Loading...
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. - -