridian City Council November 22, 2022.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:01 p.m., Tuesday,
November 22, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun and Liz
Strader.
Members Absent: Luke Cavener and Jessica Perreault.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Sonya Allen, Stacy Hersh, Crystal Campbell,
Jamie Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
Jessica Perreault Luke Cavener
X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the record it is
November 22nd, 2022, Tuesday, at 6:01 p.m. I think I did that backwards than I normally
do, but that's okay. We will begin tonight's regular City Council meeting with roll call
attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all, please, rise and join us
in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: Our next item up is the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by
Jennifer Cavaness Williams of the Baha'i faith. If you all would, please, join us in the
community invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection.
Cava ness-Williams: Oh, my God. Oh, my God. Unite the hearts of thy servants and
reveal to them thy great purpose. May they follow thy commandments and abide in thy
law. Help them, oh, God, in their endeavor and grant them strength to serve thee. Oh,
God, leave them not to themselves, but guide their steps by the light of thy knowledge
and cheer their hearts by thy love. Verily thou art their helper and their Lord.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 2 of 51
Simison: Thank you. Next item up is adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Have no changes to tonight's agenda, so I move adoption of the agenda as
published.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. Is there any discussion? If
not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the agenda
is adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anyone signed up under public forum? We did not?
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting
the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study; Adopting an Amended
Capital Improvements Plan; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City
Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2) Concerning Development Impact Fees;
Voiding Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders; and
Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Okay. Then we will go right into our Action Items this evening. First item up is
continued public hearing for Ordinance No. 22-2004, an ordinance accepting the 2022
development impact fee study. I do see we have Mr. Lavoie on with us this evening in his
infirm state. Mr. Lavoie, do you have any comments that you would like to make for this
public hearing?
Lavoie: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no additional comments at this time.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Okay. Mr.
Clerk, did we have anybody sign up to provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did earlier, but I believe it was for something else. So, I will just
verify. Carol Windle is signed in for this item. I believe she may be here for a different
item.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 3 of 51
Simison: Okay. Well, if there is anybody present that would like to provide comments on
this item, if you would like to come forward at this time and provide any public testimony
and if you are online --they are all staff currently, but if you are online and have comments,
please, go ahead and raise your hand. Seeing no one coming forward, Council, do I have
a motion to close the public hearing?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: 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: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
2. Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting the 2022
Development Impact Fees Study; Adopting an Amended Capital
Improvements Plan; Repealing and Replacing Meridian City Code
Section 10-7-12(E)(2) Concerning Development Impact Fees; Voiding
Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders; and Providing an
Effective Date
Simison: Next up is Ordinance No. 22-2004. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Third reading of Ordinance 22-2004, an ordinance
accepting the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study, adopting an amended Capital
Improvement Plan, repealing and replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2)
concerning development of impact fees, avoiding conflicting ordinances, resolutions and
orders and providing an effective date.
Simison: Thank you. Council, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there
anybody that would like it read in its entirety? Seeing none, do I have discussion or a
motion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: We have had public hearings. We have talked about it pretty extensively. I
move to approve Ordinance No. 22-2004.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 4 of 51
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to approve Ordinance No. 22-2004. Is there
further discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea;
Strader, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the ordinance is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for Substantial Amendment to 2017-2021 Consolidated
Plan and Program Year 2019 Action Plan for the Community
Development Block Grant Program
Simison: Thank you, Todd, to yourself and your consultant and your team for all the work
and all the city staff on our impact fee committee for their work. It's an ongoing process
and now you can start working on the next one. So, appreciate it very much. Next item
up is Item 3, a public hearing for Substantial Amendment to the 2017-2021 Consolidated
Plan and program year 2019 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant
program. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Crystal.
Campbell: Thank you, Mr. -- thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. So, this
amendment is specific to our Cares Act funding. So, we did receive -- oops. Sorry. We
received a little over 500,000 in Cares Act funds and this was to be used to prepare,
prevent and respond to COVID-19 and in the beginning we put all of these funds toward
public services, because they have typically been underfunded. But there were so many
different funding sources that came out that we were not able to spend as much as we
thought that we would under that. So, last year I came to you and we amended it so that
we could put some money towards admin, so that we could do a needs assessment. So
far we are currently 41 percent spent and there is a requirement for 80 percent of the
funding to be spent by June 4th, 2023. So, we are a little bit behind where we need to
be. So, with this we have several projects that we have funded in the past. Several of
those are closed and for the most part they have all been closed under budget. We had
our admin, of course, and, then, there was also a youth counseling program. We also
funded emergency rental assistance, mortgage assistance and behavioral health
services through the Allumbaugh House. Right now we do have a few projects that are
currently open. Those would be the childcare scholarships and learning enrichment
through the Children's Museum. But even with all that we still have 162,000 dollars that's
unallocated. So, we went back out to our partners to see if anybody had any projects and
we opened it up so that it was not necessarily public services and so one of the
applications we got was for the learning enrichment and so that was no issue, because it
was a public service. But we also received an application for Woodrose, that apartment
complex that we have discussed a few different times and this application is for acquisition
of land to build the complex and it was approved by the scoring committee for up to
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 5 of 51
300,000 dollars. So, this would allow us to use any additional funds that may be
unallocated if one of those other projects closed under budget, we would be able to use
that for this project, because it was approved for that amount. We did talk to the housing
company to see if there was an additional need for funding in addition to the ARPA funds
that the city had already talked to them about and they had indicated at the meeting on
July 19th that there was a gap of about 560,000 dollars and they were approved for
400,000 dollars that would go toward impact fees. So, they said that they do still have a
gap. Because this is a different activity than what we have -- what we said we were going
to use these Cares Act funds for, it does require a substantial amendment, which means
that we have to go out for public comment and that's why we are here tonight, so that we
could have the public hearing. So, there is two different plans that we had to adjust and
the Cares Act funds are related to our program year 2019 Action Plan and so even though
it's an old con plan, that's the one that we still have to adjust. So, it's pretty basic changes
to the con plan. Basically it's just in the priority needs and goals section. We did connect
the need of improved housing conditions to the goal of enhanced housing opportunities
and we actually changed the name of enhanced homeowner opportunities to enhanced
housing opportunities, since this is a rental project, not homeowner and, then, we added
an outcome that this project would benefit at least 25 households. We also updated the
description of the goal to -- for this last part of the sentence where it says that we are
working with developers to provide affordable rental housing. On the action plan, there
is a -- there is more in-depth changes on this one, because this is the specific projects
that we are going to do while the con plan is just the overall goals. So, in the executive
summary we are updating the public participation process, so that we can include the
timing of it and any comments that we receive under expected resources. Then it's the
same amount of funding. So, the only change to this was that the activities include
acquisition of property to build affordable housing. Under annual goals and objectives we
updated the goals to include that same language and the benefit of at least 25 households
and, then, we revised the funding allocation so that admin reflects what we actually spent.
So, it's the 9,200. And, then, public services we reduced that to 333,045 dollars and
housing I put it at 200,000 dollars, even though we only have 162,000 dollars, because
that way it wouldn't trigger another substantial amendment if we do have some of the
funds reallocated from those other projects, which I'm assuming that we will. The final
changes -- the project -- project summary we added the details for the specific project, so
just the description, the location, things like that and under affordable housing we included
a goal to -- that there would be 25 new units and, then, we also specified how it would
meet HUD's affordable housing criteria and, then, the attachments will just include
anything showing that we followed our process, like the legal notices, the resolution,
things like that. So, we have a few important dates. The public comment period opened
on November 15th. Tonight we are having our public hearing. And, then, on December
16th the public comment period closes and on January 2nd, then, I will have it on -- the
resolution on the consent agenda for your approval. If anybody has any comments during
the public comment period or anytime, really, then, they can reach out to me, Crystal
Campbell, and this is my phone number and e-mail address and all of the documents are
posted on our website and with that I will stand for questions.
Simison: Thank you, Crystal. Council, any questions for staff?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 6 of 51
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: You answered my first question, which was whether it was in lieu of ARPA
funding. Sounds like in addition to. How do we get around the legal issues with CBDG
funding for affordable housing projects? That's really exciting if we have figured that out.
Can we replicate that going forward? Just because -- as a piece of commentary, the --
the down buyer, you know, home buyer assistance has been really ineffective, as we all
know, in this market just because it's so competitive. It's like that money's not -- it's not
getting put to work and we are getting it anyway, we have to use it, so I just wanted some
comment around, you know, can we do this going forward.
Campbell: That's a great question. I was pretty excited when I was talking to the housing
company. They -- the issue is that we can only provide these funds as a grant and they
needed them to be as a loan, even if it was a deferred loan. So, because the -- of the
structure the Woodrose, LLC, is a separate entity and they are able to have an agreement
with us for a grant and, then, they have an agreement with Woodrose LLC to give them
the loan.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: That's fantastic. I -- I love the structure figuring that out. This could be a really
good tool for us going forward. Again, right, like if -- if part of -- if part of our goals as
CBDG is to improve housing options and one of the main buckets that we have been
putting money toward isn't being used, using it for something that will be used seems
really preferable. Thanks for all the work on that, Crystal.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. This is a public
hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this
item? And anybody online use the raise your hand function. There is still staff. Seeing
no one coming forward -- Crystal, were we leaving this public hearing open or were you
hoping to have it closed this evening?
Campbell: So, the public comment period will be open, but the public hearing closed.
Simison: So, close the public hearing today is what you are asking for?
Campbell: Yes.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 7 of 51
Simison: Okay. All right. Then, Council, turn this back to you for any motions.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I move that we close the public hearing on Item 3.
Simison: Second the motion.
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. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing for Rockbury North Easement Vacation (H-2022-0075)
by Ronald Hodge, HMH Engineers, generally located at 4253 W.
Lovegood Ln.
A. Request: Vacation of a 6-foot wide strip of land containing utility
easements within a portion of Lots 4-5, Lots 27-28, Lots 29-30, Lots
32-33, Lots 45-46, and Lots 49-50 in Block 1 of the Rockbury North
Subdivision.
Simison: So, next item up is Item 4, which is a public hearing for Rockbury Northeast
Easement Vacation, H-2022-0075. We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Stacy.
Hersh: Okay. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. The applicant has submitted an
application to vacate easements for Rockbury Subdivision. The location is north of West
Chinden between North Black Cat and North Ten Mile Roads. The applicant requests
approval to vacate the six foot wide utility easements on the shared boundary of Lots 4
and 5, 27 and 28, 29 and 30, 33 and 32, 45 and 46 and 59 -- or sorry. 49 and through
50, Block 1, of the Rockbury Subdivision. The reason for the request is to accommodate
the reconfiguration of the lots that were approved with a series of property boundary
adjustments. Currently the properties are being developed with townhomes and the
easements must be vacated to conclude the occupancy process. The applicant has
submitted letters from all the potential easement holders, who all have provided written
consent agreeing to vacate the easements. There is not any written testimony and staff
recommends approval of the vacation of the easement request as proposed. Thank you.
And I stand for any questions that you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Stacy. Nice job. Council, any questions for staff?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 8 of 51
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Real quick, Stacy. This is R-15 for this development -- particular development
I recall? It wasn't listed on the staff report, but I think --
Hersh: I believe so. It's townhomes.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have
anybody signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Oh. Sorry. I need to go to the applicant. Is the applicant here? Would the
applicant like to come forward, make any comments, or you feel good -- okay. Applicant
is -- applicant is here. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. No questions for
the applicant. Is there anybody that would like to provide testimony on this item, online
or in person? Seeing no one coming forward, does the applicant wish to make any final
comments? The applicant is waiving final comments. Council, do I have a motion to
close the public hearing?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I move that we closed the public hearing for Item No. H-2022-0075.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
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: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. H-2022-0075.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 4. Is there any discussion? If
not, Clerk will call the roll.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 9 of 51
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea;
Strader, yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
5. Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley
Horn, located at 2610 E. Jasmine St.
A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6
common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district
Simison: So, next item up is Item 5, which is a public hearing for Kingstown Subdivision,
H-2022-0045. We will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Allen: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The next application before you
is a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 8.2
acres of land. It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's generally located west of North Eagle
Road and State Highway 55 and north of East Ustick Road at 2610 East Jasmine Street.
This is an in-fill enclave property surrounded by city annexed and developed land. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation is medium density residential,
which calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre. An application for annexation of 8.2
acres of land with an R-8 zoning district and preliminary plat consisting of 28 building lots
and six common lots on 8.2 acres of land in the R-8 district was submitted for this
development. This project is proposed to develop in two phases, with the western portion
of the property developing first, as shown on the phasing plan before you. There is an
existing home and several outbuildings on the eastern portion of the property that are
proposed to remain until the second phase of development at -- at which time the
outbuildings will be removed and the home will remain on a lot in the proposed
subdivision. This lot right here. The big one. In accord with staff's recommendation, the
applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat in an effort to provide a better transition to
existing residential properties to the north and future residential development to the east,
which reduced the number of buildable lots from 28 to 26 and increased the number of
common lots from six to seven, for a gross density of 3.17 units per acre. Just a side
note. The gross density without the large parcel where the existing home is proposed to
remain is 3.78 units per acre. Changes to the plan include the removal of three building
lots along the northern boundary and the addition of one building lot along the eastern
boundary. The size of common lots were increased to meet the qualified open space
standards and a 20 foot wide common lot was added for a multi-use pathway connection
from Conley Avenue through the large common area to the pathway along the east side
of Rogue River Avenue in accord with the pathways master plan and that is this area right
here. You can see that pathway that comes up. Access is proposed from the extension
of existing local stub streets, North Conley Avenue, North Rogue River Avenue and East
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 10 of 51
Jasmine Street. From the south, north, and east through Alpine Pointe, Delano and
Champion Park Subdivisions. A minimum of 1.23 acres of common open space is
required to be provided within the development. The revised common open space exhibit
addresses staff's comments and depicts exactly 1.23 acres of common open space that
complies with UDC standards. Amenities, consisting of a dog waste station and a picnic
area with a shelter, table, and bench seating is proposed in accord with UDC standards.
There are many existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed with
development. Mitigation is required for these trees as noted in the staff report.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted as shown that demonstrate what future
homes in this development will look like. A mix of single story, single story with a bonus
room and two-story homes are proposed. Development of this site is difficult because of
the three stub streets to this property that are required to be extended and their locations.
Although the use and density of the project is in line with the Comprehensive Plan, the
comp plan also states that new development should create a site design compatible with
surrounding uses through transitional densities, buffering, screening and other best site
design practices. If the Council doesn't find the proposed development is compatible with
surrounding uses in terms of transition, the Council could require additional landscaping
for screening and/or reconfiguration of lots, so that more compatible lot sizes are
proposed adjacent to existing development. The number of lots could be reduced by up
to five, which would be down to 21 lots, and still comply with the desired density in the
medium density residential designation. The Commission recommended approval of
these applications with the inclusion of development agreement provisions that prohibit
any windows on the second story of homes that face north along the northern boundary
of the subdivision west of Rogue River in Block 1 and the developer to encourage
backyard landscaping to assist in buffering to the larger homes and lots to the north. I
will go over a summary of the Commission public hearing. Nicolette Womack and Teller
Bard, the applicant's representative, testified in favor, along with Kyle Enzler, the applicant
and property owner. There were several folks that testified in opposition or commented
as follows: Leon Johnson. George Fulmer. Mike Bernard. Allen Dixon. Roger Britton.
Charlene Britton. Carol Windle. And Mike McGowan and George Windle. Melissa
Bernard. I believe, too. Written testimony. There were many letters of testimony received
on this application and they are included in the public record. I won't go through all those,
because there is a -- a long list of them. Key issues of discussion are as follows:
Concerns pertaining to extra traffic this development will generate through existing
neighborhoods and safety of area children. Proposed lot sizes aren't compatible with
those in adjacent existing developments. Request for property to be annexed with R-4
zoning and require minimum lot sizes consistent with adjacent lot sizes. Request for two-
story homes along the northern boundary to not have any windows on the second story
that would look into adjacent single story home lots. Require traffic calming measures in
area streets to slow traffic for safety. Request for water trucks to be provided during
construction to mitigate dust and for trailers and vehicles to be parked on site and not in
adjacent developments. A request for existing stub streets on Rogue River and Conley
to be closed until construction commences. Concern pertaining to the pathway in Alpine
Pointe that many adults and children use to access the subdivision amenities and
concerns pertaining to safety of those using it. Installation of caution lights for children
safety in high traffic areas. The developer is agreeable to not providing windows on the
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 11 of 51
second story homes overlooking adjacent lots at the northwest corner and to minimize
front setbacks in order to provide larger backyards with greater building setbacks from
the rear property line. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were as follows: A
desire for the applicant to revise the plat to have fewer building lots and retain more of
the existing trees and desire for fewer lots to be provided along the northern boundary
and more lots provided along the eastern boundary for a better transition to existing
properties. Desire for the mitigation trees required in backyards to be placed strategically
to screen adjacent properties and in favor of no windows on second story homes
overlooking adjacent lots at the northwest corner and to minimize front setbacks in order
to provide larger rear yards with greater building setbacks. The Commission did
recommend approval of the project with the inclusion of DA provisions that prohibit any
windows on the second story of homes that face north along the northern boundary of the
subdivision, west of Rogue River in Block 1 and the developer to encourage backyard
landscaping to assist in buffering to the large homes and lots to the north. There are no
outstanding issues for Council tonight. There has been many more letters of testimony
submitted since the Commission hearing and those are included in the public record.
Staff will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Thank you very
much. Will the applicant like to come forward?
Womack: Mayor, Council Members, Nicolette Womack with Kimley Horn, 1100 West
Idaho Street, Suite 210, Boise, Idaho. 83702.
Enzler: Kyle Enzler. 2610 East Jasmine Lane, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
Womack: Thank you for your time tonight. So, before you tonight we have the --
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Real quick. Can you get really close to the mic so folks in the back and online
can hear you.
Womack: Closer? Okay.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Womack: So, before you tonight we have the Kingstown Subdivision project. Our
applicant team includes Teller Bard, who is the engineer on the project. I'm a planner with
Kimley Horn. Ann is also an engineer on the project. And Kyle Enzler is with Maddyn
Homes, the developer on the site. Maddyn Homes is a second generation builder and
fourth generation Idahoan family. They have high quality projects with the commitment
to more energy efficient homes for families. Before you tonight is that annexation and
rezone bringing into the city an assigned zoning, preliminary plat, which will plat parcels
for individual sale. So, this will be owner occupied. And, then, a development agreement
which will apply specific conditions of approval. High level -- the project began back in
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 12 of 51
October of 2020 when Kyle bought the site. He is the home builder on the project, but he
also lives on the site. So, he knows the -- the -- the parcel personally. He pursued the
pre-application meeting in May, had a second pre-application meeting. I'm trying to get
the plan dialed in. Had a neighborhood meeting in April of 2022. Submitted in June. We
have revised the plans prior to a P&Z hearing, which met the comments Sonya had on
her staff report about changing the lot configuration. We had a P&Z hearing in October
and, then, we are here for Council. So, again, the project's at 2610 Jasmine Lane. That's
north of Ustick, west of Eagle Road. That is near the Kohl's and Hobby Lobby shopping
center. This is the -- these are photos of the existing home to remain. This home is over
10,000 square feet and Kyle will further detail on why it has a special place in this project.
Again the future land use map is medium density residential, three to eight dwelling units
an acre. Zoning map. This is a county enclave and so everything with a color and a zone
is already city owned property. City annexed property. Existing conditions on the site.
We are abutting several varied subdivisions on all sides, so we have unique conditions
against each one of them. Connectivity. There are three stubs into this parcel, which can
make connectivity difficult to design and so, again, we have several opportunities and
constraints that we are working amongst. We are completing that road network and a
pedestrian network. We are preserving the existing home, retaining existing landscaping,
working within a triangular lot and roads like to be 90 degrees consistency with four
adjacent varied subdivisions. So, again, this is the original submittal. This was prior to
the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. We ended up delaying that hearing and
we brought forward the plan you are looking at tonight. So, this is 26 single family homes.
The parcels in Block 1 on the northern boundary were reduced to create a two-to-one
transition from those lots to the subdivision to the north and that is a similar ratio Delano
Subdivision was approved with to the east. Again, there is a lot of right of way
improvements on the site, so we are at 20 percent of the site is dedicated to road
improvements. Lot sizes vary, but, again, we are within two phases -- broken up into two
phases. In phase one there are a few lots which are 4,000 square feet, but we range all
the way up to 9,279 square feet. The existing house clearly is on a large lot, because it's
a large home and, then, we have seven new single family homes, which range from 7,000
square foot -- foot lots to 14,000 square foot lots. So, again, the direction from staff was
to remove lots from the northwest corner and add lots into the southeast corner, which
we have done. Open space and amenities. We comply with the open -- qualified open
space requirements. Amenity requirements. We greatly exceed the landscaping
requirements, because this site is so beautifully landscaped. There is a community picnic
area, dog waste station and, then, shown here is the multi-use pathway, which ties into
the subdivisions on the north and south. Regarding tree retention on site, it's important
to note, again, we have so much landscaping on this existing home. We are retaining,
depending on the matrix you use, 79 percent of the caliper inches and 76 percent of the
number of trees on the site. Shown here are concepts of the homes within phase one
and shown here are concepts of the homes within phase two. We received neighborhood
feedback. We had our neighborhood meeting as a workshop style and Kyle has met with
the HOA several times to go through the -- the plan revisions. There was discussion
about height, phasing, circulation and right of way connectivity, traffic calming and future
density decrease -- increases. Regarding the density increase, we would be tied to the
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 13 of 51
site plan we show you tonight and, again, we complied with the conditions mentioned by
the staff report and, then, we agree to the conditions from Planning and Zoning feedback.
Enzler: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I wasn't planning on
speaking this evening, but I wanted to give you some context to this -- this project and
application. I -- I appreciate your public service and -- and your time this evening and I
want to express appreciation to Sonya and the -- and staff for the help on this application.
I understand these -- these in-fill projects are tough and as much work, if not more work,
for everyone and I -- I appreciate everybody's effort. So, as the applicant I want to give a
little bit of context of the project, our background, and -- and our approach and goals for
this project. As mentioned, our -- our family is fourth generation Idahoan. We have -- I
have lived in Meridian for most of my married life. Our kids go to school here. We go to
church here. We serve in the community here. This -- this is our home and it's relevant
that we are also a neighbor, because we -- we live here on this site and I only share that
to say that we care about the community and -- and we think it's important that
development happens responsibly and -- and so we have really done our best to present
tonight as a quality project that meets or exceeds both the city's goals and the intent in
the master plan. Our primary goal from the beginning was to -- to create a project that
would offer quality and -- and as mentioned would be a responsible development. So,
we have met -- and the neighbors -- we have a great relationship with the neighbors. I
understand that -- that growth is -- is difficult, especially when you are the last project to
develop. We -- we border -- there is 29 homes that -- four subdivision -- different
subdivisions and 29 homes that border this subdivision and -- and so it's -- it's tough to
please everybody, but we have -- we have had a great relationship with the neighbors.
We have sat in their living rooms, walked their backyards, had lunch, talked to them on
multiple occasions and I feel like we have had good communication. This is us trying to
do our best to be good neighbors and -- and responsible developers. I also believe that
we have -- as Idahoans we have a responsibility to our environment. I agree with Mayor
Simison's goals to execute financially responsible, sustainable and environmentally
conscious projects that promote energy efficiency and to evaluate and implement
solutions for recycling and solid waste reduction to the landfill. I -- I made a note of that,
because what's really unique to this project is at an 8.2 acre project we are retaining 133
mature trees and along with the City of Meridian personally we are also part of the Canopy
of Trees and -- and because of that we are able to do a detailed tree analysis of the
preservation benefit of the existing tree canopy. These 133 preserved trees covered
nearly 10,000 square feet and in addition to the screening they provide for the neighbors,
the shade, the privacy, they also produce over five tons of oxygen a year, sequester 1.92
tons of carbon and store over 96 tons of carbon a year. Now, I know I'm a bit of a geek
when it comes to this and so that might not sound very interesting, but, in other words,
the carbon storage of these trees alone is more than the carbon emissions of all the
homes that we propose in this subdivision and I think that's pretty unique. In addition to
our tree preservation we are choosing to preserve the existing home on site, that with the
garage is over 10,000 square feet. This home is handicap -- handicap accessible with a
three story elevator, making it a very unique and -- and -- and needed home for the area
and preserving this home would save over 16,000 tons of waste from our landfill and our
opinion is is that, too, is -- represents responsible development. So, we believe despite
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 14 of 51
the challenges of this type of in-fill development, we have really put our best foot forward.
We are --we are asking for the low end of the density per unit in an -- in an R-8 subdivision
and we believe that this application meets or exceeds the city's goals and intent of the
Comprehensive Plan and along with the recommend -- recommendations of approval
from staff and Planning and Zoning we ask you to approve this project with the
recommendations proposed by both staff and Planning and Zoning. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm sorry, sir. Mr. Enzler? Do you have a minute? We might have questions.
Thanks. I have a few. Why two phases for such a small site? You know, that's my first
question. Kind of struggling with that. I -- I will be honest, I don't like that. It seems like
it's better to just kind of know what we are going to get. So, that's my first question.
Enzler: Yeah. Great question. So, when we initially approached staff with this application
and -- and I think we have, you know, probably eight or nine different iterations of this
plan, our first proposal was only developing the back portion. In my discussions with the
neighbors -- they -- they really did not want the connectivity and so we came to staff
initially asking in our pre-app for just the back portion and one point of connectivity. In
that meeting we were informed that, you know, the intent is that connectivity goes to and
through and also from the east and -- and so that really forced us to need to develop the
east portion as well. So, it added the two other connections to the project and, then, that
-- that piece -- there was one picture that depicted it, but it's -- it's really unique. Even
though -- because that road has to come through, there is some tree mitigation and,
obviously, we are following the tree mitigation plan for the trees that do have to be
removed to put that road in from the east. There is also about a third of an acre pond,
like a 35 foot deep pond. There is over 10,000 square foot of shop space that we are
repurposing. So, all of that has to come down. So, there is just a lot to it. You know, we
-- we currently have a business on site that we are relocating and so we just thought it
would be easier to develop in two phases.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. I will be candid. Like one thing I really struggle with in an application
like this is where we are preserving an estate home and, then, we are giving you credit
for kind of like lowering density when the rest of the site is 3.78 units per acre. You know,
talk about how you tried to line up with lot lines. Is this kind of the -- yeah. Have you
pushed it as far as you feel that you can to make it economically viable? Like just help
-- and our job is not to solve that for you, which I think we all know, but just help me
understand where you are coming from in terms of what you have done to meet the
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 15 of 51
neighbors halfway and why you think it's appropriate to give credit for that estate lot in
terms of density.
Enzler: Yeah. Good -- good question. I think, again, the challenge is -- this is a pie
shaped piece with a lot of existing conditions that you have to work around, which has
just made it very challenging. Couple that with the fact that we are intent on the
preservation aspect of it, you know, I -- I -- I understand that Meridian, as most cities do,
have a tree mitigation program. There is ways to circumvent that tree mitigation program
and -- and we were here when the neighbor to the east literally cut down hundreds of
trees and -- and, you know, we were able to kind of circumvent that. So, the preservation
aspect is really important, as well -- and so you -- you add all those together and it creates
this really unique challenge to development. In the backside there you -- you basically
have a triangle with two connection points and we tried so many different designs.
Unfortunately, the challenge is is that northwest side is the only kind of straight run in the
whole project. So, by the time you put roads in and -- and -- and they are -- I mean we
looked at private roads, we did so many different things. You -- you are just really
constrained from the site configuration and so, initially, we had -- in our very first iteration
we had, you know, I'm going to say seven or eight more lots along that side, which --
which was excessive, but we reduced it down to ten, which is a two-to-one transition on
that northwest boundary. I mentioned earlier that we have 29 -- if you -- if you look at -- I
think that's where most of the heartburn is, only because that's the site -- the site
constraints kind of forced that part of the project, you know, that's -- that's where the
majority of those houses in the back section went. So, we -- according to staff's
recommendation we removed a couple more lots there and put them on the east side to
both soften the transition on the east, which -- which, again, is interesting. We are -- you
know, we are --we are --we were asked to reduce the transition on that side, but increase
the transition on the other side, which we agree to. So, currently you have a two-to-one
transition on the most dense area. Overall we have 29 houses that are adjacent to this
parcel compared to the 19 lots that we have adjacent with the surrounding. And, then,
you know, of course, the house -- you know, because of the size of the house, the house
really doesn't -- you -- you need larger estate lots around the house to make -- make it
make sense to keep the house and -- and so it's -- again, it's just a challenge. We have
reduced lots -- to answer your question we have reduced lots. We have tried to make the
transition better. I don't think we have anybody tonight that will be in opposition to
anything around any of the big lots or anything, you know, on the -- on the south side of
the subdivision, it's primarily the site constraints that, you know, force things to the -- to
the northwest there.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you for the feedback and we will wait to hear a little more. Thanks.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 16 of 51
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. This is a public
hearing. Mr. Clerk, I assume all these fine people came here to -- some of them speak
as well.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, you are correct. I do have two people signed up representing Alpine
Pointe. I'm not sure how you would like to address that.
Simison: One person for the -- that will stand as a representative of the group, so -- can
you list the two names. We do have Paul Miller and Mike Bernard.
Simison: So, whoever is representing -- this person will get ten minutes, everyone else
will get three minutes. So, if they want to come up together and -- and speak they can --
if someone is not going to take the entire ten minutes.
Bernard: We will do it -- we will do it separately. Hello. My name is Mike Bernard. I live
at 4025 North Dashwood Place. In addition to representing myself as a homeowner, I
also represent Alpine Pointe Homeowners Association, currently serving as the HOA
president and, then, I did have a four slide PDF if we could get that pulled up. Yes.
Thanks, Sonya. And while we are waiting for that, I just wanted to publicly say thoughts
and prayers are with the missing -- missing Council Member Cavener. We hope, for both
the sake of him and his family, he's -- he's going to pull through here. And, I apologize,
have been getting over this crud that's going around. I will -- I will do my best to limit the
clearing of my throat into the microphone. So, as we have already heard tonight -- and
think everyone here tonight knows, Mr. Mayor and Council Members, Alpine Pointe is R-
4, but all the lots that border this property are significantly larger than a quarter acre.
Champion Park to our south, although that is R-8, all of those properties also are quarter
acre size and larger. So, we heard that in the summary. So, the -- the issue that we have
is transition between us and this property and that transition from this property to
Champion Park. It's not like we are trying to downgrade to meet a higher density property
or to transition into a multiplex, multi-unit apartment; right? I'm -- we are basically stuck
in between two quarter acre or larger lot sizes and, in fact, as we see on this slide here,
Kyle referenced two to one, but, really, we are nine to one or-- or, excuse me, nine to four
or -- or ten to four if you wanted to in that transition on the -- on that boundary between
Kingstown and Alpine Pointe. And, in fact, in one of those you can see what's represented
as Lot No. 1 in purple. That poor guy has got like four lots against his backyard. You
know, when he moved into that house very recently he invested tens of thousands of
dollars into his backyard, so we could enjoy that and now he's potentially going to have
four two story homes overlooking his -- his swimming pool, right, which is not necessarily
fair. So, we believe that this should be moved from an R-8 into an R-4 for a couple of
reasons. One, that would force -- let's say Kyle decides to sell this once the entitlements
are set in stone here tonight. If it's R-4, as a minimum we have it -- we have 8,000 square
foot lot size, nothing smaller. Some of these right now are barely over 4,000 in phase
one. So, we will establish at least 8,000 minimum lot size and we will also get a 15 foot
setback with R-4, as opposed to 12. So, it's -- it's nice that Kyle is going to do his best to
push the lots as far forward as possible to make the backyards as large as possible, but
the fact of the matter is once zoning is established that's the only thing that we have to
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 17 of 51
enforce is zoning; right? So, we can't come back to say what Kyle's best intentions are
and he is -- he is genuinely a good guy, right, and he has been a really good neighbor.
But he's also a businessman; right? And he -- things have to -- things have to pencil out
for him. So, we are in support of limiting those homes on the northern boundary if they
are going to be two-story and not have any north facing windows on the second floor for
the reasons I already stated. Do I have control of this? Now, I wanted to point out --
because we -- we heard from staff that they could drop an additional five lots and still
meet zoning. In fact, during -- during the Commission hearings a representative of the
applicant admitted that they could freely lose two from what they have already dropped;
right? So, they said two times during the -- once in response to staff's report and a second
time in response to Councilman Seal's comment about them wanting to have their cake
and eat it, too. The applicant stated that they could drop two more; right? So, that's in
testimony from when they were in front of Commission. So, I -- I think they will agree and
have publicly stated that they have room to minimize that impact along the northern lot
further than what they have so far.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Real quick, Mike. If we could pause your time. I want to ask a question on your
comment there, just to be clear for the record. Sonya, when that reference is made to
keeping the zoning -- I think the staff report mentioned it, too. Is the reference that losing
two to five lots would still allow the remaining lots to be within -- under the R-4 -- within
the R-8 lot size threshold, just under 8,000 square feet? That's kind of how I heard it.
That perhaps if you remove lots the size might go up to 7,600 per, you know, square feet
per lot, still being R-8 as applied for, but on the top end of it, as opposed to having also
changed the zoning to R-4 to accommodate the reduction in lots. Do you know which it
is?
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Council, Councilman Borton, that -- my comment was made towards
the density more to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan future land use
designation. So, I don't know how that would lay out lot size dimensionally. There is --
there is options there.
Borton: Because the -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: The -- the future land use map could allow it to be R-4. Could even allow it to be
R-2. So, the lot sizes technically could be much larger and still be consistent with the
comp plan.
Allen: Yeah. The comp plan just speaks to density. So, the -- the zoning -- it could be
any of those, as long as their lots complied with that specific zoning designation.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 18 of 51
Borton: Okay. Thanks. Sorry to interrupt. I just wanted to try and clarify.
Bernard: No. Thanks. That helped me also. I appreciate it. Can you help me click next?
Allen: Yeah.
Bernard: It's not working here. Oh. Thank you. So, this -- this is just a quick
representation of maybe what an R-4 could look like and -- to demonstrate how to
transition from our neighborhood into this project would be more equitable for all involved,
so -- and next, please. Now, clearly most of the focus on what we will hear an awful lot
tonight is about phase one, but I have some concern about phase two as well and that's,
again, because once the entitlements are set with this development agreement, then, it
can be anything and to reiterate what Mr. Enzler said, he has reached out and we have
had multiple conversations and he's looked at multiple options with us and, in fact, the --
the guy's genuinely honest and -- and he told me one time at one meeting that I had with
him at a coffee that potentially this property is worth more if you bulldoze the whole thing
and just made another Delano out of it, so -- and that's what this is sort of depicting. So,
we are hearing a lot about having these estate lots surrounding the existing home and
that sounds beautiful and I would really love to see that happen, but the fact of the matter
is we are also asking to have estate lots on something that's zoned R-8 and this is what
it would look like. If things change for Mr. Enzler and he decided to bring that bulldozer
in and just do mitigation for those trees, rather than keeping them. So, I know trees are
important, but I think the homeowners and quality of life and property values are worth a
little more than trees in the grand scheme of things. So, again, I'm concerned about this
zoning for the entire thing and also the zoning in phase two. I think if we want to have
large estate sized lots in phase two, then, it should be zoned to enforce that, rather than
allowing higher density to be packed into here. Now, we keep in mind this -- this body,
when they approved the Delano, which is the project of the west, enforced one story and
one story only on Delano that bordered Alpine Pointe and they also enforced no second
story windows overlooking into Mr. Enzler's property; right? So, there was -- there was
effort put forth three and four years ago to protect this property. That's before us tonight
to ensure that whatever went into here would be compatible and that we wouldn't force
him into a corner where he felt compelled to do high density and in order to make ends
meet. So, that's what I'm asking for you guys to consider tonight. Mostly a zoning issue
and a setback issue and, then, maybe reduce those lots in phase one, so it's more
compatible. They admitted themselves they could drop at least two. And, then, my final
concern tonight-- if we can go to the very final phase -- and we are going to hear probably
more about this and you know people have concern with traffic. Anytime we have one of
these projects in-fill and we end up connecting all these roads, then, we end up having
tons of flow of traffic in places that we never really thought about before, so -- now here
is what's going to happen, is we are going to make a mid mile collector flow through this
little triangle; right? That's -- we are going to turn that into a mid mile collector and none
of those roads that are supporting it were ever designed to do so. So, if we look in the --
in the bottom of that graph where you see the wide light blue line, that's the only road that
was built with being a collector in mind, even though it's not really built to current
standards, but there is no homes on that. The problem is there is a park right along there
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 19 of 51
and, then, it cuts -- it cuts through Champion Park and, then, it -- and, then, it moves west
past the schools to Locust Grove. Well, here's what ACHD is going to do where that
connects to Locust Grove, they are going to put a traffic circle in there and when they put
a traffic circle in there traffic is going to flow off the Locust Grove, because it's going to
seem like a -- it's the place to go; right? If they build it they will come. And they are going
to flow off Locust Grove and they are going to go into Champion Park. They already do
that from the school and the Champion Park to get on Ustick, but now we will have a --
now we will have a high speed avenue from Ustick all the way to McMillan through the
streets in Champion Park and Alpine Pointe and this new subdivision that were never
designed -- they all have front facing homes. They don't have the right width. They don't
have the right separation from connector streets. And everybody says, well, we can't do
anything about it. That's an ACHD problem. Well, that's not entirely an ACHD problem,
because ACHD isn't the land use owner; right? That's -- that's the city's. So, I don't -- I
don't have the answer for this. I hate to come and complain like somebody needs to do
something, but my recommendation is send this to your Transportation Committee, ask
them to look at this and ask them to come up with some mitigation efforts that would help
calm that, because people are going to fly through there from McMillan all the way down
to Ustick and from -- and from the middle of that over to Locust Grove. So, again,
appreciate your time. Thank you, everybody.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Bernard. Council, questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Sir-- Mr. Bernard, if you could just stay for a moment for some questions. So,
got the -- we -- we have gotten all this public testimony. I'm looking at the letter from you
and Melissa on -- you guys alluded to like what a fairer balance would look like. I think
maybe you had a slide that had -- I thought it was very constructive -- what you felt like a
better balance would be. So, there was a picture -- sorry. I have several e-mails from
you, but I'm looking at -- there was a picture where you sort of drew in -- it looked like
instead of ten lots on that northern border, instead you had like seven lots. If you could
pull that up.
Bernard: This is a slightly different depiction than I think that -- what you are referencing
in the e-mail.
Strader: Yeah. So, this -- so sorry. Just to clarify. So, this is your depiction of R-4, what
it could look like; right?
Bernard: Yes, ma'am.
Strader: Okay. That makes sense. And, then, I think what you had sent in your e-mail
was a little different, but it was -- it was a good -- I think I thought still a good match up of
lot lines. I was counting like seven properties in green on that northern border and, then,
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 20 of 51
still about five properties there to the south. You know, would you agree that besides the
zoning issue, which I understand, that that -- that the transition issue is most acute on the
northern border?
Bernard: Well, that's certainly -- that transition is most -- is most interesting to us; right?
From the Alpine Pointe perspective. So, I think that drawing that you are referencing is
where we were trying to demonstrate what it might look like from a nine-to-four ratio down
to the -- dropping the two that the engineer suggested they could lose, down to like a
seven-to-four ratio -- seven-to-four ratio, which would be more equitable, without trying
to, you know, take too much away from the applicant, but still be more consistent with
what we have in Alpine Pointe and specifically make it less burdensome for a couple of
those homeowners that have -- particularly the one homeowner to the west.
Strader: Uh-huh. Got it. And, then, I just wanted to add a comment. I thought that your
testimony was -- I appreciate your testimony and your e-mail, because I could tell you did
a lot of legwork on trying to figure out what solutions could look like, instead of just -- you
know, we -- we get a lot of public testimony where people are just opposed to things, but
I really appreciate how constructive you were in trying to come up with solutions. Thank
you.
Simison: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor. Mike, question. Even if this were to change for -- for the R-
4 versus R-8 and whatever you have, the home -- the -- the street configuration would
stay the same. I mean that traffic is going to -- I mean, yes, you reduce the amount of
lots, but you are talking about people from other locations you say are coming through
here. I guess it -- it comes down to the traffic mitigation no matter what happens here.
What -- no matter what the density is?
Bernard: Well, Councilman, I think our -- best case scenario is we wouldn't have three
connections through there, like Mr. Enzler suggested they brought to staff early on when
he started developing this. So, that would be optimum for us. But we -- we realized that
maybe too far of a reach. So, that's why I'm suggesting to you to maybe push this down
to the Transportation Commission and have them look at what mitigation efforts might be
effective and -- and that could be mitigation efforts in Alpine Pointe, in Champion Park, or
maybe in this development, but -- but you are going to have east-west traffic; right?
Because this will ultimately connect to Eagle and so there is just a lot -- a lot coming
through here. And Alpine Pointe is already over connected in our opinion anyway. But I
don't know if I answered your question, but --
Hoaglun: No, I -- I -- I think you did, Mike. It's just a matter of -- and we will ask ACHD
this question, because in going through their information packet and whatnot it sounds
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 21 of 51
like there is going to be three connection points. I mean no matter what. But that's
something we can ask them later on, so -- also on -- on the privacy issue, I get it. From
our house we have one lot and we ended up with two houses behind us. So, loss of
privacy is loss of privacy, whether it's another house behind you -- or in this case it's an
unusually large backside of that one lot, so two -- two to one all the way down to that
house -- I mean that's just the -- the size of things and whether it's two or whether it's four,
I mean is it more loss of privacy? I guess you could argue, well, there is more people,
but if -- if we are worried about privacy, then, there should be nothing behind them. So, I
-- I guess I didn't follow that privacy argument to the degree I think you wanted me to.
Bernard: Well, if -- if -- if -- if you didn't agree with me, then, you didn't agree with me. I
can't convince you. But potentially that homeowner will be up here later tonight and he
may convince you otherwise. I think to me two is better than four. If I'm going to have
that many backyard neighbors, I would rather have two than four; right? I mean --
Hoaglun: Okay. I --
Bernard: That's an opinion maybe.
Hoaglun: Thanks, Mike.
Simison: And just for the record, ACHD is not on with us this evening, so it's -- Sonya,
don't know if you have got a bat line to Kristy. It's the holidays. She may or may not be
here.
Allen: She's not available for tonight's meeting.
Simison: Okay. All right. Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next we have George Windle.
Simison: And for everyone that comes forward -- if you can state your name and address
and be recognized for three minutes and be prepared to stick around for questions from
Council.
Windle: My name's George Windle.
Simison: If you can get into the microphone.
Windle: Hello? That one works. Got it. Thank you. My name is George Windle. I'm at
4199 North Rogue River Way, Meridian, Idaho. I'm here to testify regarding this proposal.
Simison: George, if you can --
Windle: I'm here to testify to this proposed development. You can tell I'm not a natural
speaker. My -- my -- I oppose to the development. My first proposal of changing the land
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 22 of 51
use zoning to R-8 is due to the following concern -- and a lot of this information I'm going
to present to you was aided by Planning and Zoning's comments and concerns in their
updated November 22nd, report. The purposed -- the proposed developer's lot sizes to
the north of the abutting property development are four to five thousand square feet on
average. This would represent a ratio of two and a half to one to the existing adjacent
properties in Alpine Pointe, which would not provide a better transition to the existing
abutting properties. The P&Z recommendations of November 22nd, 2022, updated staff
report pages, as I interpreted it -- sorry, Sonya, if I interpret this wrong. Page 5, Bullet .3,
requires all new development to create a lot size design compatible with surrounding
usage through buffering, screening, and transitional densities and other best site design
processes per ordinance 3.07.01A. The proposed development in the existing north
border lot sizes range from 2.1 to 5.1 and your staff findings suggested a better transition
in lot sizes should be provided. Page 5, Bullet .4, encourages compatible usage and site
design to minimize conflict, key word, and maximize use of land. Same ordinance,
reference 3.07, but 00. The proposed and existing adjacent usage are all single family
residential, which should be generally compatible with each other. However, the lot sizes
proposed along the north and east border are not compatible with abutting residential lot
sizes and may prevent conflict due to not enough transition and lot sizes. Page 5, Bullet
.5, the existing proposal will negatively impact the abutting existing development. And
that's critical. Your own Planning and Zoning are advising you folks that this is going to
negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. Page 6, Section V-1 , staff analysis
paragraph four states: Because of the lack of adequate transition of lot size to the north
will likely negatively impact abutting property owners. Okay?
Simison: If you could wrap up, please.
Windle: Huh?
Simison: If you could wrap up, please.
Windle: That's fine. That's what I was going to do. Just get some stuff -- I would like the
developer of proposed Kingstown Subdivision to change as follows: Regarding lot sizes
and zoning, request to change from R-8 to R-4. The lot sizes on the north boundary be
changed to a 1.3 to one ratio for better transition to their abutting properties leading into
the Alpine Subdivision and also lot sizes on the southwest side and west boundary be
changed from -- to 1 .5 to one ration for better transition to their abutting property in the
Champion Park Subdivision. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Windle: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Carol Windle.
C.Windle: My name is Carol Windle. I live at 4199 North Rogue River Way, Meridian,
Idaho. 83646-3638. To the Honorable Mayor and to the Meridian City Council, I thank
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 23 of 51
you for your time. I'm here again as along with all the other citizens that are being
impacted by this proposed development. We have submitted written and personal
testimony stating the negative impacts for their homes, which our very own staff
recommendations and findings have already reported. Regarding 3.07.01A, it states that
the transition from proposed to existing homes along the north boundary range from 2.1
to 5.1 transition. Your staff findings stated that a better transition in lot size should be
provided. Regarding Ordinance 3.07.00, it states that it should encourage compatible
uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize the use of land. Again the staff
reported the proposed and existing adjacent uses are all single family residential, which
should be generally compatible with each -- with each other. However, the lot sizes
proposed along the north and east boundaries are not compatible with abutting residential
lot sizes and may present conflict due to not enough transition and lot sizes. Last time I
was here there was another developer that was -- had proposed a development at The
Village and I was so impressed by what our HOA president said, you -- you were all
conferencing to decide how could you recommend approval for this development, even
though that developer had something that was two stories over the recommended
ordinances and our HOA president came up and he asked -- he said we are at your --
and he asked why do we have these ordinances if they are continually being adjusted
and -- and we are giving lend to the developers, when, in fact, all of the citizens -- this has
a lifelong impact of all -- you know, any decision that any of you make, so we are here --
I'm nervous, but I really hope that you will take our concerns seriously, because it impacts
our lives and -- and our livelihood as far as what we put into our homes. Another staff
finding stated the proposed in-fill development will likely negatively impact abutting
homeowners to the north. So, I recommend at least that we go from R-8 to R-4, that we
have a right-turn only signal on Rogue River just as I stated before, because of the safety
concerns that are already in written testimony and -- and my spoken testimony and thank
you for your time.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Paul Miller.
Simison: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Johnson: We have Melissa Bernard.
Simison: Good evening.
M.Bernard: My name is Melissa Bernard. I live at 4025 North Dashwood Place in
Meridian. Sonya, Mike had a presentation. Could you pull that up? I would like to speak
to this. These are the streets that are passing through my neighborhood. These are
variances that are shown from ACHD policies and setbacks and spacing on driveways
and access points. All the orange points are potential places of conflict. All the
development that has come before you is predicated upon the belief that our streets are
safe and they are ready for the traffic that's coming. This is showing me for not. This is
showing me a liability we cannot afford. We cannot afford this for our children, for our
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 24 of 51
neighborhoods, and I'm not saying that this is broke beyond recognition, but, then,
perhaps maybe some mitigation needs to be coming forth on some of these square miles.
We are going to have six or seven thousand people in my square mile when it's built out.
We have children. We have four schools. We are probably going to have several more
on that civic parcel. So, when everything comes developed and we are all interconnected,
as we should be -- I'm not against that, but we have to be mindful of what we are putting
into place. Mr. Enzler, I think he is a great guy. I have had very good interactions with
him. If we had some mitigation within his project of some sort, whether it's speed humps,
bulb-outs, anything -- something to slow down the traffic within his -- his development
and, then, start thinking downstream, that would be great for everyone. I don't see how
anyone could say no to that. That's the least expensive way. That is a great insurance
policy of making sure our -- our citizens and our children are safe. If he had lower density
I would be up here cheerleading for him, saying, hey, this would be great. But the fact is
because of the density and the connections without any mitigation whatsoever, I can't
stand behind this and I can't be silent. To be silent is to consent and I don't consent. I'm
not saying the sky is falling, but we can't take the etch-a-sketch and just give it a shake
and get a do over out of this. This is what we have. This is what many of our citizens are
coming before you, it's typically density and traffic patterns. I know you care. I know you
-- you bring out a lot and you bring a lot to the conversation. But we can't stay in our lane
anymore. We can't stay in our lane on some traffic issues and you have a lot of things in
your toolbox that we can do to change this. Thank you for your time and prayers for
Councilman Cavener. Happy Thanksgiving.
Simison: Thank you. Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Unless I just want to -- and that's what I'm trying
to figure out. Do you -- do you tie density to -- to traffic when I -- even if the density is
lower, the traffic patterns -- there is still going to be traffic mitigation; correct? I -- I mean
I don't understand that -- oh, lower the density and the traffic issues go away. I mean
going from 26 down to 14 -- okay, yeah, there is going to be a fewer cars, but you are still
connecting these streets and, hence, people from the neighborhood are going to use
those streets. So, that's why I'm trying to understand why -- why that connection when
don't see a connection for that.
M.Bernard: Absolutely, sir. I see your -- your point. Everything's been predicated that
what's down the road isn't necessarily Mr. Enzler's problem, but it's the entire block's
problem when we have six to seven thousand people using this spoke. We are going to
have it in all directions. People will find a way to path of least resistance. So, I -- I don't
think it's necessarily the density of this project. It's what's down the road from this project
that is going to use the roads. Now, his residents deserve a certain amount of traffic
control. They also deserve to have safety in their own homes. Now, a few stop signs, a
few speed humps, maybe some patterns in the streets, all those passive elements that
ACHD often brings up, but never implements at the time when they need to, until
something happens. I don't see why we shouldn't -- and it's not necessarily his
neighborhood, but maybe strategically throughout the square mile. We need an audit. I
mean I'm -- I'm doing this in front of my computer using maps and doing measurements
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 25 of 51
and things. This was shocking to me. This should -- and I'm sure every square mile has
their potential issues and anything we can do to get ahead of that, that would be great
and I think Council and -- and Commissions -- the Traffic Commissions that we do have,
we are -- we are next to the busiest highway in the state. People are going to find routes
to shave off lights, to add a few minutes to their day. I don't blame them, honestly,
because that's what the -- the interconnection is supposed to be like. You are -- you are
-- the people who are afraid to use Eagle Road to get to the doctor or to get to the grocery
store, they need to have other avenues to be able to -- to go around our city safely and
so I'm not against the -- the connectivity. I think we need to start having a brain that starts
putting in -- in some mitigation. Open it up, but don't make it so easy to cut through.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. And that's one of the things -- in going through -- and I don't know if it's
yours or others. There are a lot of letters and lots of suggestions and different things.
You know, there are speed bumps in North Camas Creek, speed limit signs, stop signs,
but I didn't find where there was a specific here, here, here, here, but that--which --which
would be helpful. You know, if we are going to mitigate, you know, a development, you
know, for -- for traffic, for example, recommendations, that -- that would be handy to -- to
have it -- you know, like North Camas. I -- I didn't find that specifically and trying to figure
out North Camas exactly where that was on the whole scheme of things. But, yeah, those
types of things help as we try to figure that out. Because, yeah, the connection will
increase traffic through there.
M.Bernard: Councilman Hoaglun, I can give you suggestions if you would like. I -- I'm
not shy about that. But I'm running out of in-fill to comment on, so the end is near. But
there are -- there are some things I think we can do proactively as a community. You
have your neighborhood, you know where your trouble spots are. Commit -- or Council
Woman Strader probably has her own. Mr. -- Mr. Mayor probably has some hot spots in
his -- in his own backyard, too. I think we need to start being proactive before the
accidents happen. I don't want to see more children killed getting to school, but there is
four schools here. I think some mitigation -- definitely in Champion Park, a few stop signs,
maybe one at Rogue River, maybe one at Conley and maybe one where -- where it's
going to connect to Jasmine or at the end of Jasmine where Delano's going to flow, we
are going to have up to 600 high density apartment units to the east of us that are going
to define this route to get to the west out Locust Grove. We are also going to have people
from the west at Locust Grove in the next adjacent block getting to that new roundabout,
finding the flow and skipping four -- four lights to get to The Village. You build it, they will
come. And over time. So, this is it. I -- I think the thing we are looking for is something
that's livable for Mr. Enzler's project and something that's also livable for -- for our
community and this is everyone as a -- on the whole. It's just not in my backyard. It's
everyone's.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 26 of 51
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Comment. I appreciate the effort that you go to to highlight the issues and
different things and suggestions. So, I do appreciate the time you take for that, so --
M.Bernard: Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. Happy Thanksgiving. Any other
questions?
Simison: Yes. Just a question for you. So, back to what at least this developer can
control on -- in this project. From my perspective, looking at the north-south connection
point, it's got some good stop points that, you know, you are coming to T's, you are turning.
I don't see it, quite frankly, impacting the -- the speed through this development. It may
go in other places. Actually see the worst speed going to be going right by his house,
you know, because it's -- it's a fairly straight element out. So, is there a recommendation
for that road in that location on their property that you think is important or necessary to
improve this development, recognizing there may be other things outside this
development with -- and I wish it was easy to get a stop sign. Even in my neighborhood
I can't get stop signs where I would like to see them sometimes. So, with thoughts on
this -- what this developer can control in this parcel for a traffic calming measure that you
think would make sense.
M.Bernard: Mr. Mayor, I believe that would be anything around the pathway system where
that's going to connect. I think maybe a speed hump or a speed cushion. We don't want
anything to impede our fire or police. We also need this for a possible detour when those
accidents happen on Eagle Road or if we have a gas leak on Locust Grove. You need to
keep these channels open, but I also believe you need to slow down the traffic a little bit.
Maybe right by Mr. Enzler's project, right by his house where he has got the largest parcel,
that might be a good spot. Maybe make sure we mark the crossways for that pathways
really heavily and if we start noticing speeds, I -- I think -- I think sometimes there is a little
resistance when citizens come forth and it's like hard to believe -- oh, there is not that
much cut through. Yeah. There is. There are those people going 40, 50 miles per hour.
Those are rare. Most of the time people behave themselves. But I think we need to move
-- remove that element of the possibility and if it gets somebody that adds a few seconds
to their local traffic within our -- our neighborhood, a couple speed humps, a few strategic
stop signs and, I'm sorry, you being the Mayor can't get a stop sign where you need to
have it and I think that's it. I think citizen feedback is always important. The traffic
commission. I have watched a few of their hearings. I think ACHD -- yes, they-- they are
the road authority, but you have got a lot in your toolbox, too, as a Council that you can
do to implement some safety and I think that's very important.
Simison: Okay. Thank you.
M.Bernard: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Christopher Chaffin.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 27 of 51
Chaffin: Council Members --
Simison: Wait until you are at the mic and state your name and address for the record.
Chaffin: My name's Chris Chaffin. I live at 2473 East Wigle Drive in Champion Park
Subdivision. Been longtime resident there. My -- my chief concerns are basically the --
the -- the size of ratios of the lots compared to the lots that are in the subdivisions around
that particular area and much of what Melissa went through as far as the traffic, you know,
there -- there are going to be problems, obviously, because the roads are a lot more
narrow and, you know, anybody is going to -- that's out there is going to try to probably
find the -- the path of least resistance to try to get from point A to point B. So, that's just
mainly my chief concern. The only other thing is that I can think of is what I have observed
as far as -- I don't know if this is a question for ACHD or maybe another entity at another
time, but the -- the speed limit that goes through at least my subdivision is 25 miles per
hour and it's often -- often exceeded I have noticed. I -- I think it should be a -- you know,
a maximum of 20 miles per hour, my opinion, where ever there is, you know, children
involved if there is a school especially and there is tons of school children that live in my
-- in my neighborhood and it's just -- unfortunately it's a matter of time before one of them,
you know, gets in an accident or, you know, something happens and I just don't want that
for anybody. So, anyway, those are my chief concerns, but I would like to second what
-- I would like to second what the last speaker said, so I really appreciate things. Thank
you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I was just going to recommend, you know, Chris, this -- the Police Department
comes out, they can put up the speed signs, you know, radar type of things and let people
know what -- what they are doing and different things and they have even gone out and
-- and I have talked to them about that, where they can come out -- neighborhoods call,
HOA, say, hey, can you come out or just got too many -- too much traffic that's going too
fast and -- and they do and you know what the result is? They catch all your neighbors.
Chaffin: Oh. Okay.
Hoaglun: That's my-- I live next to a collector in our subdivision. I know those cars. They
live in my neighborhood and they are whipping down the street. So, it's not always the
-- the out folks, but it's just the nature of people sometimes. So, if you want to make lots
of friends as -- if you are an HOA call for the police to come out and do a patrol and you
will slow it down for a while, but it -- it will be your neighbors. So, that's been their
experience.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 28 of 51
Chaffin: Okay. Well, I will take your word for it I guess. All right. Anything else you guys?
Thank you.
Simison: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Allen Dixon.
Simison: Mr. Dixon, state your name address for the record, please.
Dixon: Hi. My name is Allen Dixon. 2499 East Wainwright Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I live
on the corner of--where Rogue River comes into the new subdivision. I don't--this might
be an ACHD question, but could they put one of those fire department only post in the
middle of the road there? Is that something -- where they -- there wouldn't be through
traffic?
Simison: Yeah. That -- Sonya, has -- has that issue come up at all in terms of making
these a not connected street?
Dixon: There are some around us I have seen that have the little --
Simison: I know they are.
Dixon: Since this subdivision has never been opened before, is there any way they could
just use it for a fire department, police department only?
Allen: Well, that would be the preferred option by neighbors and I don't blame you.
However, when -- when stub streets are -- are -- are stubbed to adjacent properties they
are meant to be extended for connectivity and interconnectivity between neighborhoods.
So, the purpose is for them to be extended. So, ACHD will require them to and city code
also requires them to.
Dixon: Okay. How did the other ones get connected that way?
Allen: I'm not sure --
Dixon: Not sure.
Allen: Are you referring to the one directly to the -- the east?
Dixon: Yes. Correct. There is a road there.
Allen: There was, yes. That was determined through the public hearing process and I
believe with ACHD as well.
Dixon: I think that would solve half the problems I'm hearing tonight. I'm in favor of less
houses behind me. I was hoping it would line up a lot to lot. With the zoning concern --
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 29 of 51
moved from downtown Boise where I own property and I watched zoning change from
four houses to 70 houses next to me on one side and on the other side two fourplexes to
233 apartments. So, zoning is very important when you have established neighborhood
and, then, a zoning comes in that's more than yours and I appreciate the gentleman that
owns the property. I barely have met him. I met one of his staff. Very nice people.
have owned property. I'm not sure how much he's going to make on the whole project,
but getting rid of a couple lots -- I can't think would be a end of project decision. It would
sure make the neighbors happy and as far as the trees go, I look out the back door, I don't
see any trees on phase one. Not one. So, the trees he's saving, I believe, are all in -- in
phase two and I don't know, if, yeah, there is a picture of that, but I don't think there is any
trees in phase one he is saving, but there might be, but I don't think so. I think most of
them are in the phase two. So, by saving all the trees that doesn't affect where I live and
all our neighbors live in Alpine Pointe. It won't affect -- there is no trees cut down there.
There would be no trees there. So, those are the only concerns I have. I -- I -- I'm not
against the development. So, if it goes through that's fine, I would just like to see less
houses.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Dixon. Council, any questions? Thanks.
Johnson: And, Mr. Mayor, the last person indicating they wish to speak is Laura T. Laura,
I know it's been three years and I still cannot pronounce your last name. I apologize.
Trairatnobhas: Hi, I'm Laura Trairatnobhas from 4621 North Camas Creek Way in the
Alpine Pointe Subdivision. First of all, to Mr. Enzler, you have great courage to do in-fill
development. We all know how incredibly difficult it is. Maddyn Holmes builds beautiful
homes. A lot of them are over a million dollars and they are really lovely. I would love to
see this be an R-4 and that way Mr. Enzler could show us some of the beautiful, beautiful
homes that he builds in an R-4 type subdivision. They would match up much better with
Alpine Pointe. We would have a few less homes than we would, few less people going
through the subdivision. I realize that won't make much difference to the traffic overall,
but I think it would make a big difference to the livability of the people who already live in
the subdivisions surrounding the Kingstown development and that's all I wanted to say.
Thank you for your time and for your efforts and have a good Thanksgiving.
Simison: Thank you, Laura. Council, questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Laura, since you live on North Camas Way, I'm just curious -- there was a letter
that, you know, talked about speed bumps on North Camas Way. So, I take it even now
there is traffic to get out to McMillan and do you know where speed bumps should be
located?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 30 of 51
Trairatnobhas: I have some good ideas. Yeah. A lot of that traffic is coming -- it's cutting
through to get to Settlers Bridge, which is to the west of Alpine Pointe. Speed bumps
certainly could be --
Simison: Laura, could you get closer to the mic?
Trairatnobhas: Oh. Sorry. It's going into Settlers Bridge. They cut throughout Alpine
Pointe to get there. We could certainly use a speed bump -- as you come off of McMillan
onto Camas Creek there is a little bit of a -- a hill there that goes over the canal and people
just roar down off that thing as fast as they can go and I live right there, as do my two
neighbors -- Sherry and Denise who were here with me tonight -- all of us have a terrible
time trying to back out of our driveways, because there are four roads all coming together
there. Lacewood, Wagon and Granadillo and Camas Creek. People just -- you know,
they go --
Simison: Laura, can you --
Trairatnobhas: Sorry. It's too short. I'm sorry. I need a taller one. Yeah. They are just
going as fast as they can. So, yeah, one speed bump there would be great. A couple of
stop signs. But, again, we know how hard it is to get stop signs -- would also help.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Trairatnobhas: Okay.
Simison: For the record stop signs are easier than speed bumps, but they are still difficult.
Trairatnobhas: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Simison: Okay. That's everyone who signed up in advance. Is -- if there is anybody that
would like to provide testimony, if you would come forward at this time and, then, you will
be recognized. Just come on up to the mic. And I will -- and we just have two staff online,
so I'm just going to focus on those in the room. If you would state your name and address
the record, please.
McGoff: My name is Mike McGoff. I live at 2431 East Wainwright Drive. I'm -- I have the
big lot. It's a half acre. What Mike proposed on his six houses there, that would be nice.
You know, zone four. If there is going to be a two-story, maybe just be a -- a sunroom or
a bonus room and no east-west or north windows, because they are all going to be looking
in my yard. I have got four houses that proposed to go in there. Two is better. That's it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 31 of 51
Bernt: Thanks, Mike. What do you think about having the windows in the second floor in
those homes?
McGoff: On the second floor?
Bernt: Yeah.
McGoff: On the north, no. On the east and west -- they will still be able to see in I think
everybody's -- everybody's backyard. If it's just a bonus room facing to the south, that
would be great.
Bernt: Thanks, buddy.
Simison: Council, any additional questions? Okay. Thank you.
McGoff: Thank you.
Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide public testimony on this item?
Then would the applicant like to come forward to close? Oh. Come on up. Just get right
into the mic, please.
Britton: Here we go. Okay. Better? Charlene Britton. B-r-i-t-t-o-n. 2457 East Garber
Drive, Meridian, Idaho. I have got the whole thing. Anyway, I'm on Garber Drive and I
am offset from Conley, so as the cars come down Conley, once this is opened up, I will
be seeing them every day. As in-fill projects go, I don't think this is bad. I think they are
very difficult to do. My issues, even though everyone's issues and concerns are valid and
I appreciate them, mine come from -- I have lived near an in-fill project. It took almost two
and a half years -- two years fighting and two and a half -- one and a half years building
and so my issues were some of the ones -- and Sonya did an excellent job for the
overview from the Planning Commission's meeting to you, because it covered a lot of the
things. So, mine come more from when it is being built that the water trucks come, the
trailers are not offloaded in the neighbors on -- in the neighbors -- on either side. All
openings are opened at the same time. I think everybody would love if we just had
Jasmine Lane open and come in one road and, then, everybody could turn around and
go back out one, but these stub streets were there 15 years ago and they are well marked.
So, I just bought this home a little over a year ago. I had no idea that there was going to
be a subdivision put there and there was no sign and on the other side on North Rogue
River, that sign who -- who states this is a stub street, it will eventually have a street here
-- had been painted over with white paint. So, I get it. Everybody's upset. But if I had to
live with something I could live with this. I -- my -- really my heart goes out to the person
with four homes. So, if something could be done there. And the zoning in phase two be
upsized and locked in, then, I think you have, you know, got a project that you can live
with. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Appreciate it.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 32 of 51
R.Britton: Good evening. My name -- my name is Roger Britton. I live at 2457 East
Garber Drive, directly adjacent to the project. That was my wife. You know, I understand
there is a lot of parts to this puzzle as far as the community is concerned and the
developer. We would just like to see a responsible project being managed correctly, so
the least amount of impact to the neighborhoods exists. We have already a large traffic
flow in our neighborhood due to the elementary school, so I can only imagine what it's
going to be like when all three of these stub roads are opened up and it is what it is. We
just ask that, you know, he keeps the dust mitigation down, that he keeps all his vehicles
for his construction crews and so forth on the site, so that the neighborhoods are, you
know, not impacted heavily and we just ask for those considerations, so that we can all
enjoy the project as it develops. And also I have been kind of looking at this -- I don't see
the need for this foot trail to go from one side to the other. I really don't see that. Because
what that's going to do -- as you know where my house is, is right next to the foot trail that
currently exists. I kind of work dead ends at my house. Well, it's going to open up and,
then, everybody and their brother is going to walk by there. So, I'm not a real fan of that.
So, that's all I have. And you know what, thank you very much for coming here today. I
know we all got a holiday, so please enjoy.
Simison: Thanks, Roger. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody
else that would like to provide testimony? Would you like to come forward?
Bahro: Good evening. Bernie Bahro. 2584 East Lacewood Drive, Meridian, Idaho. Just
to address the traffic concern, one of the things that hasn't been mentioned tonight -- and
when the Delano project was in before the Dashwood decision was to close that particular
road, there were lots of detailed discussion about traffic mitigation, stop signs, which
intersections, but the biggest crux that we have in Alpine Pointe is almost all of our houses
have RV bays, either filled with boats or campers or motorhomes, and I live just off of
Camas, I'm the third house in on Lacewood and so we have Settlers coming through. We
have the people on Camas coming off of McMillan using Lacewood to get to Wainwright
and, then, eventually out to Eagle and you can't move your head from one direction to the
other when you are backing into your driveway without having another car there in a
heartbeat and as soon as you give them an inch before you are back in your RV back into
the -- into your bay, you know, they are going around you and it's -- it's just -- it's trying to,
you know, put into context that there is two different elements going on here. One is,
obviously, the density and adjacent to our subdivision and the houses like Mike, who you
just heard spoke. But the other is once these roads are opened up, it's a free for all
coming through there and -- and almost every single house on Camas, on Lacewood,
going in and out on Wainwright, we all have RV bays and we are all backing up and we
are all getting older and we are all trying to be really careful bringing those, you know,
units into our bays and so it hasn't been mentioned like tonight, so I just wanted to say
that. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thank you. Is there anybody
else that would like to provide testimony? Okay. Then I will ask applicant to come forward
to close.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 33 of 51
Bard: My name is Teller Bard with Kimley Horn. 1100 West Idaho Street, Suite 210,
Boise, Idaho. 83702. Just wanted to say thank you tonight, Mr. Mayor and Council
Members, for just hearing the project and asking questions and being involved in the
decision making. A few things that I wanted to point out and clarify, just based on the
public testimony. Is that the comp plan calls for three to eight dwelling units per acre and
this proposal was for 3.17 dwelling units per acre. The comp plan states objectives for
transitions of approximately two to one. This was exceeded in the original proposal of 28
lots. The applicant, based on staff feedback, reduced the plan by three lots in the north
boundary, so that went from 13 lots to ten lots and increased it by one lot on the east, for
a net decrease of two lots. Based on that change staff recommended approval and P&Z
recommended approval and based on neighbor feedback at P&Z there were two
conditions added to the application. One was for no north facing windows on the second
story of homes along the northern boundary and that tree planting would be encouraged
in those rear yards. It's important to note that in discussions of transition, the fifth lot,
which is a county lot, which is outside of the Alpine Pointe Subdivision, has not been
considered in the transition calculations. So, there are five lots that border the northern
boundary. This subdivision proposes ten. That is a two to one transition. The corner lot
there is unique. It's unique to its subdivision and its size and because it's unique it -- it
carried a unique risk in neighbor transition. There was a -- a comment made about
additional lots that could be removed. I just want to --to specify that those were not based
on the economic analysis staff has made a statement that five lots could be removed from
the subdivision and still remain comp plan conforming. Just to note that two of those lots
have already been removed. That was the net two decrease that I had discussed before
and based on my calculations I don't believe that we can go below 25 lots without being
less than three dwelling units per acre. It's an 8.2 acre project. Related to the concerns
about traffic, the objectives and policies of ACHD require the connections. The three
roads stub through. The proposal, the road configuration, the connection points, they are
not unique. It was noted that from the -- if this site is traversed from the north to the south
there are four required stops. One at the intersection south of the site, which I can -- I
think I can point here. So, there is one at this subdivision here. There is one in the
internal T. Another at this inner internal T. And another one as people were to exit. So,
that would definitely encourage -- I guess less hurried travel through the area, just more
responsible. One of the things that I want to identify is that you heard the developer
discuss the economic viability and also his intent on preservation. You heard him state
facts about -- about what that tree canopy means for the City of Meridian and -- and what
it means personally for him as well. Further reductions to the lot count invites more
environmental impacts. Based on the developer's testimony, the lot count cannot be
reduced below 27 -- or 26 and the project to be economically feasible. Reductions on the
west half of the project will require additional removal of trees and the demolition of Kyle's
own home. It's important to note that this preliminary plat, if approved, secures the
development plan for phase one and phase two, changes to increased density or any
changes to the development plan in phase one or phase two will require another
application to be submitted, a period of public comment and public hearing. Did want to
identify that there are trees saved in phase one. Those exist in the common space west
of Rogue -- or east of Rogue River through here. There are a number of trees that are
being saved and maintained in that open space. There have been -- there has been
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 34 of 51
testimony tonight that an R-4 zoning would be more appropriate for this development. In
fact, the only surrounding R-4 zoning is to the north in Alpine Pointe. To the south is an
R-8 zoning. To the east in Delano is an R-8 zoning and just at the very southeast corner
is a development that was approved at R-15. An R-4 -- an R-4 zoning would increase
setbacks. It would increase lot sizes. But as I mentioned and Kyle has testified, the
project becomes economically unviable at less than 26 lots. So, those 26 lots would need
to be maintained across the entire eight acres and that would require, again, the removal
of the trees and the demolition of Kyle's own home.
Enzler: Kyle Enzler. 2610 East Jasmine Lane, Meridian. Idaho. So, appreciate --
appreciate Mayor and -- and City Council for you being here tonight. I -- I do appreciate
the neighbors. As they have mentioned, we -- we have, you know, had good
communication and so my -- my comments are -- are -- are more general. You know, this
-- this subdivision -- the most recently approved subdivision by City Council was to the
east of us. That was an R-8 and, then, a small sliver of R-8 and, then, R-15 right behind
that. To the south of us is also an R-8 and -- and the only R-4 is to the north. So, I think
there is kind of two different discussions going on. One is density and -- and the other is
-- is the zoning. As -- as Teller mentioned, the zoning might affect setback requirements,
but in reality phase one meets the R-8 setbacks. Phase two, because they are bigger
lots, are more aligned with the R-4 anyways,just by-- by choice. So, again, the challenge
is, you know, in talking about transition, as Teller pointed out, I think the area that has
most heartburn, which we have discussed a little bit, is that northwest -- you know, where
we have a five -- or two-to-one transition, we have ten to five lots. But if you look at the
whole north side we have 12 lots total on the north to nine lots that we are adjacent to.
On the east we have three lots to eight that we are adjacent to and on the south we have
five lots to 12 that we are adjacent to. So, again, it's just part of the challenge of an in-fill
project. I think it's evident that we have done our best to work with the neighbors and --
and try to find a win-win scenario. It is to the point where we are -- we are at the -- I mean
just over the lowest dwelling units per acre here and it's really just not economically
feasible for us to develop this plan, while preserving the house and the trees and -- and
lose more -- more lots.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor? Can you pause his time? I just wanted to interject real quick to -- to
ask a question. You have said a couple times that it's not economically feasible to
decrease the amount of lots more than what has already been done. I'm -- is -- is -- if it
-- if it -- if you choose -- and -- and I'm just hypothetically -- this is not my position, but it's
a question I need you to answer.
Enzler: Yeah.
Bernt: If it's denial or less lots, which one do you choose?
Enzler: I would choose denial.
Bernt: Okay.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 35 of 51
Enzler: I -- I -- and -- and I will -- I will clarify. So, a question came up in Planning and
Zoning and ultimately they recommended approval, as you know. Would you remove the
house and come back with a new application? So, you know, I first started by just
explaining why I chose to keep the house and why I chose to keep the trees. My -- my
point in pointing that out was just to show one other aspect of me feeling like that's the
responsible thing to do. The other -- the other part of that, however -- I was approached
by three other developers and I thought that they would share that same interest that I
had in preservation of the house and the trees and they had zero interest. They didn't
even look at the house and -- and their goal would -- knowing that this is a medium density
residential, three to eight dwelling units per acre, would be to maximize density, you know,
and -- and -- and tear down the house and the trees and so I think that that's what this
project would look like is -- you know, certainly there is a cost to the tree preservation.
You know, there is -- and I -- and I think where it becomes economically feasible is trying
to meet all those objectives with a reduction in lots as it currently is. I do think that you
could get, you know, even a better transition possibly on that north side by removing the
trees, removing the houses, and I think you would still be within that three to eight dwelling
units per acre, but I think you would jump. I think it would be more than the 3.2 that we
are asking for. So, again, this is the application that's before you. I think if -- if that was
the case we would be having a different conversation and -- and, you know, possibly a lot
more representation from Champion Park, who would, then, have a lot more units along
their west border and -- and -- or south border and so it's just part of the challenge of the
project we have.
Simison: You still have five minutes. I didn't know if you were concluding your comments
or not.
Enzler: Yeah. I -- I was probably a bit long winded enough. I appreciate -- appreciate
your time and -- and certainly open for any additional questions.
Simison: All right. Thank you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Are you --are you thinking about selling this development or developing it yourself?
Enzler: No. I have -- I have been intent on developing it myself and I think what you have
heard from the neighbors is that's been the conversation all along. The -- I lived here
when Delano application went through and was approved at an R-8. I was -- I was part
of -- in fact, it was -- it was this HOA that contacted me and -- and said, hey, we saw this
great project you did down the road. We would love you to be the developer. Can you
come buy this and develop it and -- the Delano project and I said, well, that's not exactly
how it works. I don't have that -- but that's what started the conversation and so, you
know, I think it's -- I think it's evident what our intent has been in our discussions with
neighbors, you know, they haven't said one bad thing about us and I appreciate that. It's
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 36 of 51
just -- it's just -- we have a -- we have a challenging subdivision and I feel like if, again, it
would be -- I -- I think the opposition is growth and the fact that we are the in-fill piece that
are connecting all these pieces, not necessarily that -- I think they would oppose any
development, frankly, but -- but I think that it would look different if you had to develop the
phase two and -- and tear down the house and the trees.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I want to make sure I get the number right. So, the number of lots are 26. Does
that include the current house -- your house or is it 26 plus?
Enzler: Yes. Yes, sir.
Hoaglun: Total of 26 lots in this development. Okay.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just want to push back a little bit. I'm having a hard time -- you know, certainly
there are economic tradeoffs. Looks like you could lose -- you know, again, you have lost
two units and that's hard. It sounded like you could still meet the minimum density here
losing three more units on the north side. You have already heard, I think, that that would
help with the transition. I guess I'm -- I'm surprised that -- that just as your breaking point
wouldn't work for you, my concern -- I just want to be really up front. The neighbors are
not wrong about the zoning. We just had a case come before us and the truth is like once
it's zoned and entitled, you know, you can sell the property and it -- it could look like a
totally different R-8; right? I'm just concerned about what we might find here. I'm more
comfortable with R-4. At a minimum you would have to lose lots I think to get me to vote
on this. On the north side. I just -- I won't get there on it. I just want to be transparent
about that. I don't feel like this is an appropriate transition, particularly in that spot. I think
it's the worst. I appreciate what you want to do with the estate lot and preserving the
trees, that really speaks to, you know, some of my goals as well for the city in terms of
preserving trees, but, you know, there is just a lot here that sort of bothers me about the
two phases and, yeah, I just -- so, I guess if -- it would just be good -- I -- I guess I'm
hearing you, you know, losing lots doesn't work for you. If you want to amend that
statement let me know, but I just wanted to be up front about how I'm going to vote tonight.
Enzler: Thank you. I -- I appreciate those comments. I'm not sure if that was -- if there
was a question there. You know, I -- I -- I think that we came into this initially with
considering more lots and -- and we have reduced down to this point and, you know,
again, we are basing that off of both the current market of, you know, things are expensive
and things are expensive both to develop, to build, and they are expensive to afford and
so, you know, it's -- it's really a challenge, because you -- you know, you -- you do have
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 37 of 51
this affordability issue as well that I -- I realize that everybody wants, you know, higher --
I mean they want big houses next to their house or -- or larger lots, but at the same time
we have this challenge with what it costs to develop and what it costs to build and -- and
I just don't feel like it's unreasonable with an R-8 to the east and R-8 to the south and us
and the -- and the Comprehensive Plan as a medium density residential, which is three
to eight dwelling units per acre and we are -- we are asking for just over three. So, you
know, I feel like that's pretty reasonable. I understand -- I understand your points and the
challenges with transition. I -- I think in reality, aside from Mike's lot, if you look at the
length of Mike's lot, it's the length of two of the lots. So, I -- of-- of all the other lots there,
just based on the fact that it's a flag shape -- shaped lot in the corner. So, I -- I also realize
that a lot of neighbors, you know, made mention of Mike's lot and have heartburn to that
effect. But, again, it's -- it is the same transition that everybody else is getting, you know,
from a -- a -- you know, from a -- a measurement standpoint. It just happens that his lot
is a flag shaped lot and -- and covers a lot more of that in that area, so --
Womack: Can we get the PowerPoint back up? I just wanted to address your comment
real quick. Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I feel that my -- I feel that he answered -- I feel like he -- he addressed my
nonquestion. It was a comment. I just wanted a reaction from him.
Womack: Oh.
Strader: Thank you.
Simison: Council --
Allen: Mr. Mayor? Pardon me. May I clarify something that I said earlier on density?
made the comment earlier that the applicant could lose up to five buildable lots and still
be consistent with the density desired in the medium density. The applicant corrected
me. The Comprehensive Plan actually rounds up, so anything 2.5 units per acre and up
is considered rounded up to three for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. So, I
just wanted to clarify that on the record. The applicant could technically go down to 21
buildable lots and still be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation on that
property. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Sonya. Councilman Borton, did you have --
Borton: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Just to kind of -- where I have taken all of this with the
public comment and your comments, in-fill is super challenging and -- and the two big
issues here -- one, traffic is always an issue with stub streets and hats off to you for
bringing an application that makes a bunch of connections and you are always going to
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 38 of 51
get blowback and it's very difficult. So, you have done a really good job with a difficult
parcel. So, the traffic is something I -- I can get my head around. The connection and
the --the pros and cons of that. But like Council Woman Strader had mentioned, the only
thing I -- I would ask you to -- to bend on, which you have answered candidly, is -- is the
lots on the north. I see a different -- a different way. You could -- you could keep an R-8
zoning as applied for, but have a DA provision with the minimum lot size, just because
you have got a pretty big -- big breadth of lot sizes within an R-8. You know, a minimum
4,000 to 8,000. So, you can accomplish what would effectively be a reduction in lots by
having a reduced lot size in the DA, still an R-8 application, but that, then, would preserve
the -- the reduction in lots. A different way to maybe get to the same solution that you
don't want to get to for reasons I understand. But part of my concern is not necessarily
what's best here the next one, two, three or five years, which the economic circumstances
might dictate exactly what you are doing I get, but longer term and looking longer term
I'm not certain that what's in front of us is what's best. I think removing a few of those lots
might be the best long term solution. But I totally respect your perspective and the
challenges in doing so. I just also wanted to share kind of the -- the thoughts I had in
reading all of the application in the public comment, hearing everyone's comments tonight
meant a lot and it also was very impressive and well received, the relationship you have
with all the neighbors. I think that speaks to your whole team, that there is a -- a fair,
friendly agreement to disagree on some of these provisions. So, we don't always hear
that, so that's well done and appreciated. But for me I'm -- I'm just not there. You may
end up with tie situations tonight. I don't know. But just wanted to give you that initial
feedback.
Enzler: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Borton: You bet.
Enzler: Just --just a point of clarification so I understand. Is -- is the challenge that you
have with it in regards to the transition on the north side or is it the dwelling units per acre
of the whole project?
Borton: The transition to the north. Yeah. It's -- it's reduction of lots to the north. A
different way to get there. 1, quite frankly, didn't have as much concern with windows on
the second story. I mean I have -- now I have got them. Everyone's got them around and
It might be even more odd architecturally to not have windows to the rear. So, I didn't
think that was as big of a concern, especially if you could address it with some mitigation
on -- on that transition, some loss of lots.
Enzler: And so, again, as a point of clarification so I understand. Two quick comments
there. So, the -- the second story windows came as a result of the neighbors being
concerned with the privacy. My -- my comment to that was, you know, the majority of the
plans shown here are single level or single level with a bonus that's in the front. Where
we do have a two story and it's rare in these -- in these particular plans, it's a two story
stacked over the front and so my accommodation to that was, hey, I -- I can commit to
either single -- you know, that -- that -- that all along the north side there there is either
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 39 of 51
going to be single level and/or if we do have a two story it's going to stack in the front and
it won't have a need to have windows in the back. So, that was the recommendation that
we agreed to. And, then, in terms of the --the transition, because our-- our understanding
in -- in talking to staff and when we originally brought the application forward and we had
a lot more units on that north side, was that the preferred transition and the transition
that's often approved is a two-to-one transition, which is what we shot for on the -- and --
and achieved on that north side there and, then, everywhere else we have a way better
transition. So, I guess I'm trying to understand is what -- what is the transition that you
would support on that north side there if it's not two to one?
Borton: So, as I -- Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: What I'm looking at -- at the north, I see four lots, ten -- ten lots abutting four,
really. I mean your 11th lot on the furthest to the west I'm -- I'm not necessarily including
that against you, as far -- as well as the one to the north. So, it looks as though there is,
in essence, ten abutting four.
Enzler: Okay. So, what one point of clarification. The -- not one --
Borton: Nine. Sorry.
Enzler: -- is a common lot.
Borton: Nine.
Enzler: Yeah. So, the -- so -- so, it's -- I guess the -- there is that lot in the corners that
Lot 10 and Lot 11, abut that fifth lot there. That's -- I -- I believe, because Alpine Pointe is
primarily the ones here having public testimony, those four lots are in Alpine Pointe. There
is that fifth lot there that two of our lots are adjacent to. So, it is five lots there, not four.
And so it is -- we have ten residential lots to their five on that north side. I just -- okay.
Okay.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I was curious, Kyle, when I look at that -- you know, Lot 10 --
Enzler: Uh-huh.
Hoaglun: -- is right there. If you were to lose one lot, you kind of -- things kind of shuffle
down, maybe not even as far you just go to that property line, but you would have three
against Mike's -- I think it was Mike's property there to the north and, then, the others still
kind of remain at that one and a half to two ratio with loss of that one lot and I don't know
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 40 of 51
if 11 would become a little bit wider, but just kind of shuffle that down with the loss of one.
But-- but it's interesting, though, for--for those in the audience. If you turn on Wainwright
and go down -- I think that's Lynnwood, that lot just for the northwest of Mike's, right there
at the corner, three houses on -- on Lynnwood abut the property to the west. That's a
three to one. Now, those homes impacted that home. Now, should we do away with one
of those homes now? Well, a little late for that. That's a rhetorical question. But I mean
there is always an impact on somebody, somewhere, somehow that's not good. I mean
that's -- that's the reality we deal with. So, that's the hard part. And I will talk a little bit
more, but I will let you think about Lot 10. So, you know, growing up in Meridian we have
changed so dramatically and -- and I -- and I'm at the point where trying to understand
my kids, my oldest with -- got the little grandkids now and trying to buy a home, they can't
afford where we live in an R-2 to R-4 subdivision. It's just -- it's too expensive. The costs
have gone crazy. The cost to develop. I think you have talked about that, Kyle. You
know, the cost to develop and build is different than it was when Alpine Pointe and the
subdivision I live in now were built and -- and so we have -- you know, there is a concept
called housing -- the housing ladder. You know, how do kids start into the home? They
start probably like many of you out there, you know, you are in your apartment or in your
triplex or duplex or something like that and, then, you try to find that starter home and,
then, you go up from there and, then, your home -- and, ultimately, hopefully, you reach
the point where I'm very happy where -- the house I live. But now in that housing ladder
as we climb up, I'm almost to that point with all the yard my wife has, who is a master
gardener and works me to death on weekends, I look forward to going to work on Monday.
Now, we start thinking about -- I'm going to downsize. I'm going to downsize. So, where
do people go when they want to downsize? So, this particular development is kind of at
two continuums of the housing ladder. So, we have got that up and we have got that
downside and one of the things I note is -- is Kyle here -- is the owner of the property, the
developer, and he is going to live there. That is a rarity. What we mostly get -- and we
really have to be careful, because we know the developer that we have, yeah, is -- they
come in, they are going to build it, that product, sell it and they leave and there is no
interaction. So, that -- what you have is -- is an albatross here and you might not want to
shoot the albatross is what I'm trying to warn you about. Some -- something to think
about. So, the other thing tonight -- you -- if you -- many of you were here early and we
are going through the agenda, one of the first item was that easements and we get those
quite often. They change things a little bit, they don't need the easements, we get all the
sign off from all -- the power company and everybody else and that's what we did tonight.
That was an R-15. Did you notice what was to the north? R-2, R-4 all around it. There
was one R-8 down here. The rest down here was R-15. That's -- because we want to
have that mixed-use. Our Comprehensive Plan speaks to that process. So, that's what
we are trying to do is not have just a monoculture of R-2, R-4, because not everyone can
afford that and we understand that as the age and demographics change and move and
shift, we want to have that type of diversity in housing. I completely get the road impacts,
traffic impacts, and we are truly struggling with that here in Meridian. The roads -- we
can't keep up with that and we are -- we are doing what we can, but -- and so that's why
I'm interested in what can we do to mitigate? What are those things in this particular
development for a stop sign that -- that is not going to be a convenient corner to navigate.
That's going to be a very slow process. But, you know, you are right, people will find ways
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 41 of 51
that -- that it's worth it to them, instead -- instead to deal with it, so just a few things to
think about in the process. So, Kyle, losing Lot 10 as an option. What -- what -- what do
you think? And, honestly, I'm just one -- one vote up here, so I -- I don't know where they
would go. So, just --
Enzler: I understand. I mean it's -- it's -- it's a -- I mean the challenge as -- as the
developer standing here trying to answer that question is knowing that --that even though
it -- it in this setting it just seems like one lot. It -- it does represent a significant amount
of cost for the project and so, you know -- so does pushing it down the road and trying to
redesign it and so I'm -- I'm kind of scratching my head a little bit on it. You know, if-- if I
hadn't gone through nine iterations of this plan, then, I might say, oh, gosh, maybe we go
back to the draw -- I mean that's -- that's my thought process; right. As you are asking
that question I'm like, oh, gosh, well, maybe we can redesign the Common Lot 11 to switch
it over and -- you know. But it's -- it's just really tough with the dimensions of this lot to do
-- with this dimensions of this piece to do that without just having it, you know, cost a lot
more, so --
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: You know, I -- I -- I can -- I'm looking at you, man. Yeah, man. I'm -- I'm looking
at you, brother, and I can tell that you are really struggling with this and I can tell like you
are -- you are -- you know, I can tell you care and I think that's a really big deal. I can tell
like this is more than just a development for you and I can tell that you are -- you are --
you are -- you are completely all in. It's completely evident by the look on your face and
the anguish that you are feeling. You know, I -- you know, I -- I think that I'm with my
Council Members on this as well and I -- and I -- and I think at the end of the day it's your
good intent that sort of put you in a bind to a certain degree, because of your own personal
house that is -- has a gigantic lot and -- and so if -- if I were -- I -- in -- in -- in -- in our
shoes -- at least with me, I can speak for myself, I always try to put myself in your shoes.
I try to put myself in the -- the neighbors' shoes and I -- and I try to look at it in both
perspectives and I'm telling you it's -- nine out of ten times it's pretty difficult. It's -- it's
really hard to come to a perfect, you know, answer that -- that will -- that will make
everyone happy. In this situation I -- I do believe that it's not unreasonable. I -- I believe
that the -- the concern on the -- on the north end of this project that your neighbors have
is -- is -- is a reasonable concern and I realize that maybe a lot or two at the end of the
day with how your development is designed and how it looks like, makes it a really -- it's
really a big deal and I understand that in 2022, almost 2023, the cost of development is
extraordinarily high. I'm in the flooring business and I have builders that are my clients
just like you and they are -- I have had some really candid discussions with all of them
lately and they are -- everyone is singing the same song and, you know, at the end of the
day I -- it's not our purview to tell you that now is the time or to say maybe five years from
now is the time. How we approach this is -- does this make sense, regardless of what
type of economic condition that we are facing and that's how I'm approaching it and it's
the reason why I just can't support it and -- and -- and I know that's not what you want to
hear. I'm looking at you and it -- I can tell you are anguishing about it, but it -- but it's just
where I'm at, you know. It's just-- I feel for those -- for your neighbors and I just think that
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 42 of 51
they are -- their ask is reasonable and at the end of the day you just need to make a
decision on what that looks for you in -- in your development, so --
Enzler: I -- I appreciate -- I -- I do appreciate those comments and -- and I do care.
Bernt: I know you do.
Enzler: So, I'm -- I'm glad that that shows. I think it is also challenging, because, you
know, all those developments happened when this piece was a nice big eight acre piece
and so, you know, it's -- there is just so many pieces involved, as you know. I -- I -- I think
-- I think more than anything I'm -- part of what has me scratching my head and -- and --
and wanting to make sure that I understand what, you know, it -- is it -- if it's -- if it's
primarily the transition and losing a lot that would get the support or -- I -- I think what's
challenging -- I think we have a slide of -- and I can't remember what slide it is -- of all of
the different objective -- objectives for this type of a project and so I think what the
challenge is for me as a developer, having gone through this particular in-fill piece, is you
look at all those objectives and you say, okay, you know, how can we meet or exceed the
expectations of the Comprehensive Plan of what the intent is, of what staff is telling us
and really put forward a good application and we -- and -- and, then, we even put it on
PowerPoint where we go through and we are like check, check, exceed, check, exceed,
and then -- and, then, we get here and we are like, no, that's not exactly what we support
and so I -- I understand -- I understand the arguments of -- and so I guess it's just trying
to have clarity of, well, what -- we are -- what is -- is it -- is it just the transition that we are
missing the mark on and, if so, is it -- is it really just the transition on this north side,
because that's the only transition we are really talking about and all the way around, which
is also just, again, a constraint of the -- the in-fill project and so -- you know, I don't even
know if I'm -- I'm being clear in what I'm saying. It's just kind of like scratching my head
saying how could we have done this differently or, you know, or-- or brought forth a project
that was even more aligned with what -- what the city wants and what the medium density
residential code is and what's been approved around us.
Simison: So, Kyle, I will -- I will tell you what I think I have heard.
Enzler: Okay.
Simison: From at least two Council Members is you lose one lot on the north and make
it so there is no more than three on the large piece and I think -- I have heard you would
have two Council Members be supportive of that project. I'm not going to say for a fact,
but that's at least what I have heard from two of them and, you know, my -- my question
-- I don't know -- the lots on here is -- could that be relocated down to the southern area,
again, to make those lots smaller? I don't know if it could. You know, with the bends in
the roads -- I don't really know how that works with -- where you can put accesses and
what that makes those dimensions, if it even is feasible. So, I'm not saying that that's
what they would -- the -- it's a reduction --
Enzler: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 43 of 51
Simison: -- but it's at least a reduction up there and I will say from my perspective I -- I
-- I was thinking I might get an opportunity to -- to vote tonight, but as of right now I'm not,
but I would agree that the --the four on one, if it can be avoided, it is something that would
need to be addressed.
Enzler: Yeah. I think I --
Simison: Council, feel free to say otherwise from what I --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I -- I haven't been a fly the wall on every single conversation you have had with
your staff, but I -- I -- I did read in the staff report and it did say that that was one of their
concerns; right? I mean that transition was -- their concern was highlighted in -- in our
packet, so -- I mean this can't be a shocker to you.
Enzler: Well, I -- I believe the concern -- and -- and maybe I'm wrong here, but I think the
concern was brought up initially when we had more transition. I mean we had more lots
along there and, then, when we reduced it, then, my understanding was, then, staff was
supportive of it and that was when we -- we reduced the lots, but I understand.
understand the point of view and I -- I appreciate Mayor explaining that. I -- you know,
again, the challenge is it's -- it's going to cost one way or another, you know, if it gets
pushed down the road or -- I -- you know, I -- I think I can reluctantly support losing a lot
on that north boundary as a condition of approval, with no more than three lots adjacent
to any one lot on the north side, if that's the ask.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just wanted to point out one other thing to my fellow Council Members tonight
in that also for the folks that are out there, who if they are paying close attention, one of
the items that we adopted resolutions tonight was an increase in impact fees and it just
increased these houses by a few-- a few dollars -- quite a few dollars. Now, we all agreed
-- it was a unanimous vote, because we want growth to pay for itself in terms of building
fire stations, building police precincts, providing fire trucks and -- and car -- and -- and
police vehicles and more parks. So, we had to increase them, because land costs are
going up, we want to find another park site, it's going to cost Bookoo bucks. So, we want
growth to pay for that, not the folks here in this room who have already established
themselves. So, that's a good thing. But, again, it comes back to what is the cost of that
development. We just made it go up starting in February. So, just one of those things to
consider, how -- how do we make it all work? These are not easy decisions and it's not
fun to say no and it's not fun to say yes, because somebody's going to be, you know,
feeling like they lost when we try not -- we don't want people to feel like they lost, but we
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 44 of 51
want to make sure they go away, whatever side they end up on, they understand why
some of us came to the decision that we came to, because we want to have real reasons
why we do what we do and it -- and it is hard and whatever we -- how we vote up here I
respect my colleagues impact -- opinion and impact, because they want what's best for
Meridian and sometimes our -- our views don't exactly match up to it, but I know in their
heart they always want what's best for Meridian. So, that's why it's okay to disagree from
time to time, but, yeah, these -- these are the tough ones. But it's better than last week
where we had an in-fill project and we started exactly the same time, 6:20, and we get
done at 10:35. Right now it's only 8:30, so -- and I am -- my bottom is feeling it, so I don't
know if we want to take a break and let folks kind of talk amongst yourself and -- and,
Kyle, to think about this for sure. Are we -- we to that point? We will probably get
something to drink, eat, and use the restroom, but rest assured we don't talk about this,
because we cannot. Everything has to be on the public record. So, just --just be certain
about that. We -- we do follow the rules, so -- but I wouldn't mind taking a five minute
break.
Simison: Okay. Well, we will reconvene at 8:35. So, that's an eight minute break.
(Recess: 8:28 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.)
Simison: All right. Council, will go ahead and come back from recess.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to confirm with Kyle, if he would, if we can just
wrap up this discussion and, then, we will -- we will -- I guess we will take some action
based on your last discussion losing a Lot 10, moving those lots down to some way
configure just approximately three houses to do that to -- I call it Mike's lot, Mike's house,
but is -- is that a -- is that acceptable?
Enzler: Just -- okay. Now, it's back on. So, one -- one of clarification just --just as -- for
my own understanding. If I -- if I agree to that, a possible scenario is, then -- possible
scenario is that a -- an approval, if there is enough votes that it would approve with a
condition to remove Lot 10 and no more than three lots transitioning to any one north. Is
that what that would look like?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. I -- I -- I think it would, along with the conditions that were also agreed
to from Planning and Zoning already on some houses and windows that I think you have
already agreed to as well. So, I don't --
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 45 of 51
Enzler: One follow-up question if I may. Does that -- one of the -- one of the neighbors
in -- in the break suggested that I maybe relook at another area to see if I could shift a lot
to still get a lot in another area. So, would that preclude me from doing that or would that
-- would I just be --
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And, Kyle, yeah, I -- I mean if -- if there is a serious discussion with neighbors
and about doing some other things, what I would probably want to do is that we continue
this hearing and let you come back. I don't know. I -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm looking at Sonya
and how much can they move before it becomes another application type of thing, so --
or Bill. Yeah. You know.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, one option -- that's certainly your call. If -- if
there is a lot reduction as part of the development agreement we would generally like a
new map, so we clarity on what that is. But you have six months to sign the development
agreement. In that six months there is an opportunity that you still can request a
modification of the development agreement within six months. There is -- there is some
cost to process and all that, but that would be -- that would give you time, so you didn't
just have two or three weeks or a month to figure out if you could squeeze another lot in.
But to come back with a modification to go back from 25 -- or sorry -- 25 to 26, to move a
lot to the east or the south or whatever, so you would have a little more -- more of a
window to have those conversations. When we have a development agreement
modification you would have notice -- notice to the neighbors, neighborhood meeting, you
know, go through all of that, but it would only come back to the Council, not the Planning
and Zoning. So, you wouldn't have two hearings, you would just have the one. But that's
a different option. Certainly a continuance is an option as well if you think that's something
you would rather sooner than later, because it generally takes Sonya six weeks or so 'ish
from beginning of the process for our DA mod to actually get to a hearing, five to six
weeks.
Allen: Eight weeks approximately, yes. Are you done, Mr. -- Mr. Nary?
Nary: Yes.
Allen: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, if I could just clarify another thing that I -- I think
you asked. Is it a new application? This -- this project was noticed for 28 building lots.
As long as you don't increase those lots we don't have to renotice. So, it -- it would still
be the same application.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 46 of 51
Strader: Just some feedback. So, what I like about the other parts of your property -- of
your development, I like the transition in the other side of your triangle. Kind of worried
for you if you want to redo it -- totally do it, but take the continuance to do it, because
without seeing it I -- I can't visualize it to get my head around it. I might be there on losing
a lot if I could see it. I think I can see kind of what that would do. I think that would be a
huge improvement. I'm still kind of interested in some sort of minimum lot size concept,
as Councilman Borton said, just because I feel like it would provide a lot of mitigation in
the unlikely event that this property changes hands and somebody else comes up with a
new version of what R-8 looks like that I totally hated, so I -- it's totally up to you, but I
would say take a continuance to like think through that feedback is probably the best
approach. You know, think about if there is a minimum lot size that works for you once
you have redone all these boundaries. I think it could really improve the whole north side.
I think the north side transition could really -- could really be a lot better. I mean there are
things you can do, too, with your open space that -- you know, who knows; right? And
like if I were you I wouldn't want to be designing this at 8:45. 1 feel for you, because you
have been in this process for a really long time. That's really hard. I think a continuance
in the grand scheme of things might be the way to go if you are going to kind of rework it.
I think Councilman Hoaglun is giving you some good advice on that.
Enzler: Thank you. I -- I appreciate everybody's comments and advice and clarity on --
on the question. I -- well, I -- the neighbors have -- have spent a lot of time. We have
spent a lot of time. We have been to a lot of iterations of this plan. I don't think my desire
is to continue. So, to answer the question I think I -- I would be amenable to losing one
of the lots on the north side as a condition of approval and committing to the previous
recommendations of approval, as well as also no more than three lots on the -- adjacent
to any one lot as a transition.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If we were to proceed on something like that, question for Legal. The -- the P
plat is part of this application. Would verbal references to that type of adjustments still
allow us to take action on the plat?
Nary: Sorry. Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, because, again, we are going to
have to make findings based on that and, then, prior to the development agreement we
would want to -- also want a new drawing, because we are going to attach it to the
development agreement. So, there is still a little bit of process, but, yes, you could
certainly take action with those directions. Sonya can reflect them in the -- in the findings.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman --
Borton: Tie. You win.
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 47 of 51
Allen: Tie? Okay. Mr. Mayor, Council, I'm -- I'm a little concerned about a condition that
would allow or require, whatever, no more than three lots adjacent to the -- the northern
lots. I -- I think it's acceptable for Mike's lot, but there is two lots right now that have two
lots abutting them. What if this changes it to now they have three? So, that's -- that's my
concern and it brings up more issues that weren't contemplated tonight because of the
current plan that the neighbors might have. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. What I was thinking if -- if we go that route it would be -- again I will call
it Mike's lot -- would be reduction of lot number ten, no more than three lots on -- on his
-- abutting his property and the remaining lots adjust as -- as needed. So, you couldn't
get three at -- behind another -- another location and --
Simison: And if you want to be technical about it, looking at this, there is three to the one
right next to Mike's lot currently, based upon how I see it and three to the next one and
three to the -- I mean they all have three along that northern boundary to a certain extent
currently.
Hoaglun: Mike, I mean -- I'm sorry. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Mr. Mayor, Kyle, you know, I -- I -- I do get nervous when we try to do
things on the fly from up here, because we might miss something, we might not be aware
of something that the neighbors might, you know, want to -- want to speak to and our
process is set that, you know, you have the last word and -- and -- and presentation. This
is an annexation and just for folks who -- this is not a normal thing, you don't do this every
week. It's also a preliminary plat. So, when we talk about where the lines are drawn and
whatnot, that's what we are going to adopt. We are going to -- would approve annexation
and the preliminary plat. Now, as legal counsel has pointed out, they can make changes
to that, come back for a modification of that, but -- and there is a process for that, but
think we -- if that preliminary plat comes back we would like to have it in front of us, to
Council Woman Strader's point, you know, it-- it really is something that--that is important
and -- and we want to make sure works and there might be some other ideas out there,
because you might want to say -- because they have talked about -- as Sonya pointed
out, you could have 28 lots. Now, if there is a way to figure it out, you fix the northern lots
and you want to squeeze another lot somewhere possibly -- now, again, the neighbors
might not like where it is and whatnot, it impacts somebody else, but that is a possibility
and if -- to make a motion -- if I were to make a motion just lose Lot 10, no more than
three lots behind Mike's lot and it doesn't pass, it's a denial and so I'm -- I'm just kind of
trying to guide you to the point that I think a continuance might be best. It -- unfortunately,
we -- we would have the hearing in January -- it's probably the earliest. The Clerk gave
me the list of what hearings we have on the next couple weeks that will be meeting and
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 48 of 51
-- and they are -- they are -- they are full schedules, so it's like it would be probably first
half of January. So, comment to -- to that if you might, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: My comment or --
Hoaglun: You can -- you can always comment, Mr. Mayor, but Kyle's got it.
Simison: I -- Councilman Borton.
Borton: Mr. Mayor. So, it's painfully grinding to go through this, but it's just everyone's
intent, including yours, to get this right and try and find some balance and compromise
and I think Councilman Hoaglun's proposal is well grounded. It seems to fit some -- create
some balance here. Your concession is noted. I think removing Lot 10 is a big deal.
Maybe less than what members of the public want or some folks up here want, but more
than what you want to give and compromise is what -- what we are looking for on both
sides. So, I can get around what Councilman Hoaglun is proposing, which would be
removal of Lot 10. 1 wouldn't be supportive of trying to add it somewhere else. I think
there is a lot of really good with this project and everything on that east side really is -- is
well thought out. It's a difficult project, difficult in-fill parcel. So, I wouldn't want to invite
you and wouldn't be supportive of trying to find it somewhere else. I think removing Lot
10, adjusting everything, sliding those lots out -- they all get wider. No one parcel to the
north has more than three lots behind it. It's relatively simple adjustment to the plat is
something that I can get around and that might get you at least to two.
Enzler: I appreciate that feedback.
Borton: You bet.
Simison: So, do we have just direction on what --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun?
Hoaglun: Well, I -- I think we will -- we will take a stab at this with -- with -- with a motion
and we will see where it goes.
Enzler: Okay. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony --
Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Apologies. You want to close the public hearing?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 49 of 51
Hoaglun: Oh, yes. We need to close the public hearing. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I move
we close the public hearing on H-2022-0045.
Borton: Second.
Simison: Motion and 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: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
File No. H-022-0045 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November
22nd, 2022, with -- besides what has been agreed to -- in -- in the P&Z meeting and by
the developer, that the preliminary plat reflect the elimination of Lot 10 and with the
adjacent northern lot, Mike's lot, not have more than three lots to its southern boundary.
And with that, Mr. Mayor, I -- I move to approve.
Borton: I will second for discussion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second for discussion. Discussion.
Borton: Just to clarify the motion real quick.
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If I understand you correctly, that's Lot 10 in phase one; correct?
Hoaglun: Correct.
Borton: Will be removed. And, then, all of the northern lots in phase one -- I'm going to
say this sort of backwards. None of the parcels to the north would have more than three
properties adjacent to them; is that correct? Not just reference to what we have been
calling Mike's lot, but none of them would have three.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, yes. I mean there is the second lot in from the east. There is one
full lot and, then, there is two parcels. I mean is -- are we talking full lots or are we just
talking portions of-- of a lot? So, yeah, no more than three portions of a lot would --would
be I think how I would say it. I -- I would agree to adding that to my motion and that the
other lots not have more than a portion of total of three lots.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
November 22,2022
Page 50 of 51
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I appreciate all my Council Members. I always especially appreciate Council
President Hoaglun, because I feel like he always tries to find the right -- strike the right
balance. I'm just going to be a no on the basis of process. Like for me I think we need to
have a certain level of hygiene around annexations and I -- I would just want to see this
concept plan come back. I think I can see -- I think I can see what's it's going to do, but
I'm just at a point with annexations where, unfortunately, because of recent developments
I have been convinced of the criticality of getting them to really -- close to the outcome
that -- that we exactly think we are going to get. So, for that reason I will be a no. But I'm
supportive over all of this. I think it's moving in the right direction. I think I can see where
it's going to go. Thanks.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any further discussion on the motion? Okay. Clerk call
the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, absent; Bernt, nay; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea;
Strader, nay.
Simison: Mayor votes aye. Three to two.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO NAYS. TWO ABSENT.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Okay. We are at the end of our agenda this evening. Anything under future
meeting topics or a motion to adjourn.
Hoaglun: I move to adjourn, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes
have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8.54 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
12 / 6 2022
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLICSIGN-IN
Date: November 22, 2022
Please sign in below if you wish to address the Mayor and City Council and
provide a brief description of your topic. Please observe the following rules of
the Public Forum:
• DO NOT:
o Discuss active applications or proposals pending before Planning
and Zoning or City Council
o Complain about city staff, individuals, business or private matters
• DO
o When it is your turn to speak, state your name and address first
o Observe a 3-minute time limit (you may be interrupted if your topic
is deemed inappropriate for this forum)
Name (please print) Brief Description of Discussion Topic
w IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting the 2022
Development Impact Fees Study, Adopting an Amended Capital Improvements Plan; Repealing
and Replacing Meridian City Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2) Concerning Development Impact Fees;
Voiding Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders; and Providing an Effective Date
Link to Impact Fee Study: https://bit.ly/2022-impact-fee-study
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
ATE: November 22, 2022 IT M N A N A: 1
PROJECTOrdinance No. -2004
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
1
14
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY;
ADOPTING AN AMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; REPEALING AND
REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-7-12(E)(2) CONCERNING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; VOIDING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES,
RESOLUTIONS,AND ORDERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, the City of Meridian
("City")has established fire impact fees,police impact fees, and park and recreation impact fees
("Impact Fees")to fund certain public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;
and,
WHEREAS,the City retained DP Guthrie LLC ("Consultant") to prepare a study to
evaluate the need to update the Impact Fees in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact
Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the Consultant prepared the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study
("Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit A,which includes an amended capital improvements plan
("Capital Improvements Plan"); and,
WHEREAS,the Study and amended Capital Improvements Plan fully comply with the
requirements set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Meridian Impact Fee Advisory Committee ("Committee"),
pursuant to Meridian City Code section 10-7-11, considered the Study, amended Capital
Improvements Plan, and updated Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the Committee recommended that the City Council accept the Study, adopt
the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and implement the updated Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a public hearing on November 9, 2022, to consider
the Study, the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and an ordinance authorizing updates to the
Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council found that the Study and amended Capital Improvements
Plan fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development
Impact Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council found that the recommended updates to the Impact Fees
fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee
Act;
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein as
findings of the City Council.
Section 2. That the Study is hereby accepted.
Section 3. That the amended Capital Improvements Plan, as set forth in the Study, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2) shall be repealed and replaced
in its entirety as follows:
2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated,paid, and accepted pursuant to an
independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as
follows.
Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023
Residential
Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees
Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities
Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities
1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00
1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00
1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00
2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00
3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00
For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be
calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building
space,by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community
rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas.
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 2
Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building
Park and Recreation Police Fire Total
Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees
Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52
buildings in a shopping center;
all stand-alone retail buildings;
and all restaurants and bars)
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15
Section 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict with this
ordinance are hereby voided.
Section 6. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be February 1, 2023, which shall
be no sooner than thirty(30) days after its adoption and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of , 2022.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 3
STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY
CONCERNING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
The undersigned, William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby
certifies that the summary below is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public.
DATED this day of , 2022.
William L.M. Nary, City Attorney
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
An ordinance accepting the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study; adopting an amended capital
improvements plan;repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2)concerning
development impact fees; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an
effective date of February 1, 2023. The full text of the ordinance is available in the City Clerk's
Office at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho.
Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023
Residential
Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees
Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities
Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities
1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00
1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00
1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00
2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00
3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00
For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be
calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building
space,by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community
rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas.
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 4
Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building
Park and Recreation Police Fire Total
Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees
Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52
buildings in a shopping center;
all stand-alone retail buildings;
and all restaurants and bars)
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 6
E IDIAN
Development Impact Fees Study
prepared by
DP Guthrie LLC
September 16, 2022
September 16, 2022
Mr.Todd Lavoie
Chief Financial Officer
City of Meridian
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Subject: Development Impact Fees Report
Dear Mr. Lavoie,
DP Guthrie LLC is pleased to provide the 2022 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After
collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee,this draft report
summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements to be funded
by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible
Comprehensive Financial Plan.
It has been a pleasure working with you. Also, I am grateful to City staff for engaging with quality information and
insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian.
Sincerely,
Dwayne Guthrie, PhD,AICP
DP Guthrie LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................1
UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO IMPACT FEE ACT.......................................................................................................................1
PROPOSEDIMPACT FEES..................................................................................................................................................................2
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES................................................................................................................................4
PARKIMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................4
LANDFOR PARKS............................................................................................................................................................................6
RECREATIONBUILDINGS...................................................................................................................................................................8
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................................................9
PROPOSED AND CURRENT IMPACT FEES..............................................................................................................................................9
FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................................................................................10
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION...........................................................................................................11
POLICEIMPACT FEES.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................12
EXCLUDEDCOSTS.........................................................................................................................................................................13
CURRENT USE AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY..........................................................................................................................................13
POLICE FACILITIES,SERVICE UNITS,AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................................................13
POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.....................................................................................................................................................15
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................15
POLICEDEVELOPMENT FEES...........................................................................................................................................................15
PROJECTED REVENUE FOR POLICE FACILITIES......................................................................................................................................17
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR POLICE...................................................................................................................................18
FIREIMPACT FEES.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
EXISTING STANDARDS FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................19
FIREINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.........................................................................................................................................................21
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................21
CURRENT AND PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEES.....................................................................................................................................22
PROJECTED REVENUE FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................24
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FIRE FACILITIES........................................................................................................................25
FEE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION..................................................................................................................26
COSTOF CFP PREPARATION...........................................................................................................................................................26
DEVELOPMENTCATEGORIES...........................................................................................................................................................26
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................28
SERVICEAREAS............................................................................................................................................................................28
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS................................................................................................................................................28
PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................29
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT............................................................................................................30
DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE..........................................................................................................................................31
.LOBS AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX B: CHANGES IN STANDARDS AND COST FACTORS.............................................................................................36
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Executive Summary
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development
projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not
operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need,
benefit, and proportionality.
• First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital
improvements.
• Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public
facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe).
• Third, the fee paid should not exceed a development's proportionate share of the capital cost.
As documented in this report,the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are
proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the
projects identified in this study taken from Meridian's Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have
been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, DP Guthrie LLC determined service
units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of
development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each
type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to
various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-related capital costs.
The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth "an equitable program for
planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth." The enabling legislation calls for three
integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA)for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan, which the
City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs).
The LUA(see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition,the
CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document
includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with
service units by residential size thresholds.
The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility
type (i.e., parks/recreation, police, and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards, the
projected need for improvements to accommodate new development,the updated DIF compared to current fees,
revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific
improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian.
Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act
The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other
states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements,which have been met by the City of Meridian, as
documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be
calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as
DP Guthrie LLC 1
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see
67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report,with more detailed information maintained by
City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third,the Idaho Act states the cost
per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the
number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a
proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types
of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a
Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b)
review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d)file periodic
reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity
of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study.
Proposed Impact Fees
Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian's 2022
impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost
components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, DP Guthrie
LLC will update the impact fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions.
Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components
Type of Impact Service Incremental Expansion CostAllocation
Fee Area (current standards)
Parks and Park Improvements,
Recreation Citywide Land for Parks,and Residential
Facilities Recreation Centers
Functional Population
and Inbound Vehicle
Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings
Trips to Nonresidential
Development
Fire Buildings,
Functional
Fire Facilities Citywide Apparatus, Population
Communications&
and Jobs
Equipment
DP Guthrie LLC 2
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2022 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in
Appendix A, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-
controlled space. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size
threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the
total number of dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms, fitness centers,
management offices, and maintenance areas.
For nonresidential development, Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone
retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial,
warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not
considered Commercial).
Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule
Citywide Service Area Park and Police Fire Proposed Current Increase Proposed
Recreation Facilities Facilities Total Total to Current
Facilities (2022) (2019) Ratio
Residential(perhousing unit)by5puare Feet of Climate-Controlled FloorArea
1200 or less $1,946 $190 $470 $2,606 $1,095 $1,511 2.38
1201 to 1700 $3,006 $294 $726 $4,026 $1,909 $2,117 2.11
1701 to 2500 $4,119 $402 $995 $5,516 $2,483 $3,033 2.22
2501 to 3200 $4,935 $482 $1,192 $6,609 $2,943 $3,666 2.25
3201 or more $5,544 $542 $1,339 1 $7,425 $3,4331 $3,992 12.16
Nonresidential(perspuare footofbuildinp)
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 $0.88 $1.64 2.86
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 $0.46 $0.69 2.50
DP Guthrie LLC 3
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
The 2022 impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure
standards for improved acres of parks, acquire additional land for future parks, and expand floor area of
recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area.
Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development.
Park Improvements
Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and
playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR1,the updated
infrastructure standard is 2.66 acres per 1,000 residents based on Meridian's projected population in 2023 and
completion of Phase 2 improvements to Discovery Park by the end of Fiscal Year 2023.
Projected need for park improvements is shown at the bottom of Figure PR1. From 2023 through 2032, Meridian
will improve 87 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately$35.76 million.
DP Guthrie LLC 4
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure PR1: Improvements Standard and Need for Improved Acres
Location Improved Acres
Discovery Park 63.19
Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20
Settlers Park 57.74
Heroes Park 30.13
Fuller Park 23.20
BearCreak Park 18.82
Tully Park 18.68
Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85
Gordon Harris Park 11.13
Hillsdale Park 9.54
Reta Huskey Park 8.92
Jabil Soccer Fields 8.40
Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50
Seasons Park 7.13
Chateau Park 6.70
Renaissance Park 6.53
Champion Park 5.98
Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.60
8th Street Park 2.78
Meridian Pool Park 1.31
City Hall Plaza 0.90
Centennial Park 0.40
Generations Plaza 0.24
Tota 1 370.85
Allocation Factors for Parks
Improvements Cost per Acre $411,000
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
Service Units
Population in 2023 139,249
Infrastructure Standards for Park Improvements
Improved Acres
Residential(per person) 0.00266
Park Improvement Needs
Year Population Improved Acres
Base 2022
Year 1 2023 139,249 370.8
Year2 2024 145,028 386.2
Year3 2025 151,006 402.2
Year4 2026 154,310 411.0
Years 2027 157,614 419.8
Year10 2032 171,903 457.8
2023-2032Increase 32,654 87.0
Growth Cost of Parks=> $35,757,000
DP Guthrie LLC 5
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Land for Parks
In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented. In
the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation. Additional land for
parks is estimated to cost$150,000 per acre. City staff obtained supporting documentation for the land cost
factor from local appraisals,with input from the DIF Advisory Committee.
As shown in Figure PR2,the current infrastructure standard for park land is 3.14 acres per 1,000 residents. In
comparison to inventory of improved parks,the table below includes the following changes:
1. Phase 3 acreage added to Discovery Park
2. Inserted West Regional Park site
3. Deleted Jabil Soccer Fields (not owned by Meridian)
4. Deleted Heritage Middle School Ballfields (not owned by Meridian)
At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for park land. To maintain the current standard over the next
ten years, Meridian will acquire 120.5 acres of land for future parks, which is expected to cost approximately
$18.08 million.
DP Guthrie LLC 6
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure PR2: Land Standard and Need for Park Sites
Park Sites Land Area(acres)
Discovery Park 77.69
Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20
Settlers Park 57.74
West Regional Park 47.16
Heroes Park 30.13
Fuller Park 23.20
Bear Creak Park 18.82
Tully Park 18.68
Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85
Gordon Harris Park 11.13
Hillsdale Park 9.54
Reta Huskey Park 8.92
Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50
Seasons Park 7.13
Chateau Park 6.70
Renaissance Park 6.53
Champion Park 5.98
8th Street Park 2.78
Meridian Pool Park 1.31
City Hall Plaza 0.90
Centennial Park 0.40
Generations Plaza 0.24
Total 418.51
Allocation Factors for Park Land
Land Cost per Acre $150,000
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
Service Units
Population in 20221 133,470
Infrastructure Standards for Park Land
Park Sites(acres)
Residential(per person) 0.00314
Park Land Needs
Year Population Park Sites(acres)
Base 2022 133,470 418.5
Year 1 2023 139,249 436.6
Year2 2024 145,028 454.7
Year3 2025 151,006 473.5
Year4 2026 154,310 483.9
Years 2027 157,614 494.2
Year10 2032 171,903 539.0
2022-20321ncrease 38,433 120.5
Growth Cost of additional Park Land=> $18,075,000
DP Guthrie LLC 7
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Recreation Buildings
Figure PR3 lists floor area for parks and recreation buildings in 2022, including the maintenance shop, which is
consistent with approach used for public safety facilities. As shown in their respective sections of this report,the
building inventories for fire and police include support facilities for administration and training.
City staff provided the cost estimate of$670 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower
portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current
standards, Meridian will need 22,827 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost
approximately$15.29 million.
Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings
Existing Buildings Square Feet
Meridian Homecourt 51,303
Parks Maintenance Shop(1700 E Lanark) 15,264
Pool Building 8,505
Meridian Community Center 4,200
Tota 1 79,272
Allocation Factors for Parks&Recreation Buildings
Recreation Building Cost per Square Foot $670
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
2022 Meridian Population 133,470
Square Feet
Residential(per person)F 0.59
Building Needs
Year Population Square Feet
Base 2022 133,470 79,272
Year 1 2023 139,249 82,704
Year 2 2024 145,028 86,137
Year3 2025 151,006 89,687
Year4 2026 154,310 91,650
Years 2027 157,614 93,612
Year6 2028 160,919 95,575
Year7 2029 164,223 97,537
Year8 2030 167,527 99,500
Year9 2031 169,715 100,799
Year 10 2032 1171,903 102,099
Ten-Yrincrease 38,433 22,827
Growth Cost for Parks&Recreation Buildings=> $15,294,000
DP Guthrie LLC 8
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities.
Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below,
projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected
growth costs,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources.
Proposed and Current Impact Fees
At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs for parks and recreation facilities due to growth.
In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional
services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park
impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of$66,826,219 divided by the
projected increase in population from 2022 to 2032,yields a cost of$1,738 per service unit.
To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the
cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per dwelling. Please see Appendix A for
supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian.
Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule
2022 Input Variables
Growth
Infrastructure Type
Infrastructure Quantity Over Cost Factor Growth Cost
Units Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Park Improvements acres 87.0 $411,000 $35,757,000
Additional Park Sites(land) acres 120.5 $150,000 $18,075,000
Parks&Recreation Buildings sq ft 22,827 $670 $15,294,000
Total=> $69,126,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> ($2,307,461)
Net Growth Cost=> $66,826,219
Population Increase 2022 to 2032 38,433
Cost per Service Unit $1,738
Residential Impact Fees(per dwelling)
Proposed
Proposed to
Square Feet of Climate- Persons per Parks& Current
Increase Current
Controlled Space Housing Unit Recreation Fees
Ratio
Fee
1200 or less 1.12 $1,946 $781 $1,165 2.49
1201 to 1700 1.73 $3,006 $1,361 $1,645 2.21
1701 to 2500 2.37 $4,119 $1,770 $2,349 2.33
2501 to 3200 2.84 $4,935 $2,098 $2,837 2.35
3201 or more 3.19 $5,544 $2,447 1 $3,097 1 2.27
DP Guthrie LLC 9
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation
Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive almost$68 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over
the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the
rate of development either accelerates or slows down,there will be a corresponding change in the need for
infrastructure and impact fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has
2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square
feet of floor area.
Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth Cost=> $66,826,219
Parks&Recreation Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family
$4,935 $3,006
Year per housing unit per housing unit
Hsg Units Hsg Units
Base 2022 41,617 9,427
Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227
Year 2 2024 44,767 10,877
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427
Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827
Year 5 2027 48,265 12,231
Year 6 2028 49,212 12,634
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752
Year 10 2032 1 52,565 1 14,062
Ten-Yr I ncrease 10,948 4,635
Projected Revenue=> $54,030,000 $13,930,000
Total Revenue=> $67,960,000
DP Guthrie LLC 1O
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation
As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to
existing development. Existing parks and recreation buildings are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for
future development. Expansion of buildings may include support facilities for administration and maintenance.
City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the
next ten years.
Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation
Needed Planned
I mproved Acres 87.0 93.2
Land for Parks(acres) 120.5 120.5
Recreation Building Sq Ft 22,827 22,800
FY Description Amount Units Cost
2023 Parks&Recreation Building Design $1,500,000
2024 Parks&Recreation Building Construction 22,800 square feet $13,776,000
2025 Graycliff Park Design $185,000
2026 Graycliff Park Construction 11.5 acres $4,541,500
2026 West Regional Park Design $500,000
2027 West Regional Park Construction 47.2 acres $18,899,200
1 •.•- ' ••� 111
2031
2032
2023-32 Additional Park Sites 120.5 acres $18,075,000
Total=> $71,656,200
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $66,826,219
DP Guthrie LLC ��
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Police Impact Fees
The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards
for police buildings.
Proportionate Share
In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both
residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1,functional population was used to allocate
public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like
the U.S. Census Bureau's "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction.
Functional population also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential
locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per
day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours
to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian
are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential
development. Based on 2019 functional population data for Meridian,the cost allocation for residential
development is 72%while nonresidential development accounts for 28%of the demand for police and fire
infrastructure.
Figure P1: Functional Population
Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety
Demand Units in 2019 Demand Person
Residential Hours/Day Hours
Population* 114,161
61% Residents Not Working 69,079 20 1,381,580
39% Resident Workers** 45,082
23% Worked in City** 10,148 14 142,072
77% Worked Outside City** 34,934 14 489,076
Residential Subtotal 2,012,728
Residential Share=> 72%
Nonresidential
Non-working Residents 69,079 4 276,316
Jobs Located in City** 49,856
20% Residents Working in City** 10,148 10 101,480
80% Inflow Commuters 39,708 10 397,080
Nonresidential Subtotal 774,876
Nonresidential Share=> 28%
* 2019 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. TOTAL 2,787,604
** 2019 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web
application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs.
DP Guthrie LLC 12
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Excluded Costs
Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental or regulatory standards. The City's CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded
from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and equipment that do not meet the minimum useful
life requirement in Idaho's Impact Fee Act.
Current Use and Available Capacity
In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian
has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development.
Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards
Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development.
Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire
Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police.
For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current
police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday,
vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and
nonresidential development, along with FY23 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential
development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services,
as documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of$660 per square foot (provided by City staff). The
cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY23 service units,the standard in Meridian
is 0.33 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development,
Meridian's standard is 0.09 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development,
on an average weekday.
DP Guthrie LLC 13
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards
Police Buildings Square Feet
Admin Building 33,000
Scenario Village 11,637
Police Pricinct-N 11,223
PSTC(half) 7,250
TOTAL 63,110
Source: Cityof Meridian Police Department.
Police Buildings Standards
Residential Nonresidential
Proportionate Share(based on 72% 28%
functional population)
Growth Indicator Population Avg WkdyVeh Trips
to Nonres Dev
Service Units in FY23 i 139,2491 195,281
Square Feet per Service Unit 0.331 0.09
DP Guthrie LLC 14
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Police Infrastructure Needs
Idaho's development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service
units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3,
projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles.
Meridian will need 13,745 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of
police buildings is approximately$9.07 million.
Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth
Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs
Buildings-Residential 0.33 Sq Ft per person
Buildings-Nonresidential 0.09 Sq Ft pertrip
Police Buildings Cost $660 per square foot
Infrastructure Needed
Veh Trips to Police
Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings(sq ft)
Base 2022
Year 1 2023 139,249 195,281 63,110
Year 2 2024 145,028 198,832 65,317
Year 3 2025 151,006 202,497 67,599
Year 4 2026 154,310 206,064 69,000
Year 5 2027 157,614 209,871 70,423
Year 6 2028 160,919 213,623 71,841
Year7 2029 164,223 217,451 73,265
Year8 2030 167,527 221,295 74,692
Year9 2031 169,715 225,340 75,772
Year10 2032 1 171,9031229,423176,855
2023-2032 Increase 32,654 34,142 13,745
Growth Cost of Police Buildings=> $9,072,000
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a
revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact
fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision
to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue
sources.
Police Development Fees
Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The
conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the
table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary
conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
DP Guthrie LLC 15
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
For nonresidential development,trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE 2022). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with
nonresidential development within Meridian,trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using
a basic 50%adjustment factor.
In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to
the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act).
Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit
2022 Input Variables
Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Growth Quantity Cost Factor Growth Cost
Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Police Buildings square feet 13,745 $660 $9,072,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0
Cost Allocation Net Growth Cost=> $9,079,680
Residential 72%
Nonresidential 28%
Allocated Cost by Land Use
Residential $6,537,370
Nonresidential $2,542,310
Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService
Unit
Residential(persons) 38,433 $170
Nonresidential
37,601 $67
(vehicle trips)
Residential Impact Fees(per housing unit)
Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Police Current Proposed
Increase to Current
Space Housing Unit Facilities Fees Fees
Ratio
1200 or less 1.12 $190 $56 $134 3.39
1201 to 1700 1.73 $294 $98 $196 3.00
1701 to 2500 2.37 $402 $128 $274 3.14
2501 to 3200 2.84 $482 $152 $330 3.17
3201 or more 3.19 $542 $177 $365 3.06
Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building)
Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Adjustment Proposed
TripEnds per Factors Proposed
p Police Current
Type KSF Facilities Fees Increase to Current
Ratio
Fees
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 37.01 50% $1.23 $0.24 $0.99 5.13
All Other 5.76 50% $0.19 $0.05 $0.14 3.80
DP Guthrie LLC 16
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Projected Revenue for Police Facilities
Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of
police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately$9.08 million (see the upper portion of
Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately$9.1 million in police development
fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development
either accelerates or slows down,there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and
development fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200
square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor
area.
Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities=> $9,079,680
Police Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office&Other
Services
$482 $294 $190 $1,230 $190 $190
per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Year Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360
Year 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490
Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760
Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900
Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050
Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640
Year10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800
Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440
Projected Revenue=> $5,280,000 $1,360,000 $435,000 $1,587,000 $196,000 $274,000
Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $9,132,000
DP Guthrie LLC 17
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police
City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the
next ten years. Impact fees will contribute approximately$9.1 million for Phase 3 of the Public Safety Training
Center. Other revenue sources will be required to fund the additional cost of police facilities over the next ten
years.
Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year UP for Police
Needed Planned
Building Sq Ft 13,745 17,000
FY Description Amount units Cost
2023
2024
2025 Public Safety Training Center Phase 3 17,000 square feet $11,220,000
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Total=> $11,220,000
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $9,079,680
DP Guthrie LLC 18
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fire Impact Fees
DP Guthrie LLC recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to
residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in
Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development.
Existing Standards for Fire Facilities
Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police
Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. Based on service
units in FY23,the standard for fire buildings is 0.52 square feet per person and 0.52 square feet per job.
Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings
Fire Stations Square
Feet
Fire Admin Space(City Hall) 13,511
Fire Station#1(540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700
Fire Station#6(1435 W Overland Rd) 10,299
Fire Station#7(2385 Lake Hazel Rd) 10,299
Fire Station#8(4250 N Owyhee Storm Ave) 10,299
Fire Station#5(6001 N Linder Rd) 7,360
PSTC(half) 7,250
Fire Station#4(2515 S Eagle Rd) 7,077
Fire Station#3(3545 N Locust Grove) 7,040
Fire Station#2(2401 N Ten Mile Rd) 6,770
Training Tower @ Station#1 6,523
Fire Safety Center(1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744
TOTAL 99,872
Allocation Factors for Fire Stations
Residential Share 72% Functional
Nonresidential Share 28% Population
Population in 2023 139,249
Jobs in 2023 53,547
Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations
Square
Feet
Residential(per person) 0.52
Nonresidential(perjob) 0.52
DP Guthrie LLC 19
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase equipment with a useful life of at
least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department.
Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was
allocated 72%to residential and 28%to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every
additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately$75 for additional fire vehicles and equipment.
Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately$74 for additional fire vehicles and equipment.
Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles
Fire Apparatus and Equipment Code Total Cost
Engines FE $6,178,923
Ladder Truck LT $4,400,000
Pickup Trucks PT $590,975
Other Vehicles OV $431,296
Communications&Equipment CE $2,244,978
TOTAL $13,846,172
Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications
Residential Share 72% Functional
Nonresidential Share 28% population
Population in 2022 133,470
Jobs in 2022 52,602
Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications
Apparatus and
Communications
Residential(per person) $74.69
Nonresidential(perjob) $73.70
DP Guthrie LLC 20
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fire Infrastructure Needs
The City's Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian, fire facilities are fully
utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will
require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in
Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide
better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development, Meridian will expand fire
buildings by 21,741 square feet and spend approximately$3.63 million to purchase additional fire vehicles and
equipment.
Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities
Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs
Fire Buildings-Residential 0.52 Sq Ft per person
Fire Buildings-Nonresidential 0.52 Sq Ft perjob
Fire Buildings Cost $864 per square foot
Fire Apparatus/Communications-Residential $74.69 Cost per person
Fire Apparatus/Communications-Nonres $73.70 Cost perjob
Facilities Needed
Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and
Year Jobs Stations Communications
Base 2022 $13,846,172
Year 1 2023 139,249 53,547 99,872 $14,347,471
Year 2 2024 145,028 54,514 103,361 $14,850,391
Year3 2025 151,006 55,496 106,961 $15,369,281
Year4 2026 154,310 56,496 109,190 $15,689,784
Years 2027 157,614 57,514 111,428 $16,011,613
Year6 2028 160,919 58,552 113,676 $16,334,917
Year7 2029 164,223 59,607 115,933 $16,659,474
Year8 2030 167,527 60,680 118,200 $16,985,357
Year9 2031 169,715 61,774 119,901 $17,229,431
Year 10 2032 1 171,9031 62,8881 121,6131 $17,474,979
Increase 32,654 9,341 21,741 $3,628,807
Cost of Fire Stations=> $18,784,000
Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications=> $3,629,000
Total Growth Cost=> $22,413,000
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue
credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee
revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision to
fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue
sources.
DP Guthrie LLC 21
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees
Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average
number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per
1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper
portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use
Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also
documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the
cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. Proposed
nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2022
study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of
nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail
development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing,
offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered
Commercial).
DP Guthrie LLC 22
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities
2022 Input Variables
Cost
Infrastructure Type
Infrastructure Growth Quantity Factor Growth Cost
Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Fire Buildings square feet 21,741 $864 $18,784,000
Fire Apparatus dollars $3,629,000
Total=> $22,413,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0
CostAllocation Net Growth Cost=> $22,420,680
Residential 1 72%
Nonresidential 1 28%
Allocated Cost by Land Use
Residential $16,142,890
Nonresidential 1 $6,277,790
Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService
Unit
Residential(persons) 38,433 $420
Nonresidential(jobs) 10,286 $610
Residential impact Fees(per housing unit)
Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Fire Current Proposed
Increase to Current
Space Housing Unit Facilities Fee Fees
Ratio
1200 or less 1.12 $470 $258 $212 1.82
1201 to 1700 1.73 $726 $450 $276 1.61
1701 to 2500 2.37 $995 $585 $410 1.70
2501 to 3200 2.84 $1,192 $693 $499 1.72
3201 or more 3.19 $1,339 $809 $530 1.66
Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building)
Jobs per1,000 Proposed Fire Current Proposed
Type Increase to Current
Sq Ft Facilities Fee Fees
Ratio
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 2.12 $1.29 $0.64 $0.65 2.02
AIIOther 1 1.58 1 $0.961 $0.411 $0.55 12.34
DP Guthrie LLC 23
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities
Over the next ten years,fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire
infrastructure, which is approximately$22.42 million (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below
indicates Meridian should receive approximately$22.65 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual
development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or
slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. The revenue projection
assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the
average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor area.
Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities=> $22,420,680
Fire Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and
OtherServices
$1,192 $726 $960 $1,290 $960 $960
Year per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360
Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490
Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760
Year4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900
Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050
Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640
Year 10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800
Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440
Projected Revenue=> $13,050,000 $3,370,000 $2,200,000 $1,660,000 $990,000 $1,380,000
Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $22,650,000
DP Guthrie LLC 24
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities
Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire building
space by 21,741 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately$6.63
million. The total cost for planned projects is approximately$25.42 million. The growth needs funded by impact
fees is approximately$22.42 million over ten years. Other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire
Department's CFP.
Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities
Needed Planned
Building Sq Ftl 21,741 1 21,741
Apparatus and Equipmentl $3,629,000 1 $6,632,469
FY Description Amount Units Cost
2023
2024 Fire Station#1 Vehicle $686,834
2025 Radios 16 $160,000
2025 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#6 1 $2,200,000
2026 Additional Cardiac Monitors $140,000
2026 Additional Fire Station Design $720,000
2027 Additional Fire Station Construction 12,000 square feet $9,648,000
2027 Additional Fire Station Engine $686,834
2027 Hydraulic Extrication Tool 2 $250,000
2027 Thermal Imaging Cameras 5 $70,400
2028 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#10 1 $2,200,000
2028 SCBAs for new apparatus $140,000
2030 Additional Battalion Chief Vehicle 1 $98,401
2023 to Building Design $720,000
2032
2023 to
Expand Fire Buildings 9,741 square feet $7,696,100
2032
Total=> $25,416,569
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $22,420,680
DP Guthrie LLC 25
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fee Implementation and Administration
Consistent with best practices and Idaho's enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and
development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation
using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill
Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory
Committee,then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly,the City
should redo the fee calculations.
Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible,tracking funds according to first in,first out
accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are
maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is
mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure.
Cost of CFP Preparation
As stated in Idaho's enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to
fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. A minor cost of$7,680
per infrastructure type was added to the 2022 Meridian impact fee study.
Development Categories
Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding
porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building,the average size
threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-
controlled floor area for the entire building, excluding ancillary space for community rooms,fitness centers,
management office and maintenance areas, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment
complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms
and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not
subject to additional impact fees.
Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential
building,that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given
the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to
residential buildings, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to
additional impact fees.
The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all
new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses
that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density(i.e.,jobs per 1,000 square feet of
floor area), as documented in Appendix A. "Commercial" includes retail development and eating/drinking places
(i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial
development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e.,
every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial).
DP Guthrie LLC 26
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per
development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner
and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian's impact fee study. For residential development,
impact fees are based on average persons per housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are
based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of
jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be
accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not
reasonable,the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian's elected officials for their
consideration.
Credits and Reimbursements
A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit
may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going
payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of
revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis.
Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the
impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible
for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it
will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more
difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience,
DP Guthrie LLC recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that
constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no
more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must
provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to
pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City
pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement
agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections
from the benefiting area.
The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be
system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement
does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements.
DP Guthrie LLC 27
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions
Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian's 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in
coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the
appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho's enabling legislation defines land use
assumptions as:
"a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the
service area over at least a 20-year period."
Service Areas
To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees,the City of Meridian has evaluated
collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of
Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the
entire incorporated area. DP Guthrie LLC recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees.
Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines "service area" as:
"Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in
which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of
sound planning or engineering principles, or both."
The City's adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as
required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as
modified over time.
Summary of Growth Indicators
Population, housing unit,jobs and nonresidential floor area are the "service units" or demand indicators that will
be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development
projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are
consistent with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general
and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a
short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be
periodically updated (e.g., every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19
data. In Meridian,the fiscal year begins on October Is'
Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in
Figure Al. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated
need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly
concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development
projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than
projected,fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if
development is faster than anticipated,the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to
accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development.
DP Guthrie LLC 28
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years,the impact fee
study assumes Meridian's population increases at a growth rate of approximately 2.56% per year. Over the next
ten years,jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 1.8% per year, which is from the
Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2020 to 2050.
Figure All: Annual Development Projections
Meridian Land Use Assumptions
200,000
180,000
160,00❑
140,00❑
120,000
zoo.--
10D,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
—Population —Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential Square Feet(in thousands)
Proportionate Share
The term "proportionate" is found throughout Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-
8202(2) states the intent to,
"Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments
may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the
cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;"
DP Guthrie LLC 29
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as
stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(17).
"A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land
uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to
pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees
according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project's proportionate
share of system improvement costs..."
Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be
reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1).
"All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the
development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be
incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new
development.
In the following sections, DP Guthrie LLC describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in
the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential
development.
Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit
The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead,the U.S. Census
Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey
(ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now
combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by
size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and
apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds make fees
more proportionate, while facilitating construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a
single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.84 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures
with two or more units average 2.19 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes,which have
two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.75 year-
round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a
household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita
standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts.
DP Guthrie LLC recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according
to the number of year-round residents per housing unit.
DP Guthrie LLC 30
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing
Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics
Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy
holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate
Single Unit* 95,564 32,685 2.92 33,703 2.84 86% 3%
All Other** 11,920 5,364 2.22 5,440 2.19 14% 1%
Subtotal 107,484 38,049 2.82 39,143 2.75 3%
Group Quarters 303
TOTAL 107,787
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024,
B25032, B25033, and B26001.
* Single unit includes attached and detached.
** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes.
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size
Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per
housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, DP Guthrie LLC recommends
residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom
range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as
Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with
the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, DP Guthrie LLC
derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended
multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control total for
Meridian (i.e., 2.75 persons per housing unit).
Figure Al Persons by Bedroom Range
Recommended
Multipliers(2)
Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing
(1) Units(1) Housing Unit Mix
0-1 53 43 1.33 3.0%
2 384 205 2.02 14.3%
3 1,5801 684 2.49 47.7%
4+ 1,6421 501 3.53 35.0%
Tota 1 3,6591 1,433 2.75 1 100.0%
(1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata
Sample for ID PUMA 701(2016-2020 5-year database).
(2) Recommended persons per housing unit are scaled to
make the average derived from PUMS survey data match
the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.75 persons per housing
unit).
DP Guthrie LLC 31
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living
space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need
for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size
by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, DP Guthrie LLC used the 2018 Ada County Assessor's
residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e.,two,three, and four or more
bedrooms).
DP Guthrie LLC recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of
living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and
number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual
averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, DP Guthrie LLC derived the estimated
average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As
shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1200 square feet or less) has an estimated average of
1.24 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-
controlled space),the average is 3.53 persons per housing unit.
For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the
entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the total number of
dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms, fitness centers, management offices,
and maintenance areas.
In each impact fee worksheet,the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by
multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.84 divided by 3.14. Figure A2 indicates an average
of 2.84 persons per single-family unit in Meridian and 3.14 is the fitted-curve value for dwellings with 2501 to
3200 square feet, which is the middle range for single-family units.
DP Guthrie LLC 32
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space
Average square feet for 2 to 4+
Survey of Construction Meridian Averages per Housing Unit Fitted-Curve Values bedrooms in Meridian was derived
Square Feet(rounded) Bedrooms Sq Ft(rounded) Persons Sq Ft Range Persons from Ada County Assessor
1,100 0-1 1,000 1.33 1200 or less 1.24 residential database (units
1,800 2 1,500 2.02 1201 to 1700 1.91 constructed 2014 to 2018).
2,200 3 2,100 2.49 1701 to 2500 2.62 Average persons per housing unit
3,400 4+ 2,900 3.53 2501 to 3200 3.14 by bedroom range is based on
2016-2020 ACS PUMS data for ID
2,700 <=Wt Avg=> 2,400 3201 or more 3.53 PUMA 701. Recommended Square
Feet Ranges are similar to Boise
size thresholds.
Persons per Housing Unit in Meridian, ID
4.00
3.50 y = 1.98841n(x) - 12.493
Rz= 0.9651
+, 3.00
2.50
3
x 2.00
Gl
Q
c 1.50
0
G1
a 1.00
0.50
0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Square Feet of Living Area
DP Guthrie LLC 33
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Jobs and Nonresidential Development
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential
development. DP Guthrie LLC uses the term 'jobs"to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color
shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes used by DP Guthrie LLC to derive average weekday
vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, DP Guthrie LLC averaged Light
Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing(ITE 150)to derive an average of 1,239 square feet per industrial job.
The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center(ITE code 820).
Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 471 square feet per job.
For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches,the impact fee study assumes an average of
1,012 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is Assisted Living (ITE 254). For office and
other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 307 square
feet per job.
Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
ITE Land Use/ Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit PerEmp
110 Light Industrial 1,000SgFt 4.87 3.10 1.57 637
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.75 2.51 1.89 528
150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.71 5.05 0.34 2,953
254 Assisted Living 1,000 Sq Ft 4.19 4.24 0.99 1,012
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77 2.86 350
620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.75 3.31 2.04 490
710 General Office 1,000SgFt 10.84 3.33 3.26 307
760 Research& Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.08 3.37 3.29 304
770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325
820 1 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42 2.12 471
857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 1 42.46 32.21 1.32 759
Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 1 3.29 4.08 0.81 1,239
* Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2022).
DP Guthrie LLC 34
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A6 indicates 2019 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type
of nonresidential, are from Meridian's Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau's online web
application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports
supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential
development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of
nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada
County.
Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates
2019
Jobs(1)
Commercial(2) 13,237 26.6%
Industrial(3) 8,983 18.0%
Institutional(4) 4,934 9.9%
Office&Other Services(5) 22,702 45.5%
TOTAL 49,856 100.0%
(1) Jobs in 2015 from Work Area Profile,
OnTheMap,U.S. Census Bureau web
application.
(2) Major sectors are Retail and
Accommodation/Food Services.
(3) Major sectors are Construction,
Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and
Trans portation/Wareho using.
(4) Major sectors are Educational Services and
Public Administration.
(5) Major sectors are
Professional/Scientific/Technical Services and
Health Care.
DP Guthrie LLC 35
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Appendix B: Changes in Standards and Cost Factors
Figure 131 summarizes changes to infrastructure standards and cost factors from the 2019 impact fee study to the
2022 update. For most public facilities, infrastructure standards have increased slightly over time, with the
exception of park improvements. Since 2019, population has increased faster than acres of improved parks.
Major changes accounting for the proposed impact fee increase are higher cost factors and the recommendation
to acquire additional park sites using impact fees, based on the 2022 standard of 3.14 acres per thousand
residents. In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was
documented. In the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation.
Figure 1131: Comparison of Standards and Cost Factors
Public Infrastructure Standard Cost Factor 2022 to 2019
Facility 2019 2022 Measure 2019 2022 Units Cost Ratio
Park Improvements 2.91 2.66 acres perthousand $241,000 $411,000 per acre 1.71
residents
Park Land(new) * 3.14 acres perthousand $61,000 $150,000 per acre 2.46
residents
square feet persquare foot of
Recreation Centers 0.49 0.59 $225 $670 2.98
per person building
Police Buildings- 0.26 0.33 square feet
Residential per person per square foot of
$333 $660 1.98
Police Buildings square feet per building
Nonresidential 0.06 0.09 vehicle trip
Fire Buildings-Residential 0.44 0.52 square feet
per person per square foot of
Fire Buildings- square feet $535 $864 1.61
g
buildin
Nonresidential 0.46 0.52 perjob
Fire Apparatus,
Communications& $61.98 $74.69 per person 1.21
Equipment-Residential
Fire Apparatus,
Communications&
$64.46 $73.70 perjob 1.14
Equipment-
Nonresidential
* In the 2019 study,land foradditional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented.
In the 2022 study,land foradditional parks is 26%of the growth costfor parks&recreation.
DP Guthrie LLC 36
w IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 22-2004: An Ordinance Accepting the 2022 Development
Impact Fees Study; Adopting an Amended Capital Improvements Plan; Repealing and Replacing
Meridian City Code Section 10-7-12(E)(2) Concerning Development Impact Fees; Voiding
Conflicting Ordinances, Resolutions, and Orders; and Providing an Effective Date
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING THE 2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY;
ADOPTING AN AMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN; REPEALING AND
REPLACING MERIDIAN CITY CODE SECTION 10-7-12(E)(2) CONCERNING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES; VOIDING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES,
RESOLUTIONS,AND ORDERS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS,pursuant to the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, the City of Meridian
("City")has established fire impact fees,police impact fees, and park and recreation impact fees
("Impact Fees")to fund certain public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;
and,
WHEREAS,the City retained DP Guthrie LLC ("Consultant") to prepare a study to
evaluate the need to update the Impact Fees in accordance with the Idaho Development Impact
Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the Consultant prepared the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study
("Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit A,which includes an amended capital improvements plan
("Capital Improvements Plan"); and,
WHEREAS,the Study and amended Capital Improvements Plan fully comply with the
requirements set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the City of Meridian Impact Fee Advisory Committee ("Committee"),
pursuant to Meridian City Code section 10-7-11, considered the Study, amended Capital
Improvements Plan, and updated Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the Committee recommended that the City Council accept the Study, adopt
the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and implement the updated Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council held a public hearing on November 9, 2022, to consider
the Study, the amended Capital Improvements Plan, and an ordinance authorizing updates to the
Impact Fees; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council found that the Study and amended Capital Improvements
Plan fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development
Impact Fee Act; and,
WHEREAS,the City Council found that the recommended updates to the Impact Fees
fully comply with the requirements and processes set forth in the Idaho Development Impact Fee
Act;
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE I
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO:
Section 1. That the foregoing recitals are hereby affirmed and incorporated herein as
findings of the City Council.
Section 2. That the Study is hereby accepted.
Section 3. That the amended Capital Improvements Plan, as set forth in the Study, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. That Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2) shall be repealed and replaced
in its entirety as follows:
2. Except for such impact fee as may be calculated,paid, and accepted pursuant to an
independent impact fee calculation study, the amount of each impact fee shall be as
follows.
Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023
Residential
Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees
Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities
Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities
1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00
1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00
1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00
2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00
3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00
For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be
calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building
space,by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community
rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas.
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 2
Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building
Park and Recreation Police Fire Total
Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees
Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52
buildings in a shopping center;
all stand-alone retail buildings;
and all restaurants and bars)
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15
Section 5. That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict with this
ordinance are hereby voided.
Section 6. That the effective date of this ordinance shall be February 1, 2023, which shall
be no sooner than thirty(30) days after its adoption and publication.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 22nd day of November , 2022.
APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this 22nd day of
November, 2022. APPROVED:
ATTEST:
Robert E. Simison, Mayor Chris Johnson, City Clerk
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 3
STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY
CONCERNING THE SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
The undersigned, William L.M.Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby
certifies that the summary below is true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public.
DATED this b day ofx -.; 2022.
F
William L.M.Nary, City Attorney
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 22-2004
An ordinance accepting the 2022 Development Impact Fees Study; adopting an amended capital
improvements plan;repealing and replacing Meridian City Code section 10-7-12(E)(2)concerning
development impact fees; voiding conflicting ordinances and resolutions; and providing an
effective date of February 1, 2023. The full text of the ordinance is available in the City Clerk's
Office at Meridian City Hall, 33 E. Broadway Ave., Meridian, Idaho.
Impact Fee Schedule Effective February 1, 2023
Residential
Square Feet of Climate- Park and Police Fire Total Fees
Controlled Floor Area Per Recreation Facilities Facilities
Individual Dwelling Unit Facilities
1,200 or less $1,946.00 $190.00 $470.00 $2,606.00
1,201 to 1,700 $3,006.00 $294.00 $726.00 $4,026.00
1,701 to 2,500 $4,119.00 $402.00 $995.00 $5,516.00
2,501 to 3,200 $4,935.00 $482.00 $1,192.00 $6,609.00
3,201 or more $5,544.00 $542.00 $1,339.00 $7,425.00
For a building with more than one dwelling unit, the floor area per individual dwelling unit shall be
calculated by dividing the total climate-controlled floor area of the building, less ancillary building
space, by the total number of dwelling units in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community
rooms, fitness centers, management offices, and maintenance areas.
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 4
Nonresidential Per Square Foot of Building
Park and Recreation Police Fire Total
Facilities Facilities Facilities Fees
Commercial (includes all $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52
buildings in a shopping center;
all stand-alone retail buildings;
and all restaurants and bars)
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 5
EXHIBIT A
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STUDY
2022 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ORDINANCE PAGE 6
E IDIAN
Development Impact Fees Study
prepared by
DP Guthrie LLC
September 16, 2022
September 16, 2022
Mr.Todd Lavoie
Chief Financial Officer
City of Meridian
33 E Broadway Ave
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Subject: Development Impact Fees Report
Dear Mr. Lavoie,
DP Guthrie LLC is pleased to provide the 2022 development impact fee update for the City of Meridian. After
collaborating with staff and receiving input from the Impact Fee Advisory Committee,this draft report
summarizes key findings and recommendations related to the growth cost of capital improvements to be funded
by development impact fees, along with the need for other revenue sources to ensure a financially feasible
Comprehensive Financial Plan.
It has been a pleasure working with you. Also, I am grateful to City staff for engaging with quality information and
insight regarding best practices for the City of Meridian.
Sincerely,
Dwayne Guthrie, PhD,AICP
DP Guthrie LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY.........................................................................................................................................................1
UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS OF THE IDAHO IMPACT FEE ACT.......................................................................................................................1
PROPOSEDIMPACT FEES..................................................................................................................................................................2
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES................................................................................................................................4
PARKIMPROVEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................................4
LANDFOR PARKS............................................................................................................................................................................6
RECREATIONBUILDINGS...................................................................................................................................................................8
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................................................9
PROPOSED AND CURRENT IMPACT FEES..............................................................................................................................................9
FORECAST OF REVENUES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION ........................................................................................................................10
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR PARKS AND RECREATION...........................................................................................................11
POLICEIMPACT FEES.......................................................................................................................................................... 12
PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................12
EXCLUDEDCOSTS.........................................................................................................................................................................13
CURRENT USE AND AVAILABLE CAPACITY..........................................................................................................................................13
POLICE FACILITIES,SERVICE UNITS,AND STANDARDS...........................................................................................................................13
POLICE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.....................................................................................................................................................15
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................15
POLICEDEVELOPMENT FEES...........................................................................................................................................................15
PROJECTED REVENUE FOR POLICE FACILITIES......................................................................................................................................17
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR POLICE...................................................................................................................................18
FIREIMPACT FEES.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
EXISTING STANDARDS FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................19
FIREINFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.........................................................................................................................................................21
REVENUE CREDIT EVALUATION........................................................................................................................................................21
CURRENT AND PROPOSED FIRE IMPACT FEES.....................................................................................................................................22
PROJECTED REVENUE FOR FIRE FACILITIES.........................................................................................................................................24
COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR FIRE FACILITIES........................................................................................................................25
FEE IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION..................................................................................................................26
COSTOF CFP PREPARATION...........................................................................................................................................................26
DEVELOPMENTCATEGORIES...........................................................................................................................................................26
CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS.....................................................................................................................................................27
APPENDIX A: LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................................................................................28
SERVICEAREAS............................................................................................................................................................................28
SUMMARY OF GROWTH INDICATORS................................................................................................................................................28
PROPORTIONATESHARE ................................................................................................................................................................29
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND PERSONS PER HOUSING UNIT............................................................................................................30
DEMAND INDICATORS BY DWELLING SIZE..........................................................................................................................................31
.LOBS AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................................................................34
APPENDIX B: CHANGES IN STANDARDS AND COST FACTORS.............................................................................................36
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Executive Summary
Impact fees are one-time payments used to construct system improvements that serve multiple development
projects or even the entire jurisdiction. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not
operating or maintenance costs. Impact fees are subject to legal standards that satisfy three key tests: need,
benefit, and proportionality.
• First, to justify a fee for public facilities, local government must demonstrate a need for capital
improvements.
• Second, new development must derive a benefit from the payment of the fees (i.e., in the form of public
facilities constructed within a reasonable timeframe).
• Third,the fee paid should not exceed a development's proportionate share of the capital cost.
As documented in this report,the City of Meridian has complied with applicable legal precedents. Impact fees are
proportionate and reasonably related to the capital improvement demands of new development, with the
projects identified in this study taken from Meridian's Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP). Specific costs have
been identified using local data and current dollars. With input from City staff, DP Guthrie LLC determined service
units for each type of infrastructure and calculated proportionate share factors to allocate costs by type of
development. This report documents the formulas and input variables used to calculate the impact fees for each
type of public facility. Impact fee methodologies also identify the extent to which new development is entitled to
various types of credits to avoid potential double payment of growth-related capital costs.
The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act(Idaho Code Title 67 Chapter 82) sets forth "an equitable program for
planning and financing public facilities needed to serve new growth." The enabling legislation calls for three
integrated products: 1) Land Use Assumptions (LUA) for at least 20 years, 2) Capital Improvements Plan,which the
City of Meridian calls Comprehensive Financial Plan (CFP), and 3) Development Impact Fees (DIFs).
The LUA(see Appendix A) uses population and housing unit projections provided by City staff. In addition,the
CFP and DIF for fire and police facilities require demographic data on nonresidential development. This document
includes nonresidential land use assumptions such as jobs and floor area within the City of Meridian, along with
service units by residential size thresholds.
The CFP and DIF are in the middle section of this report, organized by chapters pertaining to each public facility
type (i.e., parks/recreation, police, and fire). Each chapter documents existing infrastructure standards,the
projected need for improvements to accommodate new development,the updated DIF compared to current fees,
revenue projections and funding strategy for growth-related infrastructure, and a CFP listing specific
improvements to be completed by the City of Meridian.
Unique Requirements of the Idaho Impact Fee Act
The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act has several requirements not common in the enabling legislation of other
states. This overview summarizes these unique requirements,which have been met by the City of Meridian, as
documented in this study. First, as specified in 67-8204(2) of the Idaho Act, "development impact fees shall be
calculated on the basis of levels of service for public facilities . . . applicable to existing development as well as
DP Guthrie LLC 1
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
new growth and development." Second, Idaho requires a Capital Improvements Plan (aka CFP in Meridian) [see
67-8208]. The CFP requirements are summarized in this report,with more detailed information maintained by
City staff responsible for each type of infrastructure funded by impact fees. Third,the Idaho Act states the cost
per service unit (i.e., impact fee) may not exceed the cost of growth-related system improvements divided by the
number of projected service units attributable to new development [see 67-8204(16)]. Fourth, Idaho requires a
proportionate share determination [see 67-8207]. The City of Meridian has complied by considering various types
of applicable credits that may reduce the capital costs attributable to new development. Fifth, Idaho requires a
Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee established to: a) assist in adopting land use assumptions, b)
review the CFP and file written comments, c) monitor and evaluate implementation of the CFP, d)file periodic
reports on perceived inequities in implementing the plan or imposing DIFs, and e) advise the governmental entity
of the need to update the LUA, CFP and DIF study.
Proposed Impact Fees
Figure 1 summarizes the methods and cost components used for each type of public facility in Meridian's 2022
impact fee study. City Council may change the proposed impact fees by eliminating infrastructure types, cost
components, and/or specific capital improvements. If changes are made during the adoption process, DP Guthrie
LLC will update the impact fee study to be consistent with legislative policy decisions.
Figure 1: Proposed Fee Methods and Cost Components
Type of Impact Service Incremental Expansion CostAllocation
Fee Area (current standards)
Parks and Park Improvements,
Recreation Citywide Land for Parks,and Residential
Facilities Recreation Centers
Functional Population
and Inbound Vehicle
Police Facilities Citywide Police Buildings
Trips to Nonresidential
Development
Fire Buildings,
Functional
Fire Facilities Citywide Apparatus, Population
Communications&
and Jobs
Equipment
DP Guthrie LLC 2
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure 2 summarizes proposed 2022 impact fees for new development in the City of Meridian. As discussed in
Appendix A, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that residential fees be imposed by dwelling size, based on climate-
controlled space. For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size
threshold for the entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the
total number of dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms,fitness centers,
management offices, and maintenance areas.
For nonresidential development, Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone
retail development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial,
warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not
considered Commercial).
Figure 2: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule
Citywide Service Area Park and Police Fire Proposed Current Increase Proposed
Recreation Facilities Facilities Total Total to Current
Facilities (2022) (2019) Ratio
Residential(perhousing unit)by5puare Feet of Climate-Controlled FloorArea
1200 or less $1,946 $190 $470 $2,606 $1,095 $1,511 2.38
1201 to 1700 $3,006 $294 $726 $4,026 $1,909 $2,117 2.11
1701 to 2500 $4,119 $402 $995 $5,516 $2,483 $3,033 2.22
2501 to 3200 $4,935 $482 $1,192 $6,609 $2,943 $3,666 2.25
3201 or more $5,544 $542 $1,339 1 $7,425 $3,4331 $3,992 12.16
Nonresidential(perspuare footofbuildinp)
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) $0.00 $1.23 $1.29 $2.52 $0.88 $1.64 2.86
All Other $0.00 $0.19 $0.96 $1.15 $0.46 $0.69 2.50
DP Guthrie LLC 3
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Parks and Recreation Impact Fees
The 2022 impact fee for parks and recreation facilities will enable Meridian to maintain current infrastructure
standards for improved acres of parks, acquire additional land for future parks, and expand floor area of
recreation buildings. All parks and recreation facilities included in the impact fees have a citywide service area.
Cost components are allocated 100% percent to residential development.
Park Improvements
Citywide parks have active amenities, such as a soccer/football/baseball fields, basketball/volleyball courts, and
playgrounds that will attract patrons from the entire service area. As shown in Figure PR1,the updated
infrastructure standard is 2.66 acres per 1,000 residents based on Meridian's projected population in 2023 and
completion of Phase 2 improvements to Discovery Park by the end of Fiscal Year 2023.
Projected need for park improvements is shown at the bottom of Figure PR1. From 2023 through 2032, Meridian
will improve 87 acres of parks, expected to cost approximately$35.76 million.
DP Guthrie LLC 4
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure PR1: Improvements Standard and Need for Improved Acres
Location Improved Acres
Discovery Park 63.19
Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20
Settlers Park 57.74
Heroes Park 30.13
Fuller Park 23.20
BearCreak Park 18.82
Tully Park 18.68
Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85
Gordon Harris Park 11.13
Hillsdale Park 9.54
Reta Huskey Park 8.92
Jabil Soccer Fields 8.40
Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50
Seasons Park 7.13
Chateau Park 6.70
Renaissance Park 6.53
Champion Park 5.98
Heritage MS Ball Fields 5.60
8th Street Park 2.78
Meridian Pool Park 1.31
City Hall Plaza 0.90
Centennial Park 0.40
Generations Plaza 0.24
Tota 1 370.85
Allocation Factors for Parks
Improvements Cost per Acre $411,000
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
Service Units
Population in 2023 139,249
Infrastructure Standards for Park Improvements
Improved Acres
Residential(per person) 0.00266
Park Improvement Needs
Year Population Improved Acres
Base 2022
Year 1 2023 139,249 370.8
Year2 2024 145,028 386.2
Year3 2025 151,006 402.2
Year4 2026 154,310 411.0
Years 2027 157,614 419.8
Year10 2032 171,903 457.8
2023-2032Increase 32,654 87.0
Growth Cost of Parks=> $35,757,000
DP Guthrie LLC 5
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Land for Parks
In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented. In
the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation. Additional land for
parks is estimated to cost$150,000 per acre. City staff obtained supporting documentation for the land cost
factor from local appraisals, with input from the DIF Advisory Committee.
As shown in Figure PR2,the current infrastructure standard for park land is 3.14 acres per 1,000 residents. In
comparison to inventory of improved parks,the table below includes the following changes:
1. Phase 3 acreage added to Discovery Park
2. Inserted West Regional Park site
3. Deleted Jabil Soccer Fields (not owned by Meridian)
4. Deleted Heritage Middle School Ballfields (not owned by Meridian)
At the bottom of the table below is a needs analysis for park land. To maintain the current standard over the next
ten years, Meridian will acquire 120.5 acres of land for future parks, which is expected to cost approximately
$18.08 million.
DP Guthrie LLC 6
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure PR2: Land Standard and Need for Park Sites
Park Sites Land Area(acres)
Discovery Park 77.69
Julius M. Kleiner Park 58.20
Settlers Park 57.74
West Regional Park 47.16
Heroes Park 30.13
Fuller Park 23.20
Bear Creak Park 18.82
Tully Park 18.68
Storey Park&Bark Park 17.85
Gordon Harris Park 11.13
Hillsdale Park 9.54
Reta Huskey Park 8.92
Keith Bird Legacy Park 7.50
Seasons Park 7.13
Chateau Park 6.70
Renaissance Park 6.53
Champion Park 5.98
8th Street Park 2.78
Meridian Pool Park 1.31
City Hall Plaza 0.90
Centennial Park 0.40
Generations Plaza 0.24
Total 418.51
Allocation Factors for Park Land
Land Cost per Acre $150,000
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
Service Units
Population in 20221 133,470
Infrastructure Standards for Park Land
Park Sites(acres)
Residential(per person) 0.00314
Park Land Needs
Year Population Park Sites(acres)
Base 2022 133,470 418.5
Year 1 2023 139,249 436.6
Year2 2024 145,028 454.7
Year3 2025 151,006 473.5
Year4 2026 154,310 483.9
Years 2027 157,614 494.2
Year10 2032 171,903 539.0
2022-20321ncrease 38,433 120.5
Growth Cost of additional Park Land=> $18,075,000
DP Guthrie LLC 7
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Recreation Buildings
Figure PR3 lists floor area for parks and recreation buildings in 2022, including the maintenance shop, which is
consistent with approach used for public safety facilities. As shown in their respective sections of this report,the
building inventories for fire and police include support facilities for administration and training.
City staff provided the cost estimate of$670 per square foot to construct future recreation buildings. The lower
portion of the table below indicates projected service units over the next ten years. To maintain current
standards, Meridian will need 22,827 additional square feet of recreation building space, expected to cost
approximately$15.29 million.
Figure PR3: Infrastructure Standards and Needs for Recreation Buildings
Existing Buildings Square Feet
Meridian Homecourt 51,303
Parks Maintenance Shop(1700 E Lanark) 15,264
Pool Building 8,505
Meridian Community Center 4,200
Tota 1 79,272
Allocation Factors for Parks&Recreation Buildings
Recreation Building Cost per Square Foot $670
Residential Proportionate Share 100%
2022 Meridian Population 133,470
Square Feet
Residential(per person)F 0.59
Building Needs
Year Population Square Feet
Base 2022 133,470 79,272
Year 1 2023 139,249 82,704
Year 2 2024 145,028 86,137
Year3 2025 151,006 89,687
Year4 2026 154,310 91,650
Years 2027 157,614 93,612
Year6 2028 160,919 95,575
Year7 2029 164,223 97,537
Year8 2030 167,527 99,500
Year9 2031 169,715 100,799
Year 10 2032 1171,903 102,099
Ten-Yrincrease 38,433 22,827
Growth Cost for Parks&Recreation Buildings=> $15,294,000
DP Guthrie LLC 8
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to parks and recreation facilities.
Therefore, a revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below,
projected impact fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Because impact fees fully fund expected
growth costs, there is no potential double-payment from other revenue sources.
Proposed and Current Impact Fees
At the top of Figure PR4 is a summary of the infrastructure needs for parks and recreation facilities due to growth.
In addition to the growth cost of parks and recreation facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional
services related to the CFP (authorized by the Idaho impact fee enabling legislation), less the projected park
impact fee fund balance at the end of the current fiscal year. The net growth cost of$66,826,219 divided by the
projected increase in population from 2022 to 2032,yields a cost of$1,738 per service unit.
To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the
cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per dwelling. Please see Appendix A for
supporting documentation on the average number of persons by dwelling size in Meridian.
Figure PR4: Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Schedule
2022 Input Variables
Growth
Infrastructure Type
Infrastructure Quantity Over Cost Factor Growth Cost
Units Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Park Improvements acres 87.0 $411,000 $35,757,000
Additional Park Sites(land) acres 120.5 $150,000 $18,075,000
Parks&Recreation Buildings sq ft 22,827 $670 $15,294,000
Total=> $69,126,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> ($2,307,461)
Net Growth Cost=> $66,826,219
Population Increase 2022 to 2032 38,433
Cost per Service Unit $1,738
Residential Impact Fees(per dwelling)
Proposed
Proposed to
Square Feet of Climate- Persons per Parks& Current
Increase Current
Controlled Space Housing Unit Recreation Fees
Ratio
Fee
1200 or less 1.12 $1,946 $781 $1,165 2.49
1201 to 1700 1.73 $3,006 $1,361 $1,645 2.21
1701 to 2500 2.37 $4,119 $1,770 $2,349 2.33
2501 to 3200 2.84 $4,935 $2,098 $2,837 2.35
3201 or more 3.19 $5,544 $2,447 1 $3,097 1 2.27
DP Guthrie LLC 9
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Forecast of Revenues for Parks and Recreation
Figure PR5 indicates Meridian should receive almost$68 million in parks and recreation impact fee revenue over
the next ten years, if actual development matches the projections documented in Appendix A. To the extent the
rate of development either accelerates or slows down,there will be a corresponding change in the need for
infrastructure and impact fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has
2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square
feet of floor area.
Figure PR5: Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth Cost=> $66,826,219
Parks&Recreation Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family
$4,935 $3,006
Year per housing unit per housing unit
Hsg Units Hsg Units
Base 2022 41,617 9,427
Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227
Year 2 2024 44,767 10,877
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427
Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827
Year 5 2027 48,265 12,231
Year 6 2028 49,212 12,634
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752
Year 10 2032 1 52,565 1 14,062
Ten-Yr I ncrease 10,948 4,635
Projected Revenue=> $54,030,000 $13,930,000
Total Revenue=> $67,960,000
DP Guthrie LLC 1O
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Parks and Recreation
As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in Meridian exclude costs to provide better service to
existing development. Existing parks and recreation buildings are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for
future development. Expansion of buildings may include support facilities for administration and maintenance.
City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure PR6 to accommodate additional development over the
next ten years.
Figure PR6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Parks and Recreation
Needed Planned
I mproved Acres 87.0 93.2
Land for Parks(acres) 120.5 120.5
Recreation Building Sq Ft 22,827 22,800
FY Description Amount Units Cost
2023 Parks&Recreation Building Design $1,500,000
2024 Parks&Recreation Building Construction 22,800 square feet $13,776,000
2025 Graycliff Park Design $185,000
2026 Graycliff Park Construction 11.5 acres $4,541,500
2026 West Regional Park Design $500,000
2027 West Regional Park Construction 47.2 acres $18,899,200
1 •.•- ' ••� 111
2031
2032
2023-32 Additional Park Sites 120.5 acres $18,075,000
Total=> $71,656,200
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $66,826,219
DP Guthrie LLC ��
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Police Impact Fees
The City of Meridian will use an incremental expansion cost method to maintain existing infrastructure standards
for police buildings.
Proportionate Share
In Meridian, police and fire infrastructure standards, projected needs, and development fees are based on both
residential and nonresidential development. As shown in Figure P1,functional population was used to allocate
public safety infrastructure and costs to residential and nonresidential development. Functional population is like
the U.S. Census Bureau's "daytime population," by accounting for people living and working in a jurisdiction.
Functional population also considers commuting patterns and time spent at residential versus nonresidential
locations. Residents that don't work are assigned 20 hours per day to residential development and four hours per
day to nonresidential development (annualized averages). Residents that work in Meridian are assigned 14 hours
to residential development and 10 hours to nonresidential development. Residents that work outside Meridian
are assigned 14 hours to residential development. Inflow commuters are assigned 10 hours to nonresidential
development. Based on 2019 functional population data for Meridian,the cost allocation for residential
development is 72%while nonresidential development accounts for 28%of the demand for police and fire
infrastructure.
Figure P1: Functional Population
Functional Population Cost Allocation for Public Safety
Demand Units in 2019 Demand Person
Residential Hours/Day Hours
Population* 114,161
61% Residents Not Working 69,079 20 1,381,580
39% Resident Workers** 45,082
23% Worked in City** 10,148 14 142,072
77% Worked Outside City** 34,934 14 489,076
Residential Subtotal 2,012,728
Residential Share=> 72%
Nonresidential
Non-working Residents 69,079 4 276,316
Jobs Located in City** 49,856
20% Residents Working in City** 10,148 10 101,480
80% Inflow Commuters 39,708 10 397,080
Nonresidential Subtotal 774,876
Nonresidential Share=> 28%
* 2019 U.S. Census Bureau population estimate. TOTAL 2,787,604
** 2019 Inflow/Outflow Analysis, OnTheMap web
application, U.S. Census Bureau data for all jobs.
DP Guthrie LLC 12
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Excluded Costs
Police development fees in Meridian exclude costs to meet existing needs and stricter safety, efficiency,
environmental or regulatory standards. The City's CFP addresses the cost of these excluded items. Also excluded
from the police development fees are public safety vehicles and equipment that do not meet the minimum useful
life requirement in Idaho's Impact Fee Act.
Current Use and Available Capacity
In Meridian, police facilities are fully utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. Meridian
has determined that police building space will require expansion to accommodate future development.
Police Facilities, Service Units, and Standards
Police development fees in Meridian are based on the same level of service provided to existing development.
Figure P2 inventories police buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Fire
Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian police.
For residential development, Meridian will use year-round population within the service areas to derive current
police infrastructure standards. For nonresidential development, Meridian will use inbound, average-weekday,
vehicle trips as the service unit. Figure P2 indicates the allocation of police building space to residential and
nonresidential development, along with FY23 service units in Meridian. Vehicle trips to nonresidential
development are based on floor area estimates for industrial, commercial, institutional, office and other services,
as documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
For police development fees, Meridian will use a cost factor of$660 per square foot (provided by City staff). The
cost factor includes design and construction management. Based on FY23 service units,the standard in Meridian
is 0.33 square feet of police building floor area per person in the service area. For nonresidential development,
Meridian's standard is 0.09 square feet of police building per inbound vehicle trip to nonresidential development,
on an average weekday.
DP Guthrie LLC 13
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure P2: Meridian Police Buildings and Standards
Police Buildings Square Feet
Admin Building 33,000
Scenario Village 11,637
Police Pricinct-N 11,223
PSTC(half) 7,250
TOTAL 63,110
Source: Cityof Meridian Police Department.
Police Buildings Standards
Residential Nonresidential
Proportionate Share(based on 72% 28%
functional population)
Growth Indicator Population Avg WkdyVeh Trips
to Nonres Dev
Service Units in FY23 i 139,2491 195,281
Square Feet per Service Unit 0.331 0.09
DP Guthrie LLC 14
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Police Infrastructure Needs
Idaho's development fee enabling legislation requires jurisdictions to convert land use assumptions into service
units and the corresponding need for additional infrastructure over the next ten years. As shown in Figure P3,
projected population and inbound nonresidential vehicle trips drive the need for police buildings and vehicles.
Meridian will need 13,745 additional square feet of police buildings. The ten-year, growth-related capital cost of
police buildings is approximately$9.07 million.
Figure P3: Police Facilities Needed to Accommodate Growth
Police Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs
Buildings-Residential 0.33 Sq Ft per person
Buildings-Nonresidential 0.09 Sq Ft pertrip
Police Buildings Cost $660 per square foot
Infrastructure Needed
Veh Trips to Police
Year Population Nonres in Meridian Buildings(sq ft)
Base 2022
Year 1 2023 139,249 195,281 63,110
Year 2 2024 145,028 198,832 65,317
Year 3 2025 151,006 202,497 67,599
Year 4 2026 154,310 206,064 69,000
Year 5 2027 157,614 209,871 70,423
Year 6 2028 160,919 213,623 71,841
Year7 2029 164,223 217,451 73,265
Year8 2030 167,527 221,295 74,692
Year9 2031 169,715 225,340 75,772
Year10 2032 1 171,9031229,423176,855
2023-2032 Increase 32,654 34,142 13,745
Growth Cost of Police Buildings=> $9,072,000
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to police facilities. Therefore, a
revenue credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact
fee revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision
to fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue
sources.
Police Development Fees
Infrastructure standards and cost factors for police are summarized in the upper portion of Figure P4. The
conversion of infrastructure needs and costs per service unit into a cost per development unit is also shown in the
table below. For residential development, average number of persons in a housing unit provides the necessary
conversion. Persons per housing unit, by size threshold are documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
DP Guthrie LLC 15
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
For nonresidential development,trip generation rates by type of development are from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE 2022). To ensure the analysis is based on travel demand associated with
nonresidential development within Meridian,trip ends (entering and exiting) are converted to inbound trips using
a basic 50%adjustment factor.
In addition to the growth cost of police facilities, impact fees include the cost of professional services related to
the CFP (authorized by the Idaho Impact Fee Act).
Figure P4: Police Impact Fees per Development Unit
2022 Input Variables
Infrastructure Type Infrastructure Growth Quantity Cost Factor Growth Cost
Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Police Buildings square feet 13,745 $660 $9,072,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0
Cost Allocation Net Growth Cost=> $9,079,680
Residential 72%
Nonresidential 28%
Allocated Cost by Land Use
Residential $6,537,370
Nonresidential $2,542,310
Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService
Unit
Residential(persons) 38,433 $170
Nonresidential
37,601 $67
(vehicle trips)
Residential Impact Fees(per housing unit)
Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Police Current Proposed
Increase to Current
Space Housing Unit Facilities Fees Fees
Ratio
1200 or less 1.12 $190 $56 $134 3.39
1201 to 1700 1.73 $294 $98 $196 3.00
1701 to 2500 2.37 $402 $128 $274 3.14
2501 to 3200 2.84 $482 $152 $330 3.17
3201 or more 3.19 $542 $177 $365 3.06
Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building)
Avg Wkdy Veh Trip Adjustment Proposed
TripEnds per Factors Proposed
p Police Current
Type KSF Facilities Fees Increase to Current
Ratio
Fees
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 37.01 50% $1.23 $0.24 $0.99 5.13
All Other 5.76 50% $0.19 $0.05 $0.14 3.80
DP Guthrie LLC 16
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Projected Revenue for Police Facilities
Over the next ten years, police development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of
police infrastructure, which has a ten-year total cost of approximately$9.08 million (see the upper portion of
Figure P5). The table below indicates Meridian should receive approximately$9.1 million in police development
fee revenue, if actual development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development
either accelerates or slows down,there will be a corresponding change in the need for infrastructure and
development fee revenue. The revenue projection assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200
square feet of climate-controlled space and the average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor
area.
Figure P5: Police Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Growth Cost of Police Facilities=> $9,079,680
Police Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office&Other
Services
$482 $294 $190 $1,230 $190 $190
per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Year Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360
Year 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490
Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760
Year 4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900
Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050
Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640
Year10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800
Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440
Projected Revenue=> $5,280,000 $1,360,000 $435,000 $1,587,000 $196,000 $274,000
Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $9,132,000
DP Guthrie LLC 17
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Police
City staff recommends the improvements listed in Figure P6 to accommodate additional development over the
next ten years. Impact fees will contribute approximately$9.1 million for Phase 3 of the Public Safety Training
Center. Other revenue sources will be required to fund the additional cost of police facilities over the next ten
years.
Figure P6: Summary of Ten-Year UP for Police
Needed Planned
Building Sq Ft 13,745 17,000
FY Description Amount units Cost
2023
2024
2025 Public Safety Training Center Phase 3 17,000 square feet $11,220,000
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
Total=> $11,220,000
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $9,079,680
DP Guthrie LLC 18
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fire Impact Fees
DP Guthrie LLC recommends functional population to allocate the cost of additional fire infrastructure to
residential and nonresidential development (see Figure P1 above and related text). Fire development fees in
Meridian are based on the same level of service currently provided to existing development.
Existing Standards for Fire Facilities
Figure F1 inventories Fire Department buildings in Meridian. Because the training center is also used by the Police
Department,floor area was reduced to indicate the portion used by Meridian Fire Department. Based on service
units in FY23,the standard for fire buildings is 0.52 square feet per person and 0.52 square feet per job.
Figure F1: Existing Fire Buildings
Fire Stations Square
Feet
Fire Admin Space(City Hall) 13,511
Fire Station#1(540 E. Franklin Rd) 11,700
Fire Station#6(1435 W Overland Rd) 10,299
Fire Station#7(2385 Lake Hazel Rd) 10,299
Fire Station#8(4250 N Owyhee Storm Ave) 10,299
Fire Station#5(6001 N Linder Rd) 7,360
PSTC(half) 7,250
Fire Station#4(2515 S Eagle Rd) 7,077
Fire Station#3(3545 N Locust Grove) 7,040
Fire Station#2(2401 N Ten Mile Rd) 6,770
Training Tower @ Station#1 6,523
Fire Safety Center(1901 Leighfield Dr) 1,744
TOTAL 99,872
Allocation Factors for Fire Stations
Residential Share 72% Functional
Nonresidential Share 28% Population
Population in 2023 139,249
Jobs in 2023 53,547
Infrastructure Standards for Fire Stations
Square
Feet
Residential(per person) 0.52
Nonresidential(perjob) 0.52
DP Guthrie LLC 19
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Development fees will be used to expand the fleet of fire vehicles and purchase equipment with a useful life of at
least ten years. Figure F2 lists fire vehicles and equipment currently used by the Meridian Fire Department.
Following the same methodology used for fire buildings, the total cost of fire vehicles and equipment was
allocated 72%to residential and 28%to nonresidential development in Meridian. As shown below, every
additional resident will require Meridian to spend approximately$75 for additional fire vehicles and equipment.
Every additional job requires the City to spend approximately$74 for additional fire vehicles and equipment.
Figure F2: Existing Standards for Fire Vehicles
Fire Apparatus and Equipment Code Total Cost
Engines FE $6,178,923
Ladder Truck LT $4,400,000
Pickup Trucks PT $590,975
Other Vehicles OV $431,296
Communications&Equipment CE $2,244,978
TOTAL $13,846,172
Allocation Factors for Fire Apparatus and Communications
Residential Share 72% Functional
Nonresidential Share 28% population
Population in 2022 133,470
Jobs in 2022 52,602
Infrastructure Standards for Fire Apparatus and Communications
Apparatus and
Communications
Residential(per person) $74.69
Nonresidential(perjob) $73.70
DP Guthrie LLC 20
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fire Infrastructure Needs
The City's Comprehensive Plan and website describe existing fire facilities. In Meridian,fire facilities are fully
utilized and there is no surplus capacity for future development. The City has determined that fire facilities will
require expansion to accommodate future development. As specified in 67-8203(29), development impact fees in
Meridian exclude costs to repair, upgrade, update, expand or replace existing capital improvements to provide
better service to existing development. To accommodate projected development, Meridian will expand fire
buildings by 21,741 square feet and spend approximately$3.63 million to purchase additional fire vehicles and
equipment.
Figure F3: Growth-Related Need for Fire Facilities
Fire Infrastructure Standards and Capital Costs
Fire Buildings-Residential 0.52 Sq Ft per person
Fire Buildings-Nonresidential 0.52 Sq Ft perjob
Fire Buildings Cost $864 per square foot
Fire Apparatus/Communications-Residential $74.69 Cost per person
Fire Apparatus/Communications-Nonres $73.70 Cost perjob
Facilities Needed
Population Meridian Sq Ft of Fire Fire Apparatus and
Year Jobs Stations Communications
Base 2022 $13,846,172
Year 1 2023 139,249 53,547 99,872 $14,347,471
Year 2 2024 145,028 54,514 103,361 $14,850,391
Year3 2025 151,006 55,496 106,961 $15,369,281
Year4 2026 154,310 56,496 109,190 $15,689,784
Years 2027 157,614 57,514 111,428 $16,011,613
Year6 2028 160,919 58,552 113,676 $16,334,917
Year7 2029 164,223 59,607 115,933 $16,659,474
Year8 2030 167,527 60,680 118,200 $16,985,357
Year9 2031 169,715 61,774 119,901 $17,229,431
Year 10 2032 1 171,9031 62,8881 121,6131 $17,474,979
Increase 32,654 9,341 21,741 $3,628,807
Cost of Fire Stations=> $18,784,000
Cost of Fire Apparatus and Communications=> $3,629,000
Total Growth Cost=> $22,413,000
Revenue Credit Evaluation
Currently the City of Meridian does not have any outstanding debt related to fire facilities. Therefore, a revenue
credit for bond payments is not applicable. As shown in the cash flow analysis below, projected impact fee
revenue matches the growth cost of new facilities. Based on the City of Meridian's legislative policy decision to
fully fund expected growth costs from impact fees,there is no potential double-payment from other revenue
sources.
DP Guthrie LLC 21
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Current and Proposed Fire Impact Fees
Figure F4 indicates proposed impact fees for fire facilities in Meridian. Residential fees are derived from average
number of persons per housing unit and the cost per person. Nonresidential fees are based on average jobs per
1,000 square feet of floor area and the cost per job. The cost factors for fire facilities are summarized in the upper
portion of Figure F4. Persons per unit, by dwelling size, are based on local data, as discussed in the Land Use
Assumptions. For nonresidential development, average jobs per thousand square feet of floor area are also
documented in the Land Use Assumptions.
To be consistent with 67-8204(16) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act, impact fees are derived using the
cost per service unit multiplied by the average number of service units per development unit. Proposed
nonresidential development fees for fire facilities are shown in the column with light orange shading. The 2022
study recommends nonresidential fees by two general categories, Commercial and All Other types of
nonresidential development. Commercial includes all buildings within a shopping center, plus stand-alone retail
development and eating/drinking places (i.e., restaurants and bars). All Other includes industrial, warehousing,
offices, business services, and personal services (i.e., every type of non-residential development not considered
Commercial).
DP Guthrie LLC 22
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure F4: Fee Schedule for Fire Facilities
2022 Input Variables
Cost
Infrastructure Type
Infrastructure Growth Quantity Factor Growth Cost
Units Over Ten Years per Unit (rounded)
Fire Buildings square feet 21,741 $864 $18,784,000
Fire Apparatus dollars $3,629,000
Total=> $22,413,000
Professional Services Cost=> $7,680
Less Projected Fund Balance 9/30/2022=> $0
CostAllocation Net Growth Cost=> $22,420,680
Residentia I 1 72%
Nonresidential 1 28%
Allocated Cost by Land Use
Residential $16,142,890
Nonresidential 1 $6,277,790
Growth 2022 to 2032 Cost perService
Unit
Residential(persons) 38,433 $420
Nonresidential(jobs) 10,286 $610
Residential impact Fees(per housing unit)
Square Feet of Climate-Controlled Persons per Proposed Fire Current Proposed
Increase to Current
Space Housing Unit Facilities Fee Fees
Ratio
1200 or less 1.12 $470 $258 $212 1.82
1201 to 1700 1.73 $726 $450 $276 1.61
1701 to 2500 2.37 $995 $585 $410 1.70
2501 to 3200 2.84 $1,192 $693 $499 1.72
3201 or more 3.19 $1,339 $809 $530 1.66
Nonresidential Impact Fees(square foot of building)
Jobs per1,000 Proposed Fire Current Proposed
Type Increase to Current
Sq Ft Facilities Fee Fees
Ratio
Commercial(Restaurant/Retail) 2.12 $1.29 $0.64 $0.65 2.02
AIIOther 1 1.58 1 $0.961 $0.411 $0.55 12.34
DP Guthrie LLC 23
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Projected Revenue for Fire Facilities
Over the next ten years,fire development fee revenue is projected to approximately match the growth cost of fire
infrastructure, which is approximately$22.42 million (see the upper portion of Figure F5). The table below
indicates Meridian should receive approximately$22.65 million in fire development fee revenue, if actual
development matches the land use assumptions. To the extent the rate of development either accelerates or
slows down, there will be a corresponding change in the development fee revenue. The revenue projection
assumes the average single-family dwelling has 2501 to 3200 square feet of climate-controlled space and the
average multifamily unit has 1201 to 1700 square feet of floor area.
Figure F5: Fire Development Fee Revenue
Ten-Year Cost of Growth-Related Fire Facilities=> $22,420,680
Fire Impact Fee Revenue
Single Family Multi family Industrial Commercial Institutional Office and
OtherServices
$1,192 $726 $960 $1,290 $960 $960
Year per housing unit per housing unit per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft per 1000 Sq Ft
Hsg Units Hsg Units KSF KSF KSF KSF
Base 2022 41,617 9,427 11,740 6,570 5,270 7,360
Year 1 2023 43,217 10,227 11,950 6,690 5,360 7,490
Year2 2024 44,767 10,877 12,170 6,810 5,460 7,630
Year3 2025 46,117 11,427 12,380 6,940 5,560 7,760
Year4 2026 47,317 11,827 12,610 7,060 5,660 7,900
Year5 2027 48,265 12,231 12,840 7,190 5,760 8,050
Year6 2028 49,212 12,634 13,070 7,320 5,860 8,190
Year7 2029 50,160 13,038 13,300 7,450 5,970 8,340
Year8 2030 51,107 13,441 13,540 7,580 6,080 8,490
Year9 2031 51,836 13,752 13,790 7,720 6,190 8,640
Year 10 2032 52,565 14,062 14,030 7,860 6,300 8,800
Ten-Yrincrease 10,948 4,635 2,290 1,290 1,030 1,440
Projected Revenue=> $13,050,000 $3,370,000 $2,200,000 $1,660,000 $990,000 $1,380,000
Total Projected Revenues(rounded)=> $22,650,000
DP Guthrie LLC 24
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Comprehensive Financial Plan for Fire Facilities
Using impact fee funding over the next ten years, Figure F6 indicates that Meridian plans to expand fire building
space by 21,741 square feet. Meridian will also purchase additional fire vehicles costing approximately$6.63
million. The total cost for planned projects is approximately$25.42 million. The growth needs funded by impact
fees is approximately$22.42 million over ten years. Other revenues will be required to fully fund the Fire
Department's CFP.
Figure F6: Summary of Ten-Year CFP for Fire Facilities
Needed Planned
Building Sq Ftl 21,741 1 21,741
Apparatus and Equipmentl $3,629,000 1 $6,632,469
FY Description Amount Units Cost
2023
2024 Fire Station#1 Vehicle $686,834
2025 Radios 16 $160,000
2025 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#6 1 $2,200,000
2026 Additional Cardiac Monitors $140,000
2026 Additional Fire Station Design $720,000
2027 Additional Fire Station Construction 12,000 square feet $9,648,000
2027 Additional Fire Station Engine $686,834
2027 Hydraulic Extrication Tool 2 $250,000
2027 Thermal Imaging Cameras 5 $70,400
2028 Ladder Truck @Fire Station#10 1 $2,200,000
2028 SCBAs for new apparatus $140,000
2030 Additional Battalion Chief Vehicle 1 $98,401
2023 to Building Design $720,000
2032
2023 to
Expand Fire Buildings 9,741 square feet $7,696,100
2032
Total=> $25,416,569
Growth Needs to Maintain Current LOS=> $22,420,680
DP Guthrie LLC 25
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Fee Implementation and Administration
Consistent with best practices and Idaho's enabling legislation, Meridian updates capital improvements and
development impact fees every five years. In addition, some jurisdictions make annual adjustments for inflation
using a price index like the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill
Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule, reviewed by the Advisory
Committee,then approved by City Council. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly,the City
should redo the fee calculations.
Another best practice is to spend impact fees as soon as possible,tracking funds according to first in,first out
accounting, using aggregate rather than project-specific tracking. Impact fees and accrued interest are
maintained in a separate fund that is not comingled with other revenues. In Idaho, an annual report is
mandatory, indicating impact fee collections, expenditures, and fund balances by type of infrastructure.
Cost of CFP Preparation
As stated in Idaho's enabling legislation, a surcharge on the collection of development impact fees may be used to
fund the cost of preparing the CFP that is attributable to the impact fee determination. A minor cost of$7,680
per infrastructure type was added to the 2022 Meridian impact fee study.
Development Categories
Proposed impact fees for residential development are by square feet of climate-controlled space, excluding
porches, garage and unfinished space, such as basements and attics. For an apartment building,the average size
threshold is derived for an entire building. The recommended procedure is to identify the aggregate climate-
controlled floor area for the entire building, excluding ancillary space for community rooms,fitness centers,
management office and maintenance areas, divided by the number of dwelling units in the building. Apartment
complexes and some residential development provide common areas for use by residents, such as exercise rooms
and clubhouses. Common areas for the private use of residents are ancillary uses to the dwelling units and not
subject to additional impact fees.
Section 67-8204(20) of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act states that an addition to an existing residential
building,that does not increase the number of service units, should be exempt from additional impact fees. Given
the relatively small fee increase across size thresholds and the high transaction cost to assess fees for additions to
residential buildings, DP Guthrie LLC recommends that additions to residential buildings should not be subject to
additional impact fees.
The two general nonresidential development categories in the proposed impact fee schedule can be used for all
new construction within Meridian. Nonresidential development categories represent general groups of land uses
that share similar average weekday vehicle trip generation rates and job density(i.e.,jobs per 1,000 square feet of
floor area), as documented in Appendix A. "Commercial" includes retail development and eating/drinking places
(i.e., restaurants and bars). All land uses within a shopping center will pay the impact fee for commercial
development. All Other includes industrial, warehousing, offices, business services, and personal services (i.e.,
every type of non-residential development not considered Commercial).
DP Guthrie LLC 26
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators (i.e., service units per
development unit). The independent study should be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner
and use the same type of input variables as those in Meridian's impact fee study. For residential development,
impact fees are based on average persons per housing unit. For nonresidential development, impact fees are
based on inbound average weekday vehicle trips per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and the average number of
jobs per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The independent fee study will be reviewed by City staff and can be
accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not
reasonable,the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to Meridian's elected officials for their
consideration.
Credits and Reimbursements
A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit
may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from one-time impact fees plus on-going
payment of other revenues that may also fund growth-related capital improvements. The determination of
revenue credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis.
Policies and procedures related to site-specific credits should be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the
impact fees. Project-level improvements, required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible
for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement included in the fee calculations, it
will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a credit against the fees. The latter option is more
difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. Based on national experience,
DP Guthrie LLC recommends a jurisdiction establish a reimbursement agreement with the developer that
constructs a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no
more than ten years and the City should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must
provide documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The City should only agree to
pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the City
pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient fee revenue. Reimbursement
agreements should only obligate the City to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections
from the benefiting area.
The supporting documentation for each type of impact fee describes the types of infrastructure considered to be
system improvements. Site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement
does not negate an impact fee for other system improvements.
DP Guthrie LLC 27
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Appendix A: Land Use Assumptions
Appendix A contains the land use assumptions for Meridian's 2019 DIF update. The CFP must be developed in
coordination with the Advisory Committee and utilize land use assumptions most recently adopted by the
appropriate land planning agency [see Idaho Code 67-8206(2)]. Idaho's enabling legislation defines land use
assumptions as:
"a description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the
service area over at least a 20-year period."
Service Areas
To ensure a substantial benefit to new development paying impact fees,the City of Meridian has evaluated
collection and expenditure zones for public facilities that may have distinct benefit or service areas. In the City of
Meridian, impact fees for parks/recreation, police and fire facilities will benefit new development throughout the
entire incorporated area. DP Guthrie LLC recommends one citywide service area for Meridian impact fees.
Idaho Code 67-8203(26) defines "service area" as:
"Any defined geographic area identified by a governmental entity, or by intergovernmental agreement, in
which specific public facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of
sound planning or engineering principles, or both."
The City's adopted Future Land Use Map indicates land uses, densities, and intensities of development, as
required by Idaho Code 67-8203(16). The service area is defined as all land within the city limits of Meridian, as
modified over time.
Summary of Growth Indicators
Population, housing unit,jobs and nonresidential floor area are the "service units" or demand indicators that will
be used to evaluate the need for growth-related infrastructure. The demographic data and development
projections discussed below will also be used to demonstrate proportionality. All land use assumptions are
consistent with Meridian's Comprehensive Plan. In contrast to the Comprehensive Plan, which is more general
and has a long-range horizon, development impact fees require more specific quantitative analysis and have a
short-range focus. Typically, impact fee studies look out five to ten years, with the expectation that fees will be
periodically updated (e.g., every 5 years). Infrastructure standards will be calibrated using fiscal year 2018-19
data. In Meridian,the fiscal year begins on October 15Y
Key development projections for the City of Meridian are housing units and nonresidential floor area, as shown in
Figure Al. These projections will be used to estimate development fee revenue and to indicate the anticipated
need for growth-related infrastructure. The goal is to have reasonable projections without being overly
concerned with precision. Because impact fee methods are designed to reduce sensitivity to development
projections in the determination of the proportionate-share fee amounts, if actual development is slower than
projected,fee revenue will decline, but so will the need for growth-related infrastructure. In contrast, if
development is faster than anticipated,the City will receive an increase in fee revenue, but will also need to
accelerate infrastructure improvements to keep pace with the actual rate of development.
DP Guthrie LLC 28
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Population and housing unit projections were provided by City staff. During the next ten years,the impact fee
study assumes Meridian's population increases at a growth rate of approximately 2.56% per year. Over the next
ten years,jobs are expected to increase at a growth rate of approximately 1.8% per year, which is from the
Communities in Motion employment forecast from 2020 to 2050.
Figure All: Annual Development Projections
Meridian Land Use Assumptions
200,000
180,000
160,00❑
140,00❑
120,000
zoo.--
10D,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
—Population —Housing Units Jobs Nonresidential Square Feet(in thousands)
Proportionate Share
The term "proportionate" is found throughout Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act. For example, Idaho Code 67-
8202(2) states the intent to,
"Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which local governments
may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the
cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development;"
DP Guthrie LLC 29
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Because DIFS must be proportionate, jurisdictions derive fees for various land uses per unit of development, as
stated in Idaho Code 67-8404(17).
"A development impact fee ordinance shall include a schedule of development impact fees for various land
uses per unit of development. The ordinance shall provide that a developer shall have the right to elect to
pay a project's proportionate share of system improvement costs by payment of development impact fees
according to the fee schedule as full and complete payment of the development project's proportionate
share of system improvement costs..."
Even though formulas and methods are not specified in Idaho's Development Impact Fee Act, DIFs must be
reasonable and fair, as stated in section 67-8201(1).
"All development impact fees shall be based on a reasonable and fair formula or method under which the
development impact fee imposed does not exceed a proportionate share of the costs incurred, or to be
incurred, by the governmental entity in the provision of system improvements to serve the new
development.
In the following sections, DP Guthrie LLC describes reasonable and fair formulas and methods that can be used in
the City of Meridian to make DIFs proportionate by size of residential development and type of nonresidential
development.
Residential Development and Persons per Housing Unit
The 2010 census did not obtain detailed information using a "long-form" questionnaire. Instead,the U.S. Census
Bureau has switched to a continuous monthly mailing of surveys, known as the American Community Survey
(ACS), which is limited by sample-size constraints. For example, data on detached housing units are now
combined with attached single units (commonly known as townhouses). Part of the rationale for imposing fees by
size threshold, as discussed further below, is to address this ACS data limitation. Because townhouses and
apartments generally have fewer bedrooms and less floor area than detached units, size thresholds make fees
more proportionate, while facilitating construction of affordable units. As shown Figure A2, dwellings with a
single unit per structure (detached and attached) average 2.84 persons per housing unit. Dwellings in structures
with two or more units average 2.19 year-round residents per unit. This category includes duplexes,which have
two dwellings on a single land parcel. According to the latest available data, the overall average is 2.75 year-
round residents per housing unit and 2.82 persons per household. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, a
household is a housing unit that is occupied by year-round residents. Development fees often use per capita
standards and persons per housing unit, or persons per household, to derive proportionate-share fee amounts.
DP Guthrie LLC recommends that fees for residential development in the City of Meridian be imposed according
to the number of year-round residents per housing unit.
DP Guthrie LLC 30
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A2: Year-Round Persons per Unit by Type of Housing
Meridian Population and Housing Characteristics
Units in Structure Persons House- Persons per Housing Persons per Housing Vacancy
holds Household Units Housing Unit Mix Rate
Single Unit* 95,564 32,685 2.92 33,703 2.84 86% 3%
All Other** 11,920 5,364 2.22 5,440 2.19 14% 1%
Subtotal 107,484 38,049 2.82 39,143 2.75 3%
Group Quarters 303
TOTAL 107,787
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 American Community Survey, 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024,
B25032, B25033, and B26001.
* Single unit includes attached and detached.
** All other includes multifamily and mobile homes.
Demand Indicators by Dwelling Size
Impact fees must be proportionate to the demand for infrastructure. Because the average number of persons per
housing unit has a strong, positive correlation to the number of bedrooms, DP Guthrie LLC recommends
residential fee schedules that increase by dwelling size. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom
range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as
Public Use Micro-Data Samples (PUMS). PUMS files are only available for areas of at least 100,000 persons, with
the City of Meridian included in Public Use Micro-Data Area (PUMA) 701. As shown in Figure A3, DP Guthrie LLC
derived average persons per housing unit by bedroom range, from un-weighted PUMS data. The recommended
multipliers by bedroom range (shown below) are for all types of housing units, adjusted to the control total for
Meridian (i.e., 2.75 persons per housing unit).
Figure Al Persons by Bedroom Range
Recommended
Multipliers(2)
Bedrooms Persons Housing Persons per Housing
(1) Units(1) Housing Unit Mix
0-1 53 43 1.33 3.0%
2 384 205 2.02 14.3%
3 1,5801 684 2.49 47.7%
4+ 1,6421 501 3.53 35.0%
Tota 1 3,6591 1,433 2.75 1 100.0%
(1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata
Sample for ID PUMA 701(2016-2020 5-year database).
(2) Recommended persons per housing unit are scaled to
make the average derived from PUMS survey data match
the control total for Meridian (i.e. 2.75 persons per housing
unit).
DP Guthrie LLC 31
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
DIFs based on size of dwelling are generally easier to administer when expressed in square feet of finished living
space for all types of housing. Basing fees on floor area rather than the number of bedrooms eliminates the need
for criteria to make administrative decisions on whether a room qualifies as a bedroom. To translate dwelling size
by number of bedrooms into square feet of living space, DP Guthrie LLC used the 2018 Ada County Assessor's
residential database to derive average square feet by bedroom range (i.e.,two,three, and four or more
bedrooms).
DP Guthrie LLC recommends that DIFs for residential development be imposed based on finished square feet of
living space, excluding garages, patios and porches that are not climate-controlled. Average floor area and
number of persons by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A4, with a logarithmic trend line derived from actual
averages for Meridian. Using the trend line formula shown in the chart, DP Guthrie LLC derived the estimated
average number of persons, by dwelling size, in size thresholds like those currently used by the City of Boise. As
shown with yellow highlighting, the lowest floor area range (1200 square feet or less) has an estimated average of
1.24 persons per housing unit. At the upper end of the floor area range (3201 or more square feet of climate-
controlled space),the average is 3.53 persons per housing unit.
For a building with more than one residential unit, City staff will determine the average size threshold for the
entire building by dividing total climate-controlled floor area, less ancillary building space, by the total number of
dwellings in the building. Ancillary floor area includes community rooms,fitness centers, management offices,
and maintenance areas.
In each impact fee worksheet,the person per housing unit values shown in Figure A4 were adjusted downward by
multiplying the value for each size threshold by the ratio of 2.84 divided by 3.14. Figure A2 indicates an average
of 2.84 persons per single-family unit in Meridian and 3.14 is the fitted-curve value for dwellings with 2501 to
3200 square feet, which is the middle range for single-family units.
DP Guthrie LLC 32
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A4: Persons by Square Feet of Living Space
Average square feet for 2 to 4+
Survey of Construction Meridian Averages per Housing Unit Fitted-Curve Values bedrooms in Meridian was derived
Square Feet(rounded) Bedrooms Sq Ft(rounded) Persons Sq Ft Range Persons from Ada County Assessor
1,100 0-1 1,000 1.33 1200 or less 1.24 residential database (units
1,800 2 1,500 2.02 1201 to 1700 1.91 constructed 2014 to 2018).
2,200 3 2,100�41701 to 2500 2.62 Average persons per housing unit
3,400 4+ 2,9002501 to 3200 3.14 by bedroom range is based on
2016-2020 ACS PUMS data for ID
2,700 <=Wt Avg=> 2,400 3201 or more 3.53 PUMA 701. Recommended Square
Feet Ranges are similar to Boise
size thresholds.
Persons per Housing Unit in Meridian, ID
4.00
3.50 y = 1.98841n(x) - 12.493
Rz= 0.9651
+, 3.00
D
2.50
3
2 2.00
Gl
Q
c 1.50
0
Q1
a 1.00
0.50
0.00
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Square Feet of Living Area
DP Guthrie LLC 33
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Jobs and Nonresidential Development
In addition to data on residential development, the calculation of impact fees requires data on nonresidential
development. DP Guthrie LLC uses the term 'jobs"to refer to employment by place of work. In Figure A5, color
shading indicates nonresidential development prototypes used by DP Guthrie LLC to derive average weekday
vehicle trips and nonresidential floor area. For future industrial development, DP Guthrie LLC averaged Light
Industrial (ITE code 110) and Warehousing(ITE 150)to derive an average of 1,239 square feet per industrial job.
The prototype for future commercial development is an average-size Shopping Center(ITE code 820).
Commercial development (i.e., retail and eating/drinking places) is assumed to average 471 square feet per job.
For institutional development, such as schools, daycare and churches,the impact fee study assumes an average of
1,012 square feet per job. The prototype for institutional development is Assisted Living (ITE 254). For office and
other services, an average-size Office (ITE 710) is the prototype for future development, averaging of 307 square
feet per job.
Figure A5: Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
ITE Land Use/ Demand Wkdy Trip Ends Wkdy Trip Ends Emp Per Sq Ft
Code Unit Per Dmd Unit* Per Employee* Dmd Unit PerEmp
110 Light Industrial 1,000SgFt 4.87 3.10 1.57 637
140 Manufacturing 1,000 Sq Ft 4.75 2.51 1.89 528
150 Warehousing 1,000 Sq Ft 1.71 5.05 0.34 2,953
254 Assisted Living 1,000 Sq Ft 4.19 4.24 0.99 1,012
610 Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 10.77 3.77 2.86 350
620 Nursing Home 1,000 Sq Ft 6.75 3.31 2.04 490
710 General Office 1,000SgFt 10.84 3.33 3.26 307
760 Research& Dev Center 1,000 Sq Ft 11.08 3.37 3.29 304
770 Business Park 1,000 Sq Ft 12.44 4.04 3.08 325
820 1 Shopping Center 1,000 Sq Ft 37.01 17.42 2.12 471
857 Discount Club 1,000 Sq Ft 1 42.46 32.21 1.32 759
Industrial in Meridian 1,000 Sq Ft 1 3.29 4.08 0.81 1,239
* Trip Generation,Institute of Transportation Engineers,11th Edition(2022).
DP Guthrie LLC 34
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Figure A6 indicates 2019 estimates of jobs and nonresidential floor area within Meridian. Job estimates, by type
of nonresidential, are from Meridian's Work Area Profile, available through the U.S. Census Bureau's online web
application known as OnTheMap. The number of jobs in Meridian is based on quarterly workforce reports
supplied by employers. Floor area estimates are derived from the number of jobs by type of nonresidential
development and average square feet per job ratios, as discussed on the previous page. Total floor area of
nonresidential development in Meridian is consistent with property tax parcel information obtained from Ada
County.
Figure A6: Jobs and Floor Area Estimates
2019
Jobs(1)
Commercial(2) 13,237 26.6%
Industrial(3) 8,983 18.0%
Institutional(4) 4,934 9.9%
Office&Other Services(5) 22,702 45.5%
TOTAL 49,856 100.0%
(1) Jobs in 2015 from Work Area Profile,
OnTheMap,U.S. Census Bureau web
application.
(2) Major sectors are Retail and
Accommodation/Food Services.
(3) Major sectors are Construction,
Manufacturing, Wholesale Trade, and
Trans portation/Wareho using.
(4) Major sectors are Educational Services and
Public Administration.
(5) Major sectors are
Professional/Scientific/Technical Services and
Health Care.
DP Guthrie LLC 35
9/16/22 MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES REPORT
Appendix B: Changes in Standards and Cost Factors
Figure 131 summarizes changes to infrastructure standards and cost factors from the 2019 impact fee study to the
2022 update. For most public facilities, infrastructure standards have increased slightly over time, with the
exception of park improvements. Since 2019, population has increased faster than acres of improved parks.
Major changes accounting for the proposed impact fee increase are higher cost factors and the recommendation
to acquire additional park sites using impact fees, based on the 2022 standard of 3.14 acres per thousand
residents. In the 2019 study, land for additional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was
documented. In the 2022 study, land for additional parks is 26%of the growth cost for parks & recreation.
Figure 1131: Comparison of Standards and Cost Factors
Public Infrastructure Standard Cost Factor 2022 to 2019
Facility 2019 2022 Measure 2019 2022 Units Cost Ratio
Park Improvements 2.91 2.66 acres perthousand $241,000 $411,000 per acre 1.71
residents
Park Land(new) * 3.14 acres perthousand $61,000 $150,000 per acre 2.46
residents
square feet persquare foot of
Recreation Centers 0.49 0.59 $225 $670 2.98
per person building
Police Buildings- 0.26 0.33 square feet
Residential per person per square foot of
$333 $660 1.98
Police Buildings square feet per building
Nonresidential 0.06 0.09 vehicle trip
Fire Buildings-Residential 0.44 0.52 square feet
per person per square foot of
Fire Buildings- square feet $535 $864 1.61
g
buildin
Nonresidential 0.46 0.52 perjob
Fire Apparatus,
Communications& $61.98 $74.69 per person 1.21
Equipment-Residential
Fire Apparatus,
Communications&
$64.46 $73.70 perjob 1.14
Equipment-
Nonresidential
* In the 2019 study,land foradditional parks was only 1%of the growth cost and no standard was documented.
In the 2022 study,land foradditional parks is 26%of the growth costfor parks&recreation.
DP Guthrie LLC 36
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Substantial Amendment to 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan
and Program Year 2019 Action Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
ATE: November 22, 2022 ITEM N AGENDA:
PROJ ECT NAM E: Substantial Amendment to 2017-2021 Consolidated Plan and Program Year 2019 Action
Plan for the Community Development Block Grant Program
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark x if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
w
f
L
.X
4
5
6
7
8
9
1®
11
1
1
14
SUMMARY OF 2017-2021 CON PLAN/PY19 AP AMENDMENT
The City received$542,303 under the CARES Act for Meridian's CDBG Program. These funds are currently
allocated to only public service and administrative activities. The City proposes to submit an amended 2017-2021
Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and PY19 AP to allow a portion of these funds to be used to assist with land
acquisition for the Wood Rose Apartments,which will be located at 1160 W. Ustick Road. Following direction from
HUD, all CDBG CARES Act activities fall within the Program Year 2019 Action Plan (PY19 AP),so amendments must
be made to this and associated documents. Below are the proposed adjustments.
Link to full document located at:https.Ilmeridiancity.orglcdbglPY19IConPlan-Amend-3-Draft.pdf
SP-25 PRIORITY NEED
• Associated priority need of Improved Housing Options and Supportive Services with goal of Enhance
Housing Opportunities.
SP-45 GOALS SUMMARY
• Changed the goal to Enhance Housing Opportunities instead of Enhance Homeowner Opportunities to
include rental activities.
• Associated the priority need of Improved Housing Options and Supportive Services with goal of Enhance
Housing Opportunities.
• Added a goal outcome indicator of Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit for 25 households assisted.
• Updated the description to say, "Provide housing opportunities through homebuyer assistance,
homeowner repair,and working with developers to provide affordable rental housing."
Link to full document located at:https: meridiancity.org cdbg PY19 CV-SA-Amendment-3-Draft.Ndf
AP-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Included information on the public participation process.
AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES
• Updated the activities that CDBG-CV would be used for to include "acquisition of property to build
affordable housing".
AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
• Added funding to the goal to Enhance Housing Opportunities.
• Added a goal outcome indicator of Public Facility or Infrastructure Activities for Low/Moderate Income
Housing Benefit for 25 households assisted.
• Reduced CDBG-CV Admin to reflect the actual costs.
• Reduced the amount of funds to be used for CDBG-CV Public Services.
• Updated the goal description to include acquisition of land to build affordable housing.
AP-35 PROJECTS
• Added project#11: CV-Housing Affordability.
• Updated obstacles to reflect that there are no anticipated obstacles for this project.
AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY
• Added details about project#11: CV-Housing Affordability.
AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
• Updated with information about this project.
ATTACHMENTS WILL INCLUDE:
• Evidence of public notice
• Resolution
E IDIAN.;---
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Page 4
City Council Meeting November 22, 2022
Item #4: Easement Vacation MapZONING MAP North Easement VacationRockbury
Item #5: Kingstown Subdivision REVISED PLAT ZONING MAP Annexation & Preliminary Plat
Phasing Plan
Revised Landscape Plan REVISED -Qualified Open Space
Conceptual Building Elevations
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #4: Rockbury North Easement Vacation (H-2022-0075)
Application(s):
Vacation of Utility Easements
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: North of W. Chinden Blvd. between N. Black Cat and N. Ten Mile Roads, in the SE
1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, T.4N., R.1W.
Summary of Request: The Applicant requests approval to vacate the 6-foot (3-feet on each side) wide PUDI easements on the shared
boundary of Lots 4-5, 27-28, 29-30, 32-33, 45-46, and 49-50, Block 1 of the Rockbury North Subdivision. The reason for the request is
to accommodate the reconfiguration of the lots approved with a series of property boundary. Currently, the properties are being
developed with townhomes and the easements must be vacated to conclude the occupancy process.
The applicant has submitted letters from all potential easement holders who have all provided written consent agreeing to vacate the
easements.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the vacation of easements request as proposed.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0075, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 22, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0075, as presented during the
hearing on November 15, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0075 to the hearing date of _____ for the following reason(s): (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #5: Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045)
Application(s): Annexation and Zoning & Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.2 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, generally located
west of N. Eagle Rd/SH-55 & north of E. Ustick Rd. at 2610 E. Jasmine St. This is an infill/enclave property, surrounded by City
annexed & developed land.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3-8 units/acre)
Summary of Request: An application for annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of
28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district was submitted for this development.
This project is proposed to develop in two phases, with the western portion of the property developing first. There is an existing home &
nd
several outbuildings on the eastern property that are proposed to remain until the 2 phase of development, at which time the
outbuildings will be removed and the home will remain on a lot in the proposed subdivision.
In accord with Staff’s recommendation, the applicant submitted a revised preliminary plat in an effort to provide a better transition to
existing residential properties to the north & future residential properties to the east, which reduced the number of building lots from 28
to 26 and increased the number of common lots from 6 to 7 for a gross density of 3.17 units/acre. (The gross density without the large
parcel where the existing home is proposed to remain is 3.78 units/acre.) Changes to the plan include the removal of (3) building lots
along the north boundary & the addition of (1) building lot along the east boundary; the size of common lots were increased to meet the
qualified open space standards; and a 20’ wide common lot was added for a multi-use pathway connection from Conley Ave. through
the large common area to the pathway along the east side of Rogue River Ave. in accord with the PMP.
Access is proposed from the extension of existing local stub streets (i.e. N. Conley Ave., N. Rogue River Ave. and E. Jasmine St.) from
the south, north and east through Alpine Pointe, Delano & Champion Park subdivisions.
A minimum of 1.23 acres of common open space is required to be provided within the development. The revised common open space
exhibit addresses Staff’s comments & depicts exactly 1.23 acres of common open space that complies with UDC standards. Amenities
consisting of a dog waste station and a picnic area with a shelter, table and bench seating is proposed in accord with UDC standards.
There are many existing trees on this site that are proposed to be removed with development; mitigation is required for these trees as
noted in the staff report.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what future homes in this development will look like. A mix of single-
story, single-story w/bonus room & 2-story homes are proposed.
Development of this site is difficult because of the 3 streets that stub to this property that are required to be extended and their
locations. Although the use and density of the project is in line with the Comp Plan, the Comp Plan also states that new development
should create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through transitional densities, buffering, screening and other best site
design practices. If the Council doesn’t find the proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of transition, the
Council could require additional landscaping for screening and/or a reconfiguration of lots so that more compatible lot sizes are
proposed adjacent to existing development. The number of lots could be reduced by up to 5 (down to 21) and still comply with the
density desired in the MDR designation.
Commission Recommendation: Approval with the inclusion of DA provisions that prohibit any windows on the second story of homes
that face north along the northern boundary of the subdivision west of Rogue River in Block 1; and the developer to encourage
backyard landscaping to assist in buffering to the larger homes/lots to the north.
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Nicolette Womack and Teller Bard, Applicant’s Representative; Kyle Enzler (Applicant/Property Owner)
ii. In opposition or commenting: Leon Johnson; George Fullmer; Mike Bernard, Mike Bernard; Alan Dixon, Roger Britton, Charlene
Britton; Carol Windle; Mike McGough; George Windle
iii. Written testimony: Many letters of testimony were received that are included in the public record.
iv. Key Issue(s):
Concerns pertaining to extra traffic this development will generate through existing neighborhoods and safety of area
children;
Proposed lot sizes aren’t compatible with those in adjacent existing developments;
Request for property to be annexed with R-4 zoning and require minimum lot sizes consistent with adjacent lot sizes;
Request for 2-story homes along north boundary to not have any windows on the second story that would look into adjacent
single-story home lots;
Require traffic calming measures in area streets to slow traffic for safety;
Request for water trucks to be provided during construction to mitigate dust and for trailers and vehicles to be parked on-site
and not in adjacent developments; request for existing stub streets on Rogue River & Conley to be closed until construction
commences;
Concern pertaining to the pathway in Alpine Pointe that many adults and children use to access the subdivision amenities
and concerns pertaining to safety of those using it;
Install caution lights for children’s safety in high traffic areas;
Developer is agreeable to not providing windows on the second story homes overlooking adjacent lots at the northwest
corner and minimize front setbacks in order to provide larger back yards with greater building setbacks from rear property
line.
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
Desire for the Applicant to revise the plat to have fewer building lots and retain more of the existing trees;
Desire for fewer lots to be provided along the northern boundary and more lot provided along the eastern boundary for a better
transition to existing properties;
Desire for the mitigation trees required in back yards to be placed strategically to screen adjacent properties;
In favor of no windows on second story homes overlooking adjacent lots at the northwest corner & minimize front setbacks in
order to provide larger rear yards with greater building setbacks.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: Approval with the inclusion of DA provisions that prohibit any windows on the
second story of homes that face north along the northern boundary of the subdivision west of Rogue River in Block 1; and the
developer to encourage backyard landscaping to assist in buffering to the larger homes/lots to the north.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: None
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many more letters of testimony have been received since the Commission hearing
that are included in the public record.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0045, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 22, 2022: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0045, as presented during the
hearing on November 22, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0045 to the hearing date of ___________ for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Rockbury North Easement Vacation (H-2022-0075) by
Ronald Hodge, HMH Engineers, generally located at 4253 W. Lovegood Ln.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0075
A. Request: Vacation of a 6-foot wide strip of land containing utility easements within a portion
of Lots 4-5, Lots 27-28, Lots 29-30, Lots 32-33, Lots 45-46, and Lots 49-50 in Block 1 of the
Rockbury North Subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
ATE: November 22, 2022 ITEM N AN A: 4
PROJECTNAME: Rockbury North Easement Vacation ( - 0 -00 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1
1
14
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 11/22/2022 Legend
DATE:
Project Location L
TO: Mayor&City Council
Q
FROM: Stacy Hersh,Associate Planner
208-489-0576
SUBJECT: H-2022-0075
Rockbury North-VAC -- ® _ - a
LOCATION: North of W. Chinden Blvd.between N. -- - ® 00)
+
Black Cat and N. Ten Mile Roads,in the
SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 22, l
TAN.,R.1W. ���
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to vacate the 6-foot wide public utility, drainage, and irrigation(PUDI)easements platted on
the shared lot lines of Lots 4-5, 27-28, 29-30, 32-33,45-46, and 49-50, Block 1 of the Rockbury
North Subdivision.
IL APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Ronal Hodge,HMH Engineers—680 S. Progress Avenue, Suite#213
B. Owner:
Rockbury 88,LLC—904 Madrid Avenue,Torrance,CA 90501
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Per UDC Table 11-5A-2,vacation of a utility easement falls under"all others", which requires
approval from City Council at a public hearing.
IV. NOTICING
City Council Posting Date
Page 1
Newspaper Notification 11/3/2022
Radius notification mailed to l l/l/2022
properties within 300 feet
Next Door posting 11/4/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant requests approval to vacate the 6-foot(3-feet on each side)wide PUDI easements on
the shared boundary of Lots 4-5, 27-28, 29-30, 32-33,45-46, and 49-50, Block 1 of the Rockbury
North Subdivision.
Legal descriptions and exhibit maps of the portions of the easements proposed to be vacated are
included in Section VII below.
The reason for the request is to accommodate the reconfiguration of the lots approved with a series of
property boundary adjustments(PBA-2020-0008,PBA-2021-0006,PBA-2021-0005,PBA-2021-
0019). Currently,the properties are being developed with townhomes and the easements must be
vacated to conclude the occupancy process.
Relinquishment letters were received from Century Link, Sparklight, Idaho Power,Intermountain Gas
Company,and Suez stating they have no objection to vacation of the utility easements as proposed
(see section VII.0 below).
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the vacation of utility easements as proposed by the Applicant.
Page 2
VII. EXHIBIT
Legal Descriptions &Exhibit Maps of the Portion of the Utility Easements Proposed to be Vacated
rM
A 4,1
_ J r" n o 4
f' o vm�
� zr. rzD
A f s 4 m C U3
Z
O
I •4 ; k
y F�
, a
T— +�I 4 I 11 5111111;444JJJ x 5 r���+ ��
Y uYY ;
I
+ I
• - ' I ' I
— ---`----------
' I
— x
I 7 1
�+ �.�T• _I _
x � -`�J..r'aN+teaE..
CO
L L
—— — --- --- ---J
�y
L
{'} ZV,TREE I3A1+ZN WAY
Page 3
SOXHMH
1 LAND-SURVEYS engineering
Lots 4-5
Partial Vacation of Easement
Legal Description
Rockbury North Subdivision
A strip of laced 6-feet wide within a portion of dots 4-5 os Shown or+the Rockbury North Subdivision,
recorded in Book 117 of Plots at pages 17775-17779,siruate wirbirr rt a Southeast 114 of the so4ithwest
114 of Section 22,Township 4 North,Range 1 West,Boise Meridian,Ado County,fdahc,more
particuloriy described os folk ws:
COMMENCING at the ntutheast carnerof Parcel P-6 monumented by found 1/2-inch rebar with cap
stamped"PLS8575",thence along the easterly boundary line of P-6,North 01'27'21"West,24,0Dfeet;
thence South 88*32'39'West, 10-00 feet to the westerly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted front
utility easement and the POINT OF BEGINNING,
Th e nce con tinuin g South 88'32'39'West,82.50 feet to[lie original rear boundary line of Lot 5;
Thence along the original rear bound aryline of Lots 5-4.North 01'27'2 1'west,6.00 Feet,-
Thence North SS'32'39'East,82.50 feet to the westerly boundary of the 14ftaut-wide piatIed front
utility easement;
thence along said ease me rat boundary,South 01'27'21'Last,6.00 feet to the PalNT OF aEGINNING.
Con taining495 Square feet mare or less
Refer to theattached Easement Vacation Map.
Prepared bT "--7
Ronald M-Hodge,PLS
Survey Depart men tMan3fter ti r
8575
Q 444
680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite#28■ Meridian,Idaho83642•Tel,208-34�-7957+Web; hmh-II`cxorn
Fquoi Opportuflity employer
Page 4
Its It
Ali `
Y��
2 Ala od 5 fl �
Eli!
L'
g
u.cv1511M�]pN4-11851i'/h� ��
it y
e I
d A F tix; yi x Y# dF Al
�_-1 —_ T�•r__��'1 I iL
i
x I
3 ti
y y
■r eF TC� .��MI iILU�Ek Yk x ly I —1 Sjig E
I lr x
T r ;
Jti s 4y I
x +
�k
i f r
Page 5
\IVO F OX HM. H
iANn suRvEvs engineering
Lots 27-28 Rodbury North Subdivision
Parcel 27
Partial Vacation of Easement
Legal Description
A strip of load 5 feer wv de wfthln a portion of Lots 27-28 as shown on the Rockbury forth Subdivision,
recorded in Book 117 of Puts at Poges 17775-1777-9,now known as Porre�P-27 as shown on the
Property Boundary A d)ustment—Record of Survey pia. 127I0, recorded a5 Instrument No-2021-
013552,situate in the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 of Section 22,Township 4 North,Range I
West, gol5e Meridion,Ada Coon ty, +daho, more partfcufarly described as follows-
OOMMENCING 8t the northwest corner of Parcel P-27 monumented by a found 1/2-inch ri=barwith
rap stamped"PL5 8575�,thence along the westerly boundary Iine of P-27,South 01°27'21"East,14.91
feet,thence South 79°24'17"East, 10-23 feet to the easterly boundary of the 14-foot-wide platted
front ut i I ity easem ent and the POI NT OF BEGIN NING;
Thence South 79°24'17"East,78.22 feet to the westerly boundary of the 16-foot-wide platted rear
tltillty easement;
Then re along said easement boundary,South 01°27'21"East,6.14 feet;
Thence North 79'24'17"West, 78.22 feet to the easterly boundary of the 10L-foc t-wide platted front
utility easement,
Thence along said easement boundary,North 01*27'21"West,6.14 feet to the POINT 0F BEGIN NIWG_
Containing 469 square feet more❑r less
Refer to the attached Easement Vacation Map.
Prepared by: sr OP
Ronald M.Hodge, PL5
Survey Department Manager ] C)
p' Of # {*+
IIMH=tc
63D S. Progress Ave-,Suite#2113•Meridian,Idaho 83642 • Tel:208-342-7957+Web- hmh-Ilc.com
l=qgal Opportunity Errl&yer
Page 6
^••r r
� lit 47
e
- � { 4 s
59
Y
$i € a
IL
e � ;
i l4
S
--
ra,r.33ssiL.tiry
i]A +bJC4
7
N a�—,r 1r d
ml 3r E iiT317 e
e
F
1 � 3a = Y ��„ � • ® o Oi qt O
oir � �
r�
a � R i
'
F�3!t.
Page 7
VFox ' HMH
1WVnNa SURVEYS engineering
Lots 29-30 Rockbury North Subdivision
Parcel 29
Partial Vacation of Easement
Ueg8l Description
A strip of land 6 feet wide within a portion of Lots 29-30 as shown on the Rockbury forth Subdivision,
recorded in Book 117 of PfaCs at pages 17775-17779,now known as ParcO P-29 as shown on the
Property BoundoryAdjustment—Record of Survey No. 12710,recorded as tnstrurnent fro-2021-
013552,situate in the Southwost 114 of the Southwest 114 of Section 24 Township A North,Range I
west 9oi5e Meridian,Ado Coun ty, fdaho,more portfct+farfy described os foPows,
COMMENCING at the northwest comer of Parcel P-29monumented by a found 112-inch rebar with
cap stamped"PLS 85751r,thence along the westerly boundary line of P-29,South 01'27'21"East.4.82
feet;thence South 79°24'17"East,10-23 feet to the easterly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted
front utility easement and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence South 79*24'17" East,78.22 feet to the westerly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted rear
utility easement:
Thence along said easement boundary,South al°27'2V East,5-14 feet;
Thence North 79*24'17"West,78.22 feet to the easterly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted fr❑nt
utility easement;
Thenoe along said easement boundary,North 01'2721"West,6,14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 469 square feet more or less
Refer to the attached Easement Vacation Map-
Prepared by;
Ronald M.Hodge, PLS �,{' � a
Survey Department Manager8575
RMH:tz
664S-Progress Ave.,Suite 42B■ Meridian,Idaho 83642+Tel; 208-342-7957 +Web; hmh-Ilc.corn
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 8
RllFeA dL � �
dL
I Ili II x
r' k
—
lJ'{ry I
AF r'f s
J
4 x if Jf kJ * f� 117. 1 I
r r f
1 1 IF Y I f
J k J G7J. E7L 'i}aF iJAJ i]GP
} \ gpi•yJ• 7'E 1F2
34.7RrtJc LsryZr vYhY y
{s.r+�¢rc7GdLlC}
7'* �6gQ
F
to
yza211
f nil
I
Page 9
Fox HMH
LAND SURVEYS engineering
Lots 32-33 Rockbury North Subdivision
Parcel 33
Partial Vacation of Easement
Legal Description
A s troo of land 6-feet wide withirr o portion of Lots 32-33 os shown on the Roekbary North Subdivision,
recordecf in Book 117 of Plats at Pages 17775-17779,no w kno wa as Parcel P-33 CS Shown on the
Property Boundary Adjustmen t—Record of Survey No. 12710, retarded as Instrument No.2021-
013552,situate in the Southeast 114 of the Southwest 114 of Section 22, township 4 North, Range 1
West Boise MeridFan,Ado County,Idaho, more porticulady described as follows,
COMMENCING at the northeasterly corner of Parcel P-33 monumented by a faun 5/8-in ch rebar with
cap stamped "PLS 8575",thence along the southeasterly boundary line of P-33,South 44°23'�I"West,
26.19feet;thence North 56'58'43"West, 20.20 feet to the westerly boundary of the I0-foot-wide
platted rear utlllty easement and thQ POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 55°58'4I"West,85.17 feet to the easterly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted front
utility easement;
Thence along said easement boundary on the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left 6.00 feetr having a
radius of 66.50 feet,a central angle of 05'10'17"and a chord bearing North 33'01'17" East, 6.00 feet;
Thence South 56'58'43"East,86.37 feet to the westerly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted rear
utlllty easement;
Thence along said easement boundary,South 44°23'21 West,6.12 feet to the P01NT OF BEGINNING.
Containing514 square feet more or less
Refer to the attached Easement Va€atian Map.
Prepared by, &D
Ronald M. Hodge, Ply � ti tF �
Survey Department Manager o ,Q�y
0. V57 M
DF
nv�:cc M. O
690 5.Progress Awes Suite#213+ Meridian, Idaho 83642 •Tel, 208-342-7957 +Web'hmh-Ilc.€am
Equal Opportunity Errrployer
Page 10
•r► r .
�sxIL
_--_- ____�____ + kk
.y5t
µ 11 of k H.&93SSY Y.F}•Z'{L`]LL+lA�I yq Y m
F r r L&rnl r%E INN C Y
x T alp
1�1-
{ r f
} } f7 °.. I E7� lam■ �A f I.7r
TRni ftA L k ti WAY
ph
{
A x q @
rA � iR �i l`1 ■ � o ql ��� "'
€ lu
03
€ °n
m -
m
Page 11
FOB HMH
LAND SURVEYS engineering
Lots 45-46 Riotkbm North Subdivision
Parcel 45
Partial Vacation Gi Easement
Legal Description
A strip of hand 6-feet wide within a portion of Lots 45-46 as shown on the Rockbury North Subdivision,
recorded in Hoak 117 of Pions at Pages 1 77 75-1 7 779, now known os Parcel P-45 Ds shown on the
Property Ooundory Adjustmen t—Record of Survey No.12975, recorded os Instrument No.2023-
J03799,sinoute in the Southeast 114 of the Southwest V4 of Section 22, Township 4 North,Range I
West, Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho, more porticularfy described as foH ws;
COMMENCING at the southwesterly corner of Parcel P-45 rmonumented by a found 5/8-inch rebar wit h
cap stamped "PL5 8575",thence along the southerly boundary line of P,45,South 89'25'45"[ Ist,
17.00 feet;thence North 00'34'15" East, 10.00 feet to the southerly boundary of the 10400t-wide
platted rear utility easement and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 00'34'15"East,97.10 feet totha northerly boundary of the 10-foat-wide platted front
utility easement,
Thence along said easement boundary on the 8rc of a non-tangent curve to the left 3.48 feet,having a
radius of 73.59feet a central angleaf 46*36'21"and subtended by a chord bearingSouth 44`28'06"
East,8.48 feet;
Thence South 00°34'15"Vilest,91.11 feet to the southerly boundary of the 10-toot-Wide platted rear
utility easement;
Thence along said easement boundary,North 89'25'45"West,6.00feet to the POINTOF BEGINNING.
Containing 564 square feet more-or less
Refer to the attached Easement Vacation Map_
Prepared by; r
Ronald M. Hodge,PL5 b o
Survey Department Manager a 857 Z '�
}ori•�' �
RMFhtr 4F
M , D
680 S_ Progress Ave.,Suite 02B +Meridian,Idaho 83642 ■Tel; 208-342-7957 *Web; hmh-lic.corn
Equal Opportunity Employer
Page 12
�5
r w�N i 5
] t
I I
R
pp I
N Jr
E1 ? --t 1
I 'H
I I
wlsr
I I r
I � ,
I I 'v13-IM M" 0
I I I
I IL Z
wIR 5
spin
ry I +
I � k
I
s
r
r
Ie
I I � pp
i m it ['�]
pp
-go O\ @ z
I wee
sg
IS7�� 1 I f Page 13
1W FOX
LAND SURVEYS engineering
Lots 49-50 Rackbu North Subdivision
Parcel 48
Partial Vacation of Easement
Legal Description
A strip of fund 5-feet wide within a portion of Lots 49-50 os shown on the Rockbury fdorth Subdivision,
recorded in Hook 117 of Plats at Pages 17775-17779,now known as Parcel P-48 as shown on the
Property Boundary Aodjustment—Record of Survey No. 12975, recorded as Instrument No-2021-
103799,situate in the Southeast 114 of the 5outhwes t 114 of Section 22,Township A North,Range 1
West,Boise Meridian,Add Coun ty, Waho,more porticukcrrly described as follows,
COMMENCING at the southwesterly corner of Parcel P-49 monumented by a found 5/8-inch rebar with
cap stamped "PL5 8575",thence along the southerly boundary line of P-48,South 89°2S'45" East,
16.16 feet;thence North 00°34'15"East, 10.O0feet to the southerly boundary of the ID-foot-wide
platted rear utility easement and the POINT OF BEGINNING,
Thence North 00°34'15"East.78.24feetto the northerly boundary of the 10-foot-wide platted front
Utility easement;
Thence along said easement boundaryon the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left 6.29feet,having a
radius of 110.00feet,accntral angle of 03'16'16"and subtended by a chord bearing Sou th 72.16'28"
East,6.28 feet;
Thence South 0034'15"West, 76.39 feet to the southerly boundary of the ID-foot-wide platted rear
utility easement;
Thence along said easement boundary,North 89`25'45"West,6.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Cont @ining 464 square feet more a less
Refer to the attached Easement Vacation Map.
Prepared by.
r Ronald M. Hodge,PL5 � fi
Survey Department Manager
8575
D j'tlfv' �
� f a s \# 4
RMH:t[
680 S.Progress Ave.,Suite 0213 +Meridiem,Idaho 83642+Tel.208-342-7957*Web:hmh-Ilt.com
Equal Opportunlo Employer
Page 14
5
5
5
F rr 4}
;
q} 5
lS
A 3•� Ye r�k ' I
•F•�---••----
uvs
I �
Lr
—
�# I
I r co n
b
* E R
�— ------
� I f
I I
I 1 r
I I Iw�4'Irs u.ly f
r
I I
I O
- I
I I
iC A9f• L
;yll `__----_jjL—__— 5 �t
_pppp �• h � � nW7•ivs .f,# v
Sk y �
31 loll
FAR[
± ,f
I
SE
u IMP
Lt
r •e s t n
I
I � �
#iS#ld
Page 15
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Kingstown Subdivision (H-2022-0045) by Kimley Horn,
located at 2610 E. Jasmine St.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0045
A. Request: Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary
Plat consisting of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning
district.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE: November 22, 2022 ITEM N AG N A:
PROJECT ® Kingstown Subdivision (H- 0 - 4 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
(Please Print) HOA? (mark X if yes)
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1 =;'a =
2 f €r r1 % u 1 r
t
i t`l
5
r _
7
,t
8
W .
u 0
1
10 A
F
1
f
a P
13
w., r `;,
f t`
14
e
g �.
CAMN! Crew O"AA
i f
al
c6 arl, for,
STAFF REPORT
E IDIAN�--
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT p
HEARING November 22,2022 Legend
DATE: lei
Lacs=ar
0
TO: Mayor&City Council LF
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Kingstown
H-2022-0045 ---
LOCATION: 2610 E. Jasmine St., generally located in •
the south 1/2 of Section 32,TAN.,R.IE. ---
(Parcel#R4582530400)
At the recommendation of Staff, a revised conceptualplat was submitted that depicts a reconfiguration of lots
within theplat resulting in a reduction in building lots from 28 to 26 and an increase in common lots from 6
to 7 for a gross density of 3.17 units/acre(see Section VIII.B).If the Commission recommends approval of the
revised concept plan, an updated plat, landscape plan and open space exhibit should be submitted at least 10
days prior to the Council meeting and the staff report will be updated accordingly.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation of 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district; and preliminary plat consisting of 28 building
lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district for Kingstown Subdivision.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage i 8.20 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(MDR)
Existing Land Use I Single-family residential(SFR)/ag
Proposed Land Use(s) SFR
Current Zoning i Rural Urban Transition(RUT)in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-8(Medium Density Residential)
Lots(#and type;bldg/common) 28 building/6 common
Phasing plan(#of phases) 2
Number of Residential Units(type 28 single-family detached units
of units)
Page 1
Density(gross&net 3.42 units/acre(gross)
Open Space(acres,total [%]/ 1.23 acres(or 15%)
buffer/qualified)
Amenities Picnic area in a 5,000+square foot area;and dog waste station
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date 4/7/22
History(previous approvals) INone
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report Yes
(yes/no)
• Requires No
ACHD
Commission
Action
es/no
• Existing There are(3)existing stub streets to this property(i.e.N. Conley Ave.,N.Rogue
Conditions River Ave.,and E.Jasmine St.)
• CIP/IFYWP • Locust Grove Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 3-lanes from Ustick Road to
McMillan Road. The design year is scheduled in 2025 and the construction date has not been
determined.
• Wainwright Drive is scheduled in the IFYWP for the installation of wayfinding and bikeway
signage in 2024.
• The intersection of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to
7-lanes on the north leg,6-lanes on the south,6-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the west leg,and
replace/modify replace/modify the signal between 2026 and 2030.
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is proposed via the extension of existing stub streets from adjacent
H /Local)(Existin and Proposed) neighborhoods.
Proposed Road Improvements None
Fire Service See Section IX.C
AM-
Police Service No comments received.
West Ada School District No comments received.
Distance(elem,ms,hs)
Capacity of Schools
#of Students Enrolled
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services Directly adjacent
• Sewer Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance '
Page 2
1 • 1 .•
1 1 1
• � � roc= � ,
INN
NNI • a �.. .�' ELAN
F
LU
"P_:" .. . ._. r .. " •` ��—�.- ��'e��°'�il!�II�r;INllll� -'��- � -'All
`'P� CC' II '.• — '`.
lip
U� R-- 5�■ � mum, ��. _
PB
IN
, n iII.'T I�� .,,., -__ -_ ■. IIIII�e fSN k .. � L _ M1
' ;LII�'�j'1'11111 11l!11 111 IIJ-=� '�- _ L .. � � �`*''■. .i
- - ,;� ., :;fir '=€ •I =�1, �:,
-.-� ry•",..I. - IIII II.■Y" -�' :ii:i:2-M1�:'�III IIYI�■
IN
'�-'�' __ - '2S •yy�iJ• -144I" '!- +�,�I: III. fi JP�lI�I��llll -- V•14�-. _-- y_�� !�d6�i��• •�C•, .,S/I•'��. ■
•'• YWfV• y•Lb ; :�I'- S „• : :"11�:���: : .Iu ,,,, _ " P .I- 1 s ■
it ill�7Yi111—M11Y. '�� to .14111 X �- �lil"'' N�•• ?
' -N�- • ' .fil'i. -:S���S - _.I. 11
t T—..L�sM��.3•i•—+ 1'i�.1�i I.I.�1.lY�.�II:'i�=s:r', + .:
11 11�11�1 _i �r = +IIHIIINII i0 Why
••
artli
MT
.1,'. I..-.��� ■
+y1�� -�'�'ii2:i 11 i• - i- II.. II �J h'.!�!�:' •'=P 2A-' ;L�■
•1 �g'.a.l !I,I-- _ 1 ••'!Ii��:. �-" "-'��'-I.'.:3.r" :�'1���::'31 t1-A■i� �
eS� � ��r. _ ��y.'�.��.._�.:I e:e•�ILIII,S• Cft�L.+■4■ a
N�:I�rty"_+'a�: _ - I '_ .-� -■N=�_ri I�
�;'�illlllil+lull 'I J IIIIII'O"_ L :_ Ks•' �� I•��;' .17 ,
p 11.�yY••"j:.9 — : .. d'N". n ''�-11 �}:JS�_'I:; I =1__I �■
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Nicolette Womack,Kinley-Horn—950 W. Bannock St., Ste. 1100,Boise,ID 83702
B. Owner:
Robert Hilton,High Lakes, LLC PO Box 1436, McCall, ID 83638
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published in newspaper 8/17/2022 11/6/2022
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 8/11/2022 11/4/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
8/8/2022 11/10/2022
on site
Nextdoor posting 8/11/2022 11/4/2022
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
LAND USE: This property is designated as Medium Density Residential(MDR) on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM)contained in the Comprehensive Plan. This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities
of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
The subject property is an enclave surrounded by single-family residential properties on land also designated
MDR on the FLUM. The Applicant proposes a 28-lot subdivision for single-family residential detached
homes at a gross density of 3.42 units per acre,which is within the desired density range of the MDR
designation.
TRANSPORTATION: The Master Street Map(MSM)does not depict any collector streets across this
property.
Goals,Objectives, &Action Items: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable
to this application and apply to the proposed use of this property(staff analysis in italics):
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of
Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
The proposed single-family detached dwellings with a mix of lot sizes will contribute to the variety of
housing options in this area and within the City as desired. Single-family detached homes exist to the
north, west and south and are also in the development process to the east; multi family apartments
exist in close proximity to this site to the southeast.
Page 4
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and
urban services at the time of final approval, and in accord with any adopted levels of service for
public facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer service is available and can be extended by the developer with development in
accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for
diverse housing types throughout the City."(2.01.01G)
This area consists primarily of single family detached homes with some multi family apartments to
the southeast; only single-family detached homes are proposed within this development. The
proposed development offers a variety of lot sizes from 4,000 to H,730 square feet(s f.) with the
existing home on a 22,912 sf. lot.
• "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A)
Although the gross density for the overall development at 3.42 units/acre is within and at the low end
of the desired density range in the MDR designation, the lot sizes proposed in the first phase along
the north boundary are not compatible in size and provide a poor transition to existing lots. The
proposed lots in Phase I are mostly 4,000 square feet(or 0.09 acre), while the abutting existing lots
in Zebulon Heights and Champion Park subdivisions are 0.25+ acre in size. The transition from
proposed to existing homes along the north boundary range from a 2:1 to a 5:1 transition.A better
transition in lot sizes should be provided. No buffering or screening is proposed.
The lot sizes proposed along the eastern boundary in Phase II are much larger/wider and range
from a 1:1 to 1:4 transition.A better transition in lot sizes should be provided in this area as well.
No buffering or screening is proposed.
The transition/lot configuration to the south and west is adequate as the lots are turned
perpendicular to the existing lots.
• `Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00)
The proposed and existing adjacent uses are all single-family residential, which should be generally
compatible with each other; however, the lot sizes proposed along the north and east boundaries are
not compatible with abutting residential lot sizes and may present conflicts due to not enough
transition in lot sizes.
• "Support infill development that does not negatively impact the abutting, existing development.
Infill projects in downtown should develop at higher densities,irrespective of existing
development." (2.02.02C)
The proposed infill development will likely negatively impact abutting homeowners to the north and
future homeowners in this development along the eastern boundary in Phase II as there is not a
compatible transition in lot sizes in these areas. Staff recommends the Commission and Council
consider testimony from these homeowner's in determining if the proposed development will
negatively impact the abutting existing development(see letters of public testimony from neighbors).
• "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the
extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of
Meridian Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A)
The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems with development of the
subdivision;services are required to be provided to and though this development in accord with
Page 5
current City plans.
• "Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D)
A 10 foot wide multi-use pathway connection is required between N. Conley Ave. and N. Rogue
River Ave. in accord with the Pathways Master Plan. This pathway will provide a link between
Champion Park and Zebulon Heights subdivisions.
• "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G)
Urban sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided
with development of the subdivision.
• "Eliminate existing private treatment and septic systems on properties annexed into the City and
instead connect users to the City wastewater system; discourage the prolonged use of private
treatment septic systems for enclave properties."
If annexed, the existing home will be required to abandon the existing septic system and connect to
the City wastewater system.
• "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels
within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02)
Development of the subject infill parcel will maximize public services.
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. ANNEXATION(AZ)
The Applicant proposes to annex 8.20 acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and
exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City's Area
of City Impact boundary.
A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is
proposed to be subdivided and developed with 28 single-family residential detached dwelling units at a
gross density of 3.42 units per acre(see Sections VIII.B, E).
Single-family detached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per
UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table
11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district.
This partially developed property is an enclave surrounded by existing and future single-family
residential detached homes to the north(Zebulon Heights), south and west(Champion Park) and those in
the development process to the east(Delano). As noted above in Section V,development of infill
properties is supported provided it doesn't negatively impact the abutting, existing development.
Because of the lack of adequate transition in lot sizes to the north,the proposed development will
likely negatively impact abutting property owners.Additionally,the lack of transition in lot sizes
along the east boundary will likely negatively impact the future owner of Lot 4,Block 3. Therefore,
changes to the development plan are necessary to provide a better transition in lot sizes in these
areas.Letters of testimony have been submitted by some of the adjacent existing residents
requesting a better transition in lot sizes and density is provided.
One option would be to"down-zone"to R-4,which would require minimum lot sizes of 8,000 s.f.
instead of 4,000 s.f.,and a minimum street frontage of 60 feet instead of 40 feet,which would be
result in larger,wider lots for greater compatibility with existing abutting lots.However,with the
amount of right-of-way being provided with the extension of three (3)existing stub streets,the
Page 6
retention of the existing home,and the provision of the required common open space,this would
bring the gross density of the development below the minimum desired in the MDR designation.
Another option would be to stay with the R-8 zoning and reconfigure the lots along the north
boundary in Phase I so that wider lots are provided in that area resulting in larger,fewer lots for a
better transition; and add lots in Phase II resulting in smaller,narrower lots for a better transition
to existing abutting properties—Staff prefers this option as the density should still be consistent
with the MDR designation and the zoning would be consistent with that to the south,west and
east. Staff recommends the Applicant make these changes to the plat& submit revised plans at
least 15 days prior to the City Council hearing.A draft should be submitted to Staff prior to the
Commission hearing demonstrating how these changes would affect the overall density and
transition to adjacent properties.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to
Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with
the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP):
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 28 building lots and 6 common lots on 8.20 acres of land in
the proposed R-8 zoning district. Proposed lots range in size from 4,000 to 57,541 square feet(s.£) (or
0.09 to 1.32 acres). The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 3.42 units per acre. The subdivision
is proposed to develop in two (2)phases as shown in Section VIII.B.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements: There is an existing home and several outbuildings on the
property that are proposed to remain until development of Phase 2.With development of Phase 2,all of
the existing structures will be removed except for the existing home,which will remain on Lot 3,Block
3. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the second phase final plat, all existing structures that
do not conform to the setbacks of the district are required to be removed.
Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2): The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to
comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table I1-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The
proposed plat appears to comply with the dimensional standards of the district.
Access: Access is proposed from the extension of existing local stub streets (i.e.N. Conley Ave.,N.
Rogue River Ave. and E. Jasmine St.)from the south,north and east.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B): No street buffers are required per UDC Table 11-2A-6 for internal local
streets. Common open space landscaping is proposed as shown on the landscape plan in Section VIII.C.
There is a total of 176 existing trees on the site totaling 2,232.5 caliper inches(see existing tree
inventory and plan in Section VIII.D). A total of 1,520 caliper inches are proposed to remain with 712.5
caliper inches proposed to be removed. A total of 391 caliper inches are required for mitigation as set
forth in UDC 11-3B-IOC.5; a total of 170 is provided,which is 221 less than required. Staff
recommends one(1)2-inch caliper tree is provided in the front and back yards of each building lot
toward the mitigation requirement,which would leave 109 caliper inches remaining that could be
provided in common lots,or Alternative Compliance could be requested to this standard for the
remaining mitigation trees(see UDC 11-5B-5 for more information).
Landscaping is required along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C; the
landscape plan should be revised accordingly.
Page 7
Common Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G-3): A minimum of 15% (or 1.23 acres based on
8.20 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided in this development per the standards listed in
UDC 11-3G-3.
An open space exhibit was submitted that depicts 1.23 acres (15%)common open space for the
development(see Section VIII.E). Three(3)of the six(6)common open space lots(i.e. Lot 6,Block 2
and Lots 1 &5,Block 3) are open grassy areas of at least 5,000 square feet(s.f.)in area and qualify
toward the minimum standards. Lot 1,Block 1 does not qualify; however,if the sidewalk is detached
in this lot and an 8-foot wide landscaped parkway is provided,it would qualify per UDC 11-3G-
3B.4.
Although Lot 15,Block 1 and Lot 11,Block 2 meet most of the quality standards for open space
areas listed in UDC 11-3G-3A,these areas do not demonstrate integration into the development as
a priority and appear to be"leftover" areas that aren't developable as building lots and don't meet
the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B.Lot 15,Block 1 could qualify toward
the open space requirement if an additional 70 s.f.is added to the lot in accord with UDC 11-3G-
3B.1a.Lot 11,Block 2 could qualify if 715 s.f.is added to the common lot in accord with UDC 11-
3G-3B.1a; or, a community garden could be added to the existing lot in accord with UDC 11-3G-
3B.1; or, a minimum 20' x 20' plaza could be added to the existing lot,including hardscape,
seating,lighting in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.1.The plans should be revised as recommended by
Staff to meet the minimum qualified open space standards.
Based on the area of the plat, a minimum of one(1)point of site amenity is required per the standards
listed in UDC 11-3G-4B. The Applicant proposes amenities consisting of a dog waste station on Lot 15,
Block 1 and a picnic area with a shelter and table and bench seating on Lot 6,Block 2,totaling 2.5
points, exceeding the minimum standard.
Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts a multi-use pathway across this site connecting from the
pathway along N. Conley Ave. at the south boundary to the pathway along Rogue River at the north
boundary. In accord with the Plan,a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway should be provided within a
14-foot wide public pedestrian easement; only a 5-foot wide sidewalk is proposed. Staff
recommends the plat is revised to include a minimum 20-foot wide common lot to the south of Lot
1,Block 2 to provide a pathway connection from the existing pathway on the east side of Conley
Ave.to the south to the common area on Lot 6,Block 2. This will be safer than running the
pathway along the front of the building lots along Conley and Eagle View. Staff further
recommends the multi-use pathway be extended through the common area on Lot 1,Block 3 and
Lot 2,Block 3 and connect to the existing pathway to the north. The landscape plan should be
revised to include this pathway and an easement should be submitted and recorded prior to the
City Engineer's signature on the final plat.Note: The Applicant submitted a revised conceptual plat
that includes the 20 foot wide common lot for a pathway as recommended by Staff.
Sidewalks(11-3A-17): Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed within the development in
accord with UDC standards.
Waterways: The Nourse Lateral runs off-site along the northern boundary of the site. Staff did not
receive a response from Settler's Irrigation District on whether or not an easement exists on this property
for the lateral. If it does, it should be depicted on the plat and no encroachments allowed within the
easement area.
Utilities(UDC 11-3A-21): Connection to City water and sewer services is required in accord with UDC
11-3A-21. The existing home proposed to remain on Lot 3,Block 3 is required to connect to City water
and sewer service within 60 days of it becoming available as set forth in MCC 9-1-4 and 9-4-8.
Street lighting is required to be installed in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and
ordinances.
Page 8
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15): Underground pressurized irrigation water is required
to be provided to each lot within the subdivision as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15.
Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments
in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.Design and construction shall
follow best management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18.
Building Elevations: Five(5)conceptual building elevations were submitted that demonstrate what
future homes in this development will look like(see Section VIII.F). A mix of single-story, single-story
with a bonus room and 2-story homes are proposed. All of the floor-plans for-the proposed elevations
depiet a width of 40 feet for-the homes whieh will not fit on at least 19 of the proposed lots and
meet the required side yar-d building setbaeks of 5 feet on eneh side a minimum lot width of 50
feet would be needed in order-to neeommodate the proposed homes.With 30 foot wide homes,the
elevations will be very gar-age dominated; the narrow lots will also not aeeomodate very mueh on
street par-ldng,whieh is always a eoneer-n. Some of these issues should be alleN4ated with the lot
eonfigur-ation ehanges r-eeommended by Staff.Prior-to the Commission hearing, Staff r-eeommends
eoneeptual elevations are submitted for-homes that will fit on all of the proposed lots.
VII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed annexation with the requirement of a Development
Agreement,and preliminary plat per the provisions in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section
X.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on October 20,2022 (continued
from August 18,2022 and September 1 and 15,2022).At the public hearing,the Commission
moved to recommend approval of the subject AZ and PP requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. hi favor:Nicolette Womack and Teller Bard,Applicant's Representative; Kyle Enzler
(Applicant/Property Owner)
b. In opposition or Commenting: Leon Johnson; George Fullmer;Mike Bernard,Mike
Bernard;Alan Dixon,Roger Britton,Charlene Britton; Carol Windle; Mike McGoughh;
George Windle
c. Written testimony:Nicolette Womack,Applicant's Representative
d. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
e. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) testimony
a. Concerns pertaining to extra traffic this development will generate through existing
neighborhoods and safety of area children;
b. Proposed lot sizes aren't compatible with those in adjacent existingdevelopments;
evelopments;
c. Request for property to be annexed with R-4 zoning and require minimum lot sizes
consistent with adjacent lot sizes;
d. Request for 2-story homes along north boundary to not have any windows on the second
story that would look into adjacent sin lg e-story home lots;
e. Require traffic calming measures in area streets to slow traffic for safety-
f. Request for water trucks to be provided during construction to mitigate dust and for
trailers and vehicles to be parked on-site and not in adjacent developments;request for
existing stub streets on Rogue River&Conley to be closed until construction
commences;
g. Concern pertainingto o the pathway i�pine Pointe that many adults and children use to
access the subdivision amenities and concerns pertaining to safety of those using it;
Page 9
h. Install caution lights for children's safety in high traffic areas;
i. Developer is agreeable to not providing windows on the second story homes
overlooking adjacent lots at the northwest corner and minimize front setbacks in order
to provide larger back yards with greater building setbacks from rear property line.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Desire for the Applicant to revise the plat to have fewer building lots and retain more of
the existingtrees;
rees;
b. Desire for fewer lots to be provided along the northern boundary and more lot provided
along the eastern boundary for a better transition to existing properties;
C. Desire for the mitigation trees required in back yards to be placed strategically to screen
adjacent properties;
d. In favor of no windows on second story homes overlooking adjacent lots at the
northwest corner&minimize front setbacks in order to provide largeryards with
greater building setbacks.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Approval with the inclusion of DA provisions that prohibit any windows on the second
story of homes that face north along the northern boundary of the subdivision west of
Rogue River in Block 1; and the developer to encouragekyard landscaping to assist
in buffering to the larger homes/lots to the north.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
Page 10
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
A Description for
R-8 Zone
March 4,2D22
All of Lut 4. Slock 1. da;si pin Acres Subdivisiori as filed in Ewk 59 of Plats at
Pages 5829 and 5830, records of Ada County, Idaho, Iocate6 in the Northeast 1f4 of
the Southeast 114 and the Northwest 114 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 32, Township
4 North, Flange 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more particularly
d 4Fft,o As FolloWS'
BEGINNING at the Center 1/4 corner of said Section 32 from which the 114
corner common to Sections 32 and 33,T,4N., R,1 E., B-IM_,hears North 39"39'12"East,
2,657.16 feet;
thence on the east-west centerline of said Section 32 coincident with the south
boundary Hine of Zebulon Heights Subdivision No.2 as filed In Book 99 of Plats at
Pages 12772 Ihrough 12774, records of Ada County, Idaho, North 89039'12'East,
903.13 feet to the westerly boundary lino of Delano Subdivision No. 1 as filed in Scok
121 of Plats at Pages 19124 through 19128, records of Ada County,Idaho;
thence on said westerly boundary line the following two(2)courses and
distances;
South 01 bi 0'06'West,611.26 feet;
South 13°07'46*West,60.01 feet to the northerly boundary line of
Champlon Park Subdlvfsion No_3 as flled in Book 93 of Plats at Pages
11149 through 11153,records of Ada County, Idaho;
thence on said northerly boundary line the following five (5)oourses and
d(stances:
North 63103'48" West, 177.52 feet;
North 70°46'48' West, 121.52 feet;
North 78'20'48" West, 160.92 feet-A
North 66'06'48" West,263.74 feet;
xG>G N 8 —
A
top €Y � 0
[gyp F OF %Dot
McGK
Pair.1 of�
Page 11
North 65'12V48"Vilest, 72.27 feet to the Northeast corner of Lot 18, Block 17
.Df Champion Park Subdivision No.2 as flled in Book 89 of Plats all.Pages
10374 through 10377, records of Ada Oounty, Idaho;
thence on the northerly boundary line of said Champion Park Subdivision No. 2
the follUwirkU fuuf (4) uuurses Ead distimes
North 6502048" Wcst, 38.74 foot;
North 53012'48" West. 154.82 feet:
North 29045'48" West, 43:31 feet;
North 1 Y05'48" Nest, 107.13 feet to the east-west centerline of said
Section 32 coincident Mth the south boundary line of Heritags Subdivision
No_2 as fiIW in Book 23 of Plats at Pages 1452 and 1453, records of Ada
l ounly, Idaho;
theme on said south boundary line, North 89°54'08' East, 90,32 feet to the
to the REAL POINT Of BEGINNING.
Containing 8.200 acres,more or less.
End of Description.
NL LAVO
G N ,s0
r�
11779
MV �z' °
Pale 2 of 2
Page 12
N Scale: 1"=200'
0 50 100 200 400
BASIS OF BEARING
N69'39'12"E 2657.16'
HERITACE w Q
SUB. NO. 2 3
N89'54'08'E ZE'BULON HEIGHTS ZEBULON HEIGHTS
90.32' SUB. NO. 2 �¢ SUB. NO. 2
C-1/4 77�N89'39'12"E 903.13' t 1/4.
1754.03' v 5.32 5.33
N13'O5'48"W Real Point j
of Beginning it
107.13' J
N29'45'48'W �5 r6�j uj
43.31' 352 82' tB.200 ACRES
�, NsS�s'ae"w o
CHAMPION PARK h 72,27' 10
Z
SUB. NO. 2 N65'26'48'W �/ o Aa
38.74' 18 +Y662' A r
to
e'
41 k 7870'4$"W
= N70'46'48'w 121.52' �6303q$ E. JASMINE LN.
W
516'07'46"W
CHAMPION PARK 50.91'
SUB. NO. 3
�} �pL LpAID
d 9 z P:13616 JwSYixE�N 21-125\tl"g\21125 AnneKotion—d V4/—k3a 1Y vu
N V a Exhibit Drawing for J b A..
IDAH❑
°°9,rI�OF °Pow SURVEY p�goµ wm R-8 ZONE Sheet No
Or'7 MCC GROUP,GROUP LLC Lal 4. 9lock 1, Jasmine Acres.Located In the NO/4 of the SE1 4&the 6w9.10ate
NW1/4 of the SEl/4 of Section 32. TAN..ME. 9.N..Ada C—ly,Idaho 3/4/N22
Page 13
B. Preliminary Plat,Existing Conditions &Phasing Plan(dated: 11/07/2022)
KINGSTOWN SUBDIVISION JI
PRELIMINARY PLAT
••4f1 rl".i f"ff�4n'r':f' .a m APORTION OF7HE SE j OF SECTION 32,7ONMSHIP4
1-11 NOR-rR RANGE 1 EAST ..
'.4-`•i^f- .9i:# rc.r_. WRIDLAN.ADA COUNW.IDAHO
H�I.E
r21
�I
aK
:: --
� e
a
;. . . :..... _. .
.• Uo ° x
r� •Q, g x
0.4.•.
.e
Page 14
I �
i� n �• ri b �� /'
.sue ...t I. — Yr� ICI , '�+ • �T
�4 u^e�� m .v mad g I � •IOUi•
j,
e e :MA
Page 15
Updated Conceptual Plat&Nei hb�orina Parcels Exhibit:
F--i
,. j A j I. j
\ o
x , _
WNGSTOYIM SUBDIVISION LOTi1NGADJUSTMEW
CON01]1QU BUILDING LOT COBW
ORIGINAL CONCEPT LOM 1 11
vEW fqN CEE7 LOTS
Kimiey>»Horn KINGSTOWN SUBDIVISIONADJUSTMENT
\
Kimley*Horn KINGSTOWN SUBDIVISION
Page 16
C. Landscape Plan(dated: 11/07/2022) NOT APPROVED OrEEDC TO RF REALISED)
wi muw ��� wWC•Y1� dl1FJ2 F•F1OPc11
.� ' QD a W165LA=E.+R.^.i-�i
O O O 4-S�
a...d.Mcwcr�
IY
f G ® o
_ r �'� • 1111 �a � � S E
111II.
II'::
dR
1 � a❑ 3
cxrrha�wriacAowar�ouxe�rm iO'°"�^° Ij
L; P111Y
—w 0 �+re
maw
Page 17
D. Existing Tree Inventory&Plan
2:5 Z
Mm
2.MP77tw- IN
PC q
T.-
ZZI.:
:Z1.:
m
-4-
gm M;=
_7
Page 18
l-�••'yB6 ._I L— —1_'_L——L•� I I � � � ��LJ,' ......,�...,.o�..a..m ��
TREE PHOTEC-NOTE^
�; sr 'gym
LI
� � d
g w
' � o
s
x
w
o.igNlwn
i
of n o�
Page 19
E. Open Space Exhibit(dated: 6/16/22)—REVISED(dated: 10/22)
OW�ELOPER
frv.ff uun � ter✓.?,xa[r.�.
LaYoscnaE ARM=T
a
EEACER sm-W Cr. q
r
1
5
rn�wiox oPEn sPnrF au�1E nrenr REouIREwErra m
} x
rorK M[M n...cefm�no[0. a9Y e. I —
i
o a
pN�. .�kM sem.a ram:
o aaa arn� a.
w
TIEI
U �
Y
!&anaf tf 0.wFlEoaKY PACE[
f Iff��,lYIWDAJ'Rwxuo ar�iv:.Ar rfftf�z✓Am A.wi ' r��'�'�"„
Nu.�E
45sd]
Page 20
11 �r�■■
m
====== --========= --___----------------=___-----=
=====_ ==_==- =-----------==-====-=--_______
----===========================--
__ ■= ___----- =_== -=_____-_-_-_- _----
Ell
nMRS
o Em
IN m
FM-
�C
�I
0 0
e a
oa D
/ Uw
MOLD
00
- - - - - - - - - - - - - M
tIA nj " ❑
u ❑
�— -----------------------------------------------------
a n oll
o — — — -------- A2
I'
ii
Page 22
,o®
- - - - __ —
0
on
0
r r r
E1.2
---- - - --
IS
4170 FMYj `
ll
11
ill
i=i-L�oHilli
000. v d
- __- - - -- Q m
�z-
❑ m
o-a-, ❑
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- F,
"a-- - - - - - --
A2
Page 23
O-FIT-_-_-_- -_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_- -_-- _-_-_-_-_-_-
- - - - - - - - -
_-_-_-_-_-
- - - ---- - --- -- ---- - ------------
e�
..
------------------------ ------------
A3
Page 24
®® < o00
s"Ile
mw �
�z•-
h�
Ll
MINM
0�'
------------
7�i
0 .
- - - - - - -
Ent n
m 71 ® � m
M¢m
Y Y
�z-
M-,a
❑ "
as - ----- El
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
��- - - --------------------
F n in on
A3
Page 25
Of-✓
- - - - -- U�_
\ 9 0>
- -Im�I - - - - - - --
Q1
000
00o mom°
ED
❑m B
❑0;E] FOIE]El-
----------------- --
2A20
Padd r - - - - n=
W�
U w-
�PR,a- - - - - - - - - - --
vat
❑
- - - - ❑
e e
----------- - -
w_a A3
Page 26
IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
Per the discussion in Section VI, Staff recommends the Applicant reconfigure the lots along the north
boundary in Phase I so that wider and fewer lots are provided in that area; and the lots in Phase II are
reconfigured and lots are added so that lots are smaller and narrower for a better transition to
existing abutting properties. Coneeptual building elevations should also be submitted for-the 40 foo
properties.wide lots that fit on the lots. The plat, eoneeptual elevations and other associated plans shall be revised
aeeor-dingty& submitted at least 15 days prior-to the City Couneil hearing.Coneeptual elevations and
a draft of the r-eAsed plat should be submitted to Staff prior-to the Commission hearing demonstrating
how these ehanges would affeet the over-all density and tFansition to adjaeent A revised
draft plat has been submitted that depicts three (3)fewer building lots along the northern boundary and two
(2) additional lots along the eastern boundary. The proposed conceptual building elevations should fit on
most of the reconfigured lots.
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to
approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian,the
property owner(s)at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA shall,
at minimum,incorporate the following provisions IF City Council determines annexation is in the
best interest of the City:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the preliminary plat,landscape
plan,common open space/site amenity exhibit and conceptual building elevations i
sown approved by City Council and the provisions contained herein.
b. The existing home on Lot 3,Block 3 shall be required to connect to City water and sewer service
within 60 days of it becoming available and disconnect from private service, as set forth in MCC
9-1-4 and 9-4-8.
c. There shall be no windows on the second story of homes that face north toward Zebulon Heights
subdivision along the northern boundary of the proposed subdivision west of N. Rogue River
Ave. in Block 1;
d. The developer shall encourage backyard landscaping to assist in bufferingthe lots and
homes to the north.
2. The final plat shall include the following revisions:
a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral,which runs off-site along the northern boundary of
this property, if it encroaches on this property.
b. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot along the south side of Lot 1,Block 2 for a multi-
use pathway connection from Conley Ave. through the common areas on Lot 6,Block 2 and Lot
1,Block 3 to the pathway along the east side of Rogue River Ave. See Park's Department
comments &diagram in Section IX.E.
d. Increase the size of Lot 15,Block 1 by 70 square feet to meet the qualified open space standard
of 5,000 square feet in UDC 11-3G-3B.la.
3. The landscape plan submitted with the final plat shall include the following revisions:
Page 27
a. Depict a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway from the existing pathway along N. Conley Ave. at the
south boundary to the existing pathway along N. Rogue River Way at the north boundary as
required by the Park's Dept.with landscaping along the pathway in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-12C. See Park's Department comments &diagram in Section IX.E.
b. Provide one(1)2-inch tree in the front and back yards of all building lots and an additional 109
caliper inches of trees on the site in common areas in accord with the mitigation standards listed
in UDC 11-3B-IOCS; or, apply for Alternative Compliance to this standard(see UDC 11-5B-5
for more information).
c. Depict a detached sidewalk with an 8-foot wide parkway and landscaping per the standards
listed in UDC 11-313-7C on Lot 1,Block 1 in order for the lot to count toward the minimum
qualified open space requirement.
d. Depict a minimum 20-foot wide common lot along the south side of Lot 1,Block 2 containing a
10-foot wide multi-use pathway connection from Conley Ave. through the common areas on Lot
6,Block 2 and Lot 1,Block 3 to the pathway along the east side of Rogue River Ave. Depict 5-
foot wide landscape strips on each side of the pathway planted in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.
e. Increase the size of Lot 15,Block 1 by 70 square feet to meet the qualified open space standard
of 5,000 square feet in UDC 11-3G-3B.Ia.
f. Lot 11, Block 2 does not meet the qualified open space standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B—the
plans should be revised to comply through one of the following options: 1)add 715 s.f to the
common lot in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.Ia; or,2)include a community garden in the
common lot; or, 3)include minimum 20' x 20' plaza in the common lot,including hardscape,
seating, and lighting in accord with UDC 11-3G-3B.1.If the lot is enlarged, the plat shall also
be amended accordingly.
4. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Phase 2, all existing structures that do not
conform to the setbacks of the R-8 zoning district shall be removed.
5. Prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat for Phase 1, a 14-foot wide public pedestrian
easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division and recorded for the multi-use pathway as
required by the Park's Department.
6. Submit a detail of the proposed shelter on Lot 6,Block 2 with the final plat application.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 Sewer must connect to the north through Rogue River Ave and not from the south. This is a
different sewer shed.
1.2 Sewer does not need to be provided to and through to parcel to the east. Provide sewer mains to
eastern boundary only as needed for development.
1.3 Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches
1.4 Dead-End runs of sewer need a slope of 0.60%
1.5 Must include callouts to remove water blow-offs.
1.6 Water main connecting north and south properties must to be 12".
1.7 Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings, carports,trash receptacle walls, fences,
infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within water/sewer easements.
Page 28
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right
of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for
a single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but
rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The
easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed
easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked
EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for
review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO
NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be
submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation
and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches,canals,laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per
UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207
and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells
in the development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their
abandonment.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures
and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,
road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision
shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities,etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
Page 29
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy
of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance
surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set
forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.17 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure
that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district
or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed
in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a
certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.19 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and
approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the
project.
2.20 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy
of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.21 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for
duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
Page 30
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=267776&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCity&cr
=1
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
No comments at this time.
E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=267942&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX&
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=272212&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=269309&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES(ACDS)
https://weblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIlDocView.aspx?id=269136&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
H. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
No comments were received from WASD.
I. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancitE.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=269137&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiCE&cr
=1
X. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The Commission finds the Applicant's request to annex the subject property with R-8 zoning and
develop single-family detached dwellings on the site at a gross density of 3.17 units per acre is
consistent with the density desired in the MDR designation for this property. However, the layout of
the preliminary plat proposed with the annexation does not provide an adequate transition in lot sizes
to abutting properties to the north in Phase I or in Phase H as discussed above in Sections V and VI.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 and development generally complies
with the purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of
housing opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Page 31
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and
welfare;
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment should not be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare as the proposed residential uses should be compatible with adjacent single-family
residential homes/uses in the area.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any
political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not limited to,
school districts; and
The Commission finds City services are available to be provided to this development. Comments
were not received from WASD on this application so Staff is unable to determine impacts to the
school district.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
The Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the city if revisions are made
to the development plan as recommended.
B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6)
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the decision-
making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
The Commission finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC and the
Comprehensive Plan if the Applicant revises the development plan to provide a better transition in
lot sizes to abutting properties.
2. Public services are available or can be made available ad are adequate to accommodate the proposed
development;
The Commission finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be
adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's capital
improvement program;
The Commission finds there are no roadways, bridges or intersections in the general vicinity that
are in the IFYWP or the CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
The Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
The Commission finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety
or general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005,
eff. 9-15-2005)
The Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that need to
be preserved with this development.
Page 32
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
Kimley))) Horn
Expect More.Experience Better.
-I _ s .
6
Applicant
TELLER BARD, PE NICOLETTE WOMACK, AICP
-JL 40 Kimley-Horn Kimley-Horn
Boise, Idaho Boise, Idaho
IAN CONNAIR, PE
Kimley-Horn
;.� Boise, Idaho
aw .
AWJ
As a second generation builder
®a and fourth generation Idahoan ! .
family, our team is dedicated to �
m .
4 preserving the quality of life that
0 " f
Boise offers. Our roots run deep in
Idaho and so does our
commitment to building safer,
. a^ . more energy efficient homes for
4 our family and yours. Living every
day with purpose and oody�� 1° y
- _ Y p p g --
w .
intention is the Idaho way. `
r
F -i
Before You Tonight
• Annexation & Rezone
• Annex into City, assign zoning
• Preliminary Plat
• Plat parcels for individual sale
• Development Agreement
• Apply specific conditions
Timeline
OCT 72020 — MAY 2021 — NOV 2021 — APRIL 2022 — JUN 2022 —
Purc Pre-Application Pre-Application Neighborhood ApplicationHom Meeting Meeting Meeting Submitted
SEPT 2022 — OCT 2022 — NOV 2022 —
Revised Plans P&Z Hearing CC Hearing
areFi7 r •vv�ivi .� ,i� .��titi;�i •ram �*
E S,tao r r D. rrl / a. a Y •� r�_.
ram, .�. .r _ = � •� - � � 4* '..-- ,ry ,-, 4
a 4 T,e$Z.rI -S,CtJst ' +V' 1y`r��, S.. .
N tom. �L1r�k�\ ..�D— -� �flragePL• jE.a' —
^ •E�;Sc�re' n Pr m
E+Paradisn
Nr
► �•. .w . r
f ' J h + +
-4. •it -
er ElLreigh'Fld'DrIt rr `y` . { . Kafetl Lee 'k� -v-,eIn
•F � � Dis`c'ipie Apparel '{� _ .tie;Br_
LIP
} y
awl o I
.5
k.
,r �Nokano,ar -- 4 HOb Lo,
f kv LP- �
#. ar��' rPQ4�frle$'SF11�i 8:S
Traxel:Wa.'Parkin9"�rrrera Sl _� ► a e'7d ClcIhingg :�;,�Brea 1
r � ? i jaIity Den PI 1S ..P �/ [e ��{`R '/:�y �I _
rj -Dick's J000run..05. jW.I Y
I 0.1) F _
-Le �..�.�
r5,rr ,,� - i� +. 4- k
rIlE 8
JR-n Ho
�' Q' � �rQ l�j�l7t
--mvm stickARd Rlstick R�
'St Week
De al6 S.0T"ers
� ' ..,. � v+EvTeca
EFSharpEa11 SI =
a ' f ESA m d r.Joe'
- ,a i rm Y �: r E�Picard Ln ,
a'
y;
Y
Y i
I J
Y.
W,
< - .1� 's�� J k .+' .ems•�` ���ro � � ,��
s M
-------------------------------------------
w
1
LLJ
I
E STAR LNG" OLL
-
rA
r— + ii�CL ' `.
S'7EzdP..
.0 Il
k'WAWWRIGHT DR
--------------,-----_—--:----
E EAGLE ti ' aallir
r 1 ti1tEW ST ;
J5 Lu
Q C •T E JASMINE ST
x G� WJASMINE Lf�ri.a
2 �� y
�w x R
ilo
_I
_ .. ---- - - ENAKANODR
4 ! BOWMAN ST �
SUf A46Y E GMERA ST—[ 7 �
coL a
E q E
INNER 5� x Q
`ti• tY
t fill#I11vRD W w w
SUM UJ
E VAN 4KEft ST ' x
klFhE��I Wq6 -xi O tSUMMER{' `w W
�} 9 E SUMNi�-,R DAWN❑Rt x OAWN ST- r
INfI'gERPLACE .
CT � ' T11!llfj�
--------------------------------- --------------------------- E-USTICFCLRD 4
E RiNGNECK ST ST a+
,�J IujI y1
F TECA'f1=
s ST z I 1' 'f� E i,
E NETLEY ST`'— y E PICAR[7 _ WCARD E plr,
DR x T E?�I�
i
I� x _� I -
a ------ - - - r y
� Off�c�N ETRAIL'Pr , - Y•-' �
-------------------- -
a �
F
� r41,%!,i
S- r O .
x Un '
�kr S.- WAINWRIGHT DR IF
-----=------------------------------------ ---- ---------------
t-IS�i
+ { ELEMENTARY " w4H VIEW ST a
LLI
E PAR . 4 E JASMINE ST €tFF ' 'ti ';-
E xG W JASMINE LI� _
W - ,
Lli
xa 4
TL
11GRfilfl
-� E FANG DR i_ An;dLA-A
BOWMAN ST
x SUfit —. .R GMERA 5F j
� r
CONNER SO CHAMPION PARK O dr
E SUMMERD,4 s n +
H W
m `
x J
w
fERFALL.S I3 M } SUMMER
Lqu
E SUMpd� a DAMN ST
x �
i ! LT
x 2
E SUMMERPLACE
I CT
' E USTICK-RD --------------------------- ---------------------------
E RINGNECIC.4-
E RINGNECK 57 - E RINGNECK SF ST r�'�5
Mfg
'+
SHARPT#tL SF
a a E
t NETLEY 5rt EPIC#R ' PICARO
._z. na I�.f•i` ti%SfLCT —
741
`. — .
I
HERITAGE ; ZEBULQN rent
.,, HEIGH -
y
^'13,000 sq ft lots
keral
~1 4w a
1 O H
.000 c 0
9
ot DELANO
n
{ r BRICKYARD
4 }� CHAM..PIO MULTI-FAMILY
N -
PARK -
i
-
+ t r a
w x
4 r
o
_ ALPINE
HERITAGEwri
POINT ZEBULON-
HEIGHTS s
* W Walnw* .�pr -a�
- i DELANO -
r
e'
BRICKYARD
CHAMPION
rt
.. P44
RK
. � -R
_ %-V Rildcypres� t
40; Completing the road & pedestrian network
APreservation of existing home
Retaining the existing landscaping
GTriangular shaped lot
Consistency with 4 adjacent varied subdivision
designs
I �
I L1MfL FEHC�![i —
.. MUM TREM
FHA8E uMT9 TO RSLUN.TIP.
scoac� +, 44440 {O�
>• I � � � I � i L � 1 T 1 � 1 � 1 � 1 � 7 3 i pdjq[�
1} kJ
a O
ELOG€ I s At y - '-"
O
} r v k� NtJrL FBiCNQ
Original
r
T
ff J f + f r BEn4i +� � �1 i5ejf�j 5' �,',Y��• ,;.;. ,
E BI E
TOPo3AMR T4P
ST� iSubm ■ ss ■ on j
Y
f{ ° o 9 Q
+ E-19M C3TREE8 O �1
Td REMIN.TYR.
Property Size: 8.2 acres
p Y
Total Units: 28 SFD wNVLFENC1W r
Density: 3.42 du/acre
Percentage Site for 20%
ROW Improvements:
I �
I
,tr YLLTWBE
MN'fL FENCM6 I PA-H1M.w
RU,S£LIYIT9
7FlEffi
TO REYlN,r'.
I
■ I I I I BIOC..Pf f l I I � �; �i
} r
i E EAGLE VIEW CT. x ❑
T ix fi O SUXK.T
�' r•f;f!'•`•� BLOCK 1 4 l T x* + __ I •:� > f..r Q
u - V-
VMULTWAX
f
r { �'r;�'�'��I�I�'r;�;�;�;�1
Revised r r . :_:__ PRT}11Y 4I i FENGYfii 4
r
t PATltrmv { f f a
Submission ......
p TpI1BAb1F{Twp
/ f PMNIC T1�BLE :•ti •••::
f AEG BffL7Eli � f • +} �•'':�������•
E■IMPd T TREES �J
TO REWHr•TYP.
Property Size: 8.2 acres
Total Units: 26 SFD VfnwL FEI.-21W
Density: 3. 17 du/acre
Percentage Site for 20%
ROW Improvements:
Imp-59'12'4Y
L
E E4GLE WEWCT.
14
BLIXK 3
12
is — { —� � � PHAS 2
j
,it Phasi ng � �
N
Phase 1 : 18 SFD: 4,000 9,272 sq ft lots
Phase 2: 1 Existing: SFD — 58,942 sq ft lot 50 9'
7 SFD: 8,541 —14,285 sq ft lots
NNf L FEHClLD N11lMLlY
yL � Huse Lure
EEAGLEYIEWCT. r ..
H�
X
Required Provided °�LF>
h wia Ef
PARNMY �2Zx
Qualified 53,571 SF 53,589 SF
Open Space (15%) (15%) a
Amenities 2 points 2.5 points
COMMON OPEN SPACE AND SITE AMENTY REQUIREMENTS
Landscaping 7 trees 106 trees* OR0.&P.-'AREd. 838 AG pEl,1�}6FF
Gftl� Pw�E RECUpED;iE%O7CB6 LWFC IJREAF E6,i71 BF 1M7,19T 9F,5'AI
OPEN 9PACE PAW DED LBEE C4LCULA'41,1 BELO" KIM13F I?W
QUALIFIED OPEN 6PACE OALCULATMTIIS vNtt vacwa
1 A.'-EOR PMSNE INIFI'ENDEDUBE 51,905 BF
TOTAL OPEN 6PACE F OAEE0. KAffi BF
QUALIFIED fRE AMENITEE
,WENi'Y POWE REOU RED{i PER 3RO*25 AC, 2I827ACf9�
,SMENRES PROADEL P[AIM
❑A PCNC ANEABW A MM HIT.%8M RF 6R WN E: 2
❑B DOCw sTE 9TATTCH BS
-0-AL nMEWR'Y POINTS FRGi.0 M 2A
OPEN LPACE LANDSCAPER EO UIREMENT2
TREES RECUIRE p e$OW SF 6F CLNL RED OPEN BPALEI, 71Mdrt5RF18XM
El_8'M-REES RE'ILNED N CLMMON OF918PAC£ �
MEWTRE68 PRCNCEC r tUAW MM"EPAfE 25
TRE
ES EES PR IN C GE OMED COMMON OPEN 9PA M+
-PRY"D-REE,B E Q W DE RECWREC WMOATICN TREES
IEEE PREL M WAY LANDWAPE PLAN AFC PRELMNARY TREE PRE9ERYATI3W PLANE
LEDEMD
PROPOB -ENSPACE
Caliper Inch No. Of Trees
��--^----Existing 27232.5 176 � � �= � -------
EE4GLEViEWGT.
a _2 n
Retained 17756 133
Percentage 79% to 76% to Ewl
LR�etained remain remain _ pQ
Y
rV
-:sue ;� o ■ n�_ s
s.1'.
PLANT SCHEDULE
EXISTING TREES BOTANICAL NAME QTY
ti
= EA sting trees to be removed 43
S ) Epsting trees to remain 133
A,
Willi
lOw -
---
Phase 1
_____ . _ ■��--Concepts
02
F5
�x
v
lal
i; 111 Lim,Oil L- --- —
p,.
ANNE
8
Phase 2 ConceptsI M-1 v "If
15�•
Height
Phasing
Circulation & Row Connectivity
Traffic Calming
Future Density Increases
Staff Report
• Reduce lots on the north , add lots in the south
• Existing home hook onto City utilities within 60 days
of becoming available
• Multi-use pathway through site w/ easement and
common lot
• Increase open space lot size and/or add amenity
• Additional trees in and front and back yard and in
common open space or seek Alternative
Compliance
• Detach sidewalk on Lot 1 , Block 1
PZC Feedback
• No windows on second story of homes facing north in Block 1
• Encourage backyard landscaping to buffer lots to the north
Requested Action
• Approval of the Annexation , Rezone & Preliminary Plat
wvr
��m
40' Completing the road & pedestrian network
APreservation of existing home
Retaining the existing landscaping
Incorporating a county outparcel
�QF Completing utility connections
Comprehensive Plan Compliance
"Permit new development only where it "Avoid the concentration of any one
"Encourage diverse housing options "Encourage a variety of housing types can be adequately served by critical housing type or lot size in any
suitable for various income levels, that meet the needs,preferences,and public facilities and urban services at the geographical area;provide for diverse
household sizes,and lifestyle financial capabilities of Meridian's time of final approval,and in accord with housing types throughout the City."
preferences."(2.01.01) present and future residents."(2.01.02D) any adopted levels of service for public (2.01.01 G)
facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
"Require all new development to create "Support infill development that does not
"Consider incentives such as density
a site design compatible with negatively impact the abutting,existing
"Encourage compatible uses and site bonuses,reduced open space
surrounding uses through buffering, development. Infill projects in downtown
design to minimize conflicts and requirements,and reduced fees for infill
screening,transitional densities,and should develop at higher densities,
other best site design practices." maximize use of land."(3.07.00) development in key areas near existing irrespective of existing development."
(3.07.01A) services.' (2.02.02B)
"Ensure development is connected to
City of Meridian water and sanitary "Eliminate existing private treatment and
sewer systems and the extension to and "Require pedestrian access in all new "Require urban infrastructure be septic systems on properties annexed
through said developments are development to link subdivisions provided for all new developments, into the City and instead connect users
constructed in conformance with the City together and promote neighborhood including curb and gutter,sidewalks, to the City wastewater system;
of Meridian Water and Sewer System connectivity."(2.02.01 D) water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G) discourage the prolonged use of private
Master Plans in effect at the time of treatment septic systems for enclave
development."(3.03.03A) properties."
"Maximize public services by prioritizing "Require new development to establish "Require pedestrian access connectors
infill development of vacant and street connections to existing local roads "Plan for connectivity between annexed in all new development to link
underdeveloped parcels within the City and collectors as well as to parcels and county enclaves that may subdivisions together and to promote
over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02) underdeveloped adj
acent properties." develop at a higher intensity."(3.03.04A) neighborhood connectivity as part of a
(6.01.02C) community pathway system."(6.01.01 H)
47' PROP-
R/W
16.5, B/c 16.5, B/c
r/w
2% s/v�
_
it I III I III I _ I I III I III I �
IIII PROP. 3 = I I I 1 I I PROP. 3'
:ROLL CURB _ = _ _ = = - 11-III= = ROLL CURS- 1
III I III I FR', _ III I III I I -wATE
SEWER
(SECTION!4)
STANDARD LOCAL STREET
N.T.S.
by Llig,Ho
' --Rmblm
-
` &C kim
T
ip
r
P IL
+'t •� 1 F I ,
�* r
f
}Athway
DOI
r E +
L+ '_ I d,
Ab ; ,
• r+ 41• -
t Par k ad
ROVE, ' 4 r
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
Chrk cctap io-draw a nwa&urem@ri hre. Double-di"p to finr#h, �C
■
t
ORANGE SHOWS •
� C' „ * y More examples found
11111
VARIANCES AND '*#* ` since 25 Aug 2022 —
DEVIATIONS FROM * , -�
CURRENT ACHD POLICIES
AND SPECS WHEN LOCAL !
STREETS ARE USED AS 2:
COLLECTORS AND
APPROVED-BY- ACHD ELEM . -s �,� r#* k-
U�E ROUNDABOUTASchoolVARIANCES ON EXISTING ` + #* + #4
�,I 4 SCHOOLS nowt . i# " amain I
MSM COLLECTORS THUS Room for more
rM
CREATING POTENTIAL
CRITICAL POINTS,
NOT INCLUDING ALL ILI
DRIVEWAYS OUT OF
fr
F
SPECS.
Y
I'Z •�
-----------------..--.-.'-----.-------1
,t
t Z• -~ ; it :i r FrIAri'ruvY
PHASE 1 is an inappropriate
transition to Alpine Pointe
This should be R4 with R4 �•
set-backs and lots size 1 2 3 4
minimums 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81 9 ! 10
.-, y., q I �i•.. . •.a.-..• .* i Ir•1 ■c•. fYYii Rlh drK .
During P&Z Hearing Teller
Bard arepresentative of the
MN•4 y
applicant, twice testified
WEE,] r
that they could lose two ,. _- "
additional lots in phase one.
f
P.w#rl rr
r n
■ f
This would be only nine lots in Phase 1 , the smallest lot in Alpine Pointeto the North is 12960 SIF
not 18, and the lots are not a match-to-
match transition by a long shot. This is
about 4. 14 homes net density per acre in
x
Phase 1 , a much higher net density than 3 k"14F71
S
Champion Park and Alpine Pointe.
R-4 would require less open space
resulting in an additional 1/4 acre
somewhere (12% vs. 15%). This is not `` 90 x �100 lots minimum ' a difference } , {
our run of the mill infill and should have of a significanb3960 Sd, One story
special consideration to the surrounding ` or o e story w th front Bonus onl'
s
p �
neighborhoods re. appropriate LOT SIZE
vs. GROSS DENSITY musts.
The down-zone option to R-4 or R-2 is
more appropriate as it is better for the TWe southern lot�
surrounding neighborhoods. area closer
match Champi
Anything else should be a DENIAL of this ��, Park
project.
11111 rn.li �'
A. 34 Ri
11.f;
Iri.'S3'i
PHASE 2 could become a
whole different project with
R-8 Blanket Zoning for ALP� IE � IfTE
Modification 24 to 30 or
more homes possible for a _
total of nearly 50 homes on
- KINGSTOWN PHASE 1
8.2 acres. sET AT R-8, 18 homes
Make Phase 2 R4 also. IF
applicant wants large
_ ° ' "°
the a
p p 8
estate lots, why ask for R8? CHAMPION PA -�
This is the real goal, or at
least a fall back. y
This illustrates the main traffic flow.
Accepted Collectors are the thickest lines. "T
With this new connectivity we will need
mitigation and we should havea strategy in Madison
place to keep local traffic indeed LOCAL. Settlers Bridge Ipin P i to Par
f i
Alpine Pointe Commercial Phase 1 has the NO TRAFFIC CONNECTIONS
only mid-mile light and the only lane
leading north on Eagle exceptfor 7.8 N-C
Ustick/Eagle NB. The Commercial traffic
and heavy high density residential will find ;R_
a way to this light and will use it frequently ( 0000
all via local streets with front-on housing.
This developmentwill function as the ``
F�
missing spokes and will be the de facto
collectors in absence of the intended SCHOOLS and CIVIC c-
Commercial Collector at Centrepointto -PARCEL
Wainwright/Eagle, red-dashed line to east. !
Solid light blue is official MSM Residential Champion Park
Collector status. Thick red is the ■
Commercial Collector. Dashed dark blue
are local streets functioning at Full Mid-
Mile Collector status without the ACHD MSM Summerfield
designation and design.
We should not become an extension of $END THIS TO THE TRANSPOTATION COMMITTEE
Eagle Rd. and the arterial traffic as a
means of cut-through and convenience. - -