2022-12-06 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, December 06, 2022 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
Councilman Luke Cavener
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Mayor Robert E. Simison
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for S. Black Marlin Lane Vacation (H-2022-0078) by Damon Beard,
Arch PLLC, generally located just South of I-84 on the northwest corner of S.
Meridian Rd. and W. Overland Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0078
A. Request: to vacate the remainder of S. Black Marlin Ln., located within Lots
10 - 18, Block 1 of Interstate Center Subdivision.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Bernt, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
2. Public Hearing for Lost Rapids West (SHP-2022-0014) by KM Engineering,
generally located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd., 1/4 mile west of N. Ten
Mile Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2022-0014
A. Request: to re-subdivide one (1) building lot (Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5,
Block 1, Lost Rapids Subdivision) into two (2) building lots on 1.628 acres of
land in the C-G zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Perreault, Seconded by Councilwoman Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
3. Public Hearing for Ledges Business Center (SHP-2022-0015) by Kent Brown
Planning, located at 4120 N. Linder Rd. Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2022-0015
A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial office lot into two
(2) building lots on approximately 2.28 acres of land in the L-O zoning district
for ownership purposes.
Motion to approve made by Councilwoman Strader, Seconded by Councilman Hoaglun.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
4. Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave Yorgason,
Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Ln. and three (3) parcels to the
north and east, directly east of State Highway 16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at
the northern edge of the Meridian Area City Impact Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0059
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a
request for the R-4 (20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning districts.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10 common lots
on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning districts.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
5. Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren Bailey, Conger
Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1/2 mile south of the
Locust Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd.
Approved
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0064
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from
RUT to the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single-family
attached lots & 93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common lots on
approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning district.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman Perreault.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Bernt, Councilwoman Perreault, Councilman
Cavener, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT 9:04 p.m.
Meridian City Council December 6, 2022.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:11 p.m., Tuesday,
December 6, 2022, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Jessica
Perreault, Brad Hoaglun and Liz Strader.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Stacy Hersh, Tracy Basterrechea,
Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
X Jessica Perreault _X_ Luke Cavener
X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. For the record it is
December 6, 2022, at 6:11 p.m. 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 will all, please, rise and join us in
the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: And for the record Council Woman Perreault is here at 6:11 . Next item up is
the community invocation, which tonight will be delivered by David Reese of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. If you would all, please, join us in the community
invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection. David, nice to see you.
Reese: Our Heavenly Father, we are grateful at this season for the opportunity we have
to focus on friends, family, and loved ones. We are grateful for the spirit of giving that this
season brings. We are grateful for the many giving programs that are in effect in this
valley and we pray for success for them, that the needs of many may be met. We are
grateful for the opportunity to meet in Council this night. Grateful for those who work for
the benefit of the city, for the Mayor, the Council, for their staff and especially for our first
responders. We ask thy blessings upon them and also upon their families. Now we ask
thy blessings upon this proceeding that all who participate may do so in a spirit -- a spirit
of fairness and equity and perspective and good judgment. We ask these blessings in
the name of him who we celebrate at this season, even Jesus Christ, amen.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 2 of 58
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Thank you. Next up is the adoption of the agenda.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: We have no changes for this evening's agenda, so I move adoption 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: ALLAYES.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, did we have anybody sign up under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we had none.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing for S. Black Marlin Lane Vacation (H-2022-0078) by
Damon Beard, Arch PLLC, generally located just South of 1-84 on the
northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd. and W. Overland Rd.
A. Request: to vacate the remainder of S. Black Marlin Ln., located
within Lots 10 - 18, Block 1 of Interstate Center Subdivision.
Simison: Okay. Then with that we will move right into our Action Items this evening. First
up is Item 1, public hearing for South Black Marlin Lane Vacation, H-2022-0078. We will
open this public hearing with staff comments from Stacy.
Hersh: Good evening, Mayor and City Council. The applicant has submitted a vacation
application for South Black Marlin Lane. It's for the remainder of the private road and
utility easements. The site consists of approximately ten acres of land, zoned C-G,
generally located in the south of 84 in the northwest corner of South Meridian Road and
West Overland. It is the Roaring Springs Wahoo's property and the applicant proposes
to vacate the remainder of the private road and public utility easements for South Black
Marlin Way and a portion of West King Salmon Lane on Lots 10 through 18, Block 1, of
Interstate Subdivision. Interstate Subdivision -- sorry. Interstate Center Subdivision was
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 3 of 58
originally platted to be a business park with individual lots having access served by a
private loop road. Since, then, the subdivision has been developed into a single
recreation facility, which is the Wahoo's, Roaring Springs. The -- in 2006 the owner
recorded a document that eliminated the need for South Black Marlin Lane and West King
Salmon Lane. However, the city's process was not completed to formally vacate the
private road and applicable utility easements and in 2021 the applicant approached us
with his future expansion plans to Roaring Springs Water Park, which included new pools,
attractions, site work and operations buildings, mechanical building, additional cabanas,
food and beverage building and a new parking lot and upon further review it was
determined the roadway and the utility easements needed to be vacated to allow
expansion and the project was conditioned to complete this process prior to occupancy
of the first certificate of occupancy of the building. The applicant has submitted letters
from all potential easement holders who have all provided written consent agreeing to
vacate the easements. There was no written testimony and staff recommends approval
of the vacation of the private road and utility easements request as the applicant has
proposed and I stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Stacy. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Is the applicant
here? Are they online?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, they are. My apologies.
Simison: Okay.
Johnson: Mr. -- Mr. Callahan, you should be able to unmute.
Callahan: Can you hear me now?
Simison: Yes, we can.
Callahan: Got all the right buttons.
Simison: If you could state your name and address for the record, please.
Callahan: Craig Callahan. Quadrant Consulting. 1904 West Overland, Boise, Idaho.
And Stacy's done a great job of putting all this together and, basically, it's just cleaning up
stuff that was planned 25 years ago and isn't needed anymore. So, it's kind of a
paperwork process. Any questions about that?
Simison: All right. Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? No questions?
Thank you very much. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone who has signed up to provide
testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were none.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 4 of 58
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this
item? If so come forward at this time or use the raise your hand feature. Seeing nobody,
would the applicant like to make any final comments?
Callahan: This would be great to get cleaned up so we can finish building Roaring Springs
as a great added feature to the City of Meridian.
Simison: All right. Thank you very much.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Move that we close the public hearing.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we approve Item No. H-2022-0078.
Perreault: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item H-2022-0078. Is there
discussion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
2. Public Hearing for Lost Rapids West (SHP-2022-0014) by KM
Engineering, generally located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd.,
1/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile Rd.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 5 of 58
A. Request: to re-subdivide one (1) building lot (Lot 4 and a portion of
Lot 5, Block 1, Lost Rapids Subdivision) into two (2) building lots on
1.628 acres of land in the C-G zoning district.
Simison: Next item up is Item 2, which is a public hearing for Lost Rapids West, SHP-
2022-0014. We will open this public hearing with staff comments from Mr. Parsons.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. I should have let Stacy do the
next couple items she did such a good job on the first one. Next item on your agenda is
the Lost Rapids West short plat. If you recall, this was scheduled for a November hearing
and during that hearing it was -- right before the hearing I noticed that there was an issue
with the noticing and so we bounced this or renoticed this for this particular hearing this
evening. So, the short plat before you, again, consists of 1.63 acres of land. It's currently
zoned C-G in the city and it's actually a recorded lot and block subdivision in the Lost
Rapids Subdivision that was subdivided in 2021 , if I remember right. The -- the graphic
on the right-hand side is the short plat. Recently a property boundary adjustment was
approved and so this particular short plat is basically subdividing all of Lot 4, Block 1 , and
a portion of Lot 5, Block 1, which includes the added acreage and that was a discrepancy
that I noted in front of Council a couple weeks ago. I would also mention to you that all
the landscaping was installed with the Lost Rapids Subdivision, so there are no additional
landscape requirements for this particular project. Access is -- to this site is from -- from
a shared drive aisle that runs along the south boundary, but there is an access point that
was approved with the subdivision to Chinden in this general location. So, staff is
recommending that the lots take access from this driveway on the south and not have
any additional curb cuts or access into the driveway that comes off of Chinden Boulevard.
I did receive a written confirmation from the applicant that they are in agreement with the
conditions in the staff report and with that I will conclude my presentation and stand for
any questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant
like to come forward. Good evening.
Hopkins: Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. Stephanie Hopkins
with KM Engineering. 5725 North Discovery Way in Boise. I'm in agreement with the
staff report and the conditions of approval. Bill did a wonderful job of summarizing our
request. Don't have anything to add. So, I don't think I need the presentation either, but
I will stand for questions if you have any.
Simison: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much.
Hopkins: Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 6 of 58
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present or online who would like to provide testimony
on this item at this time? If so if you would like to come forward or use the raise your
hand feature. We only have Kristy from ACHD. So, I don't expect to have too many
raising the hands online. All right. Would the applicant like to make any final comments?
If not, do I have a motion?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that we close the public hearing for File No. HP-2022-0014.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I move that-- I move that we approve the short plat request with the conditions
in the staff report for SHP-2022-0014.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? If not, Clerk will call
the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much,
Stephanie. Nice to see you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
3. Public Hearing for Ledges Business Center (SHP-2022-0015) by Kent
Brown Planning, located at 4120 N. Linder Rd.
A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial office lot into
two (2) building lots on approximately 2.28 acres of land in the L-O
zoning district for ownership purposes.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 7 of 58
Simison: Next item up is Item 3, public hearing for Ledges Business Center, SH-2022-
0015. Open this public hearing with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item on the agenda is the
Ledges Business Center short plat. The site consists of 2.2 acres of land and currently
zoned L-O in the city and is located at 4121 -- excuse me -- 4120 North Linder Road.
There is history on this particular parcel. In 2006 it was annexed in with an L-O zoning
designation. Even though the Comprehensive Plan designates this for medium density
residential, at the time that it annexed in with the L-O designation they took advantage of
that provision in the Comprehensive Plan that allows for applicants to request an office
designation when they did an arterial roadway and meet a certain acreage count and so
that's why Council at the time granted the L-O zoning designation. As part of that
annexation request there was a subdivision that accompanied the L-O project, but the
applicant failed to process a final plat and record that final plat. So, therefore, we have,
essentially, office zoning with a development agreement on the subject property. So, right
now I'm -- we have worked with the applicant. There was one administrative approval
and I will share that with you. So, the graphic here on the right is an office lot that -- or
excuse me -- is a CZC that we processed in our office to approve the construction of a
two-story 20,000 square foot office building on Lot 1 , Block 1, which is the central lot here.
Since that time the applicant met with us and decided that they wanted to create the
second parcel and build a future office building on the site. I would mention to the Council
that there is an existing metal storage building on Lot 2, Block 1. Typically we don't allow
accessory structures to remain on a parcel without a primary use, but in this case in
working with the applicant and talking with the applicant, it is their intended use to at least
convert that at some point in the future and in the interim the office building that is on Lot
-- Lot 1, Block 1, will utilize that building for storage. So, in -- in our minds -- or at least in
-- in looking at the code we still feel that that meets the intent of the code and it is an
accessory building to the primary office building on Lot 1, Block 1 . As I mentioned to you
at some point it will be either converted or removed from the property when a second
building is proposed for the site. The only condition of approval that we added as part of
the short plat process was we wanted to make sure -- you can see this hashed out area
on the short plat. That's really the easement that shows cross-access between the two
lots. But we also wanted the applicant to amend the plat note -- just make mention that
there is also shared parking within the development. This site does have limited access,
because it fronts on an arterial. So, where you see the shared property line is the one
and only approved access point and this other northern access you see here was only
emergency access only. So, this will serve as the primary access to the development as
I mentioned to you. So, it's critical that we have a cross-access shared parking agreement
and that will be noted on the plat. I did receive comments from the applicant. They are
in agreement with all conditions of approval for the short plat. With that I will conclude
my presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff? Okay. Then ask the applicant
to come forward.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 8 of 58
Brown: I like recently I was told to be brief. I will be brief. For the record Kent Brown.
3161 East Springwood. We are in agreement with the conditions of approval. The office
building is built. The paving is done. Landscaping is done. It's just not subdivided yet.
So, we are looking for your approval. Stand for any question.
Simison: Thank you, Kent. Council, any questions for the applicant?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just real quick, Kent. Not an issue with the short plat, that sort of thing, but
there has been some complaints with neighbors about lighting from the existing facility
and I know planning is working on that, so I didn't know if you were aware of that or not.
Brown: No, I was not. Okay. I will talk to my clients.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Simison: Council, any other questions for the applicant? Or comments? All right. Thank
you very much. Mr. Clerk, anybody signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, there were no sign-ups.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to provide testimony on this
item? Kent, can I assume you waive your additional comments? Okay. Then with that
do I have a motion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I move that we close the public hearing.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay? I ayes have it in and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 9 of 58
Strader: It feels fairly straightforward and that we are processing the administrative
details behind decisions that were already made. With that in mind, after considering all
staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve File No. SHP-2022-0015 as
presented in the staff report for today's hearing date.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve Item 3. Is there any discussion? If
not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
4. Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave
Yorgason, Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Ln. and
three (3) parcels to the north and east, directly east of State Highway
16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the Meridian
Area City Impact
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land
with a request for the R-4 (20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning
districts.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10
common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested
zoning districts.
Simison: Thank you, Kent. And, Council, I really like the way we are kind of mixing up
taking turns tonight. This is really great. All right. Next item up is Item 4, public hearing
for Alden Ridge Subdivision, H-2022-0059. We will open this public hearing with staff
comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. Next item is Alden Ridge
Subdivision. It's applications for -- annexation and preliminary plat. Let's try that again.
So, where was -- where was I at? So, we will go on to size and -- and property, existing
zoning and location. So, the site consists of 21.7 acres of land, currently zoned RUT and
R-1 in -- in Ada county and it's directly located east of State Highway 16, north of Chinden
Boulevard. So, you can see here in the graphics that they are right on -- right on the
fringe of our area of city impact, which is unique. You can see the adjacent zoning to the
south we have annexed property that's currently R-8 and that was known as the Pollard
Subdivision and the reason why I bring that up because it comes into play on providing
access and utilities to this particular project. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 10 of 58
with you annexation of 24 -- 24.8 acres of land with the R-4 and R-8 zoning district. The
R-4 area consists of 20.35 acres of land and the R-8 portion is 4.45 acres. The plat
consists of 65 building lots and ten common lots on approximately 21.7 acres and gross
density as 2.97 dwelling units to the acre. So, as I mentioned to you this is a low density
residential development where we anticipate densities less than three acres -- unit--three
units -- dwelling units to the acre, where the applicant is right at the -- essentially the
maximum allowed in that land use designation. The reason for the split zoning is, one, to
provide a -- a -- a buffer and a transition to the R-8 to the south, as I mentioned to you.
So, you can see here the R-8 portion of the development is located primarily along the
southern boundary and the remainder will be the R-4 portion. And, again, the applicant
is also providing a 30 foot wide landscape buffer along that southern boundary as well,
and not only as an amenity to the development, but also to add to that transition as you
move farther to the north. The applicant is proposing to develop this subdivision in two
phases and this is -- you can see that -- if you can follow my cursor here, there is the
phasing line. So, this would be phase two and majority of it would come online with --
with phase one. So, 45 lots with phase one -- or 40 plus lots with phase one. I think 17
or-- I think it's 19 lots with phase two if I remember correctly. If you had a chance to look
at the aerial, there are three existing homes on the property -- or four, I believe. There is
four county lots and three existing homes. One home will remain on this larger lot and I
think the other ones will be removed as part of the development. Also mention to you
along the southern boundary here is an existing private street that was platted with the --
the original county subdivision. The applicant will be required to maintain that access to
those properties until such time as there is another public street access provided or the
Pollard Subdivision to the south subdivides and that's been noted in the staff report as
well. So, here is the proposed landscape plan for you this evening. I can tell you that the
applicant is proposing 3.18 acres of open space, which exceeds the UDC requirements.
Amenities include a picnic area, pathways, dog waste stations and a swimming pool and
you can see that located here central to the -- the development. The applicant also
received approval for an alternative compliance request. So, typically, when we have
developments that abut a state highway we -- we get a 35 foot landscape buffer outside
of the right of way. But because the applicant is proposing to keep the existing residence
and wants to maintain some of the character and some of the mature trees on the site,
they have requested alternative compliance. So, the director has approved that, so,
essentially, we are allowing them to plat a common lot of 20 foot wide -- 20 feet wide and
then remain -- landscape the remaining excess right of way along State Highway 16. We
had in the record -- and the applicant has confirmed that ITD -- ITD is amenable to that
happening and they will enter into an agreement with ITD -- an encroachment agreement
with ITD to -- to make those improvements per staff's recommendation. As I mentioned
to you, the reason why I brought up the Pollard Subdivision -- this is a schematic that was
in the staff report to show you what's actually occurring in the area. So, Council has,
essentially, approved the Pollard Subdivision, which is south of this particular project.
What hasn't occurred is no construction has occurred on the site yet and in order for this
area to be served there has to be, one, an interim lift station to be built and, two, these
areas that are in the right-of-way needs to be constructed, so that this has public street
frontage. Currently the only access to the development is the private -- is this portion of
the private street, but this portion that goes across the Pollard Subdivision is not public
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 11 of 58
right of way, it's just basically an easement to this gentleman here and so both staff and
ACHD have conditioned the applicant that we will not approve or -- a final plat until such
time as this portion of the road is constructed and a private street connection is provided,
including the interim lift station. I would mention to Council that the plans are into the city
for approval, just construction hasn't commenced yet. So, again, that is a condition in the
DA and a condition of ACHD staff as well. As far as the home elevations for this particular
development, they -- this applicant is a custom home builder, so it's going to be semi-
custom homes and custom homes based on the needs of their clients. You can see there
it's modern style farm -- farmhouse style and, again, the -- the DA requires the applicant
to comply with the submitted home elevations. I would let the Council know that the
Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of this project at the
November 3rd, 2022, hearing. Testifying in favor was the applicant and John Peterson.
No one testified in opposition. And there was no written testimony submitted on this
application. Because the -- the Commission was actually complimentary of having R-4
development in such a -- having a plan that met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan,
that there really wasn't any topics of discussion discussed by the Commission either and
there were no conditions of approval that were modified -- modified by the Commission.
So, really, for Council tonight it's a pretty straightforward application, except for some of
the access issues that I mentioned, but I think we have that covered, not only by ACHD,
but also in the development agreement. So, I will go ahead and conclude my presentation
and stand for any questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, any questions for staff?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Bill, one thing that really stuck out to me -- normally we like to have city services
available next to the property and you guys are conditioning it on the final plat. How
typical is that? When have we done that before? Because I can think of several
developments where we have said we don't have services available here yet and we have
held off, but just trying to think of how many times we have had another project that we
think is in process and so we have used that as the final plat as a condition to provide
those services.
Parsons: Yeah. Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, It's -- it's not a -- it's not
uncommon. That's typically what we see here. In this particular case if a lot of these
plans weren't moving forward you would probably have a little bit -- you would probably
have more reservation from staff to support it, but because we know the applicant has --
has submitted plans and there -- they have been approved, just haven't started
construction and we have known that this applicant has worked closely with Brighton to
make sure -- to understand their timing, we felt confident that although it's -- we like to
have things available, we feel confident that by the time you get all the engineering done
and Brighton does the construction -- by the time they are ready to develop anything on
the site more than likely those things would be in place and that's why we recommend
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 12 of 58
approval -- approval, along with the -- the Commission. But if things weren't -- like you
said, if they were ten or 20 years -- five, six years out we probably wouldn't be supporting
this application. The other unique thing about this is that it's not city water, it's actually
Veolia. So, the only utility we provide over here is going to be -- is the sewer and I know
-- again, I know the applicant is working with Public Works and have plans approved for
that -- that to occur. So, I hope that answers your question.
Strader: That's helpful. Thanks.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the -- for staff? Okay. Then would the
applicant like to come forward? Dave, I know it's been awhile, so have you state your
name and address for the record.
Yorgason: I will. Bill, do you mind loading up our presentation for me? Good evening,
Mr. Mayor, Members of Council. My name is Dave Yorgason and I'm here as part of the
development team for Adler Ridge --Alden Ridge. Sorry, Kyle. And my -- my address for
the record is 14254 West Battenberg Drive, Boise. We have a short presentation, but the
intent tonight is to not have a long presentation. Staff's really done a great job of
highlighting our -- our -- our -- the points -- the -- the application and what we are
presenting to you today. See if Bill's got it here and I will get through it. While he's loading
it up I will say it's nice to see Council Member Cavener virtually.
Cavener: Well, thanks, Dave, and it is -- to the Mayor's point it's nice to have you back in
this Chamber in a little bit different capacity. We always enjoy your perspective and
feedback and appreciate having you be here tonight.
Yorgason: Thanks. I won't add more than that. But, anyways, I know you have been
struggling, so it's good to see you tonight.
Cavener: Thank you, sir.
Yorgason: Thanks for pulling that up, Bill. So, again, I'm part of the development team
of the Alden Ridge Subdivision. My presentation will cover the following points. Just a
quick introduction to the site. Go over the application details and highlight the staff report.
So, the staff has said -- as Bill has said, the site is just over 20 -- about 22 acres in size,
located at the northeast corner of Highway 16 and just north of Chinden. We do have
frontage on Highway 16. We are contiguous to city limits. The comp plan is low density
residential as you said. We are not exceeding the allowed amount of density. We are not
even rounding up. We are just meeting the allowed -- and -- and the goals of the comp
plan for the density, with the intent of trying to match or -- or better in the transition of the
densities that are already planned for future development to the south and also to the
east. Both staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval. So,
the Alden Ridge Subdivision is a total of 65 residential units. They are all single family
detached homes, as Bill has said. The plan is for two phases. Along the south and west
area will be the first phase and the northeast will be the second phase and we -- we are
providing a greater amount of open space and quality amenities for the development. As
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 13 of 58
you said, we have just over three acres of open space, which is 14.4 percent of qualified
open space, which exceeds the required amount. We have nine amenity points, which is
quite a bit more than the required four for this site and, as mentioned, we have a
swimming pool, picnic area, the pathway network, dog waste stations in strategic areas
and also usable open space park area just behind the pool in case you want to throw the
Frisbee or -- or toss a football or run around or whatever there. As mentioned, there is
quality homes with a variety of architecture being planned. We have modern farm
Craftsman style homes, as well as some -- some other just modern style -- broader
variety. We anticipate for this development that they will be custom, semi-custom type
homes. And these are the different additional samples, Bill, that we have provided to you
as requested from Planning and Zoning for the -- for the patio type. This is the smaller
homes with two car garage, but still a variety in architecture. As we go through the
development processes -- I know it's really important to get neighbor feedback and have
discussions with them. We had two on-site meetings with adjacent neighbors, plus a lot
of one-on-one discussions and the discussions really were quite supportive and neutral
through the process. They liked the -- they appreciate the density, the transition of lot
sizes, the quality of homes and the amenities we are proposing. Really the only question
or concern was raised was water and the reason for that is there is a development just to
the south and west and existing commercial site -- Franklin Sensors is the building owner
and they have one building. They want to build another one. They are expanding the
facility. They have two different locations, a smaller and a larger, and they cannot build
the larger building until they have more fire suppression capacity for the fire sprinkler
system. So, we are working with the water company Veolia, formerly Suez, and we are
providing a well site to this area. So, it wasn't a question of we don't like what you do, is
more of can you hurry up, please, as we are working with and providing that well site
through the water company, so that they can, then, expand their business. As we look at
the staff report we agree with all the conditions in the staff report. A lot of times we come
to the city and say, you know, we like everything, but just one or two little things. Can you
just help us a little bit and that's not the case tonight. We agree with all the conditions of
approval as presented by staff. I will highlight and, then, address the questions about
traffic and access that was raised here tonight and the timing of Brighton's development
to the south of us and also the alternative compliance for the buffer on Highway 16. So,
again, regarding traffic, ACHD provided a staff report. We agree with all of the conditions
of approval of the ACHD staff report. The street that Bill was talking about -- staff was
talking about is Waverton Street -- is not yet built. We have been talking with Brighton
quite a bit through this entire process. They, too, are looking forward to the well site for
their larger commercial buildings. It would be nice to have the added fire suppression for
them. They have now cut the streets in. They have approved plans and I have a -- letter
or an e-mail -- if you want I can give it to you tonight, but Jon Wardle and I have been
texting back and forth and -- and they plan on starting construction with utility -- wet and
dry utilities here in just a few weeks. The street's already cut. The plans are now
approved by ACHD and City of Meridian, so they are moving forward. The reality is that
they will be finished long before us. It takes us months to draw up construction plans.
Many more months to get plans approved. And so we are not even worried about -- this
sewer and all the street will be built long before -- their final plat will be built and -- and
recorded long before we actually are under construction. So, we are not worried about
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 14 of 58
the condition of final plat approval necessary prior to. Additionally, the request was from
the fire department -- can you provide a secondary access? You have more than 30
homes, which as we understand a standard requirement. This illustration you see here
in this exhibit is actually from Brighton they gave us to follow and so if they have not yet
built this -- I'm going to follow my cursor here. If they have not yet built this they have
given us permission to build that section of road, so we could have that secondary access.
The main, obviously, access -- Pollard is built and Waverton is built, so we have the
access into the development, but we are looking forward to this as being more or less a
main entrance. So, we look forward to having that built into our community, which will be
done in conjunction with Brighton. Lastly, on alternative compliance, that frontage was
discussed. Staff has mentioned it's already been approved by the director, but our goal
is to not minimize, but, actually, do a little bit better with the landscape buffer along
Highway 16. We are preserving the existing trees adjacent to the home along the
northwest corner of the site. Franklin Sensors has, frankly, little to no landscaping along
their buffer. We are pretty limited on how much frontage we have and I have also had
discussions with ITD for their future final build out of Highway 16 and the corridor
intersection with 20-26. They have tapering and widening and taking all that into
consideration there is excess land area, so we will be installing some additional
landscaping. So, the cars that drive by will actually see more, not less landscaping than
what would be required for this site. We agree with the staff's approval in our conditions
approval for that. So, in conclusion, this is really -- I would say it this way. It's a quality
development with developers and neighbors working together. We have Brighton and
Franklin Sensors and all of us working together to bring this community forward. It really
could have been a phase three of development from Brighton, but it's not that way, it's
just a different owner coming forward, but we are enabling the expansion of the water to
help Franklin Sensors out in their future development and building expansion. Closely
collaborating with Brighton with their sewer and water utilities and access and Franklin
Sensors, too. We agree with the staff report and the conditional of approval. Planning
and Zoning Commission recommended approval with no additional conditions and our
ask tonight is that you approve us as presented tonight. I would stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Dave. Council, questions for staff -- or for the applicant?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thanks, Mr. Yorgason, for being here. If you could just walk us through -- you
-- you alluded to this will take you a while. The road will be built. The sewer will be there.
What is your anticipated schedule?
Yorgason: So, Mr. Mayor and Council Member Strader, my experience with -- I will say
ACHD is the slowest. Cities aren't far behind. But I will just say that ACHD is taking a
long time and so after tonight we will be moving forward with drafting the construction
plans. We may have kind of started, but really can't do a whole lot of heavy lift until we
know the final decisions here and so there is probably three months, maybe two months
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 15 of 58
of drawing of construction plans before we can summit. ACHD currently is about three to
four months of -- of a backlog before they will give first comments to construction plans.
That's minimum six months right there before we would get first comments. Maybe it's
seven to eight months before we get final approval and, then, it takes maybe four months
to build. So, that's a one year mark from today. So, if we are lucky we have it paved if
we have good winter weather. If not we are paving it the following spring, to answer your
question.
Strader: Thank you.
Yorgason: But I -- I would hope we can pave it by Thanksgiving next year, but that's --
that's just hopeful. That would be best case for us.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: A comment and a question. I like it. It's a very thoughtful design. The road the roadway on the northern portion, I think that's just really well done.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Borton: But I had a mechanical question on the -- on the -- the buffer and ITD right of
way. Educate me on how that works. I -- we just don't see it a lot and I don't recall the
mechanics of-- does the HOA have a -- have a -- a license right in perpetuity to go upon
it and maintain it and plant on it, et cetera? How does that work?
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Borton, as an attorney I'm sure you will appreciate
the process and the requirements. Whether it's grass or short shrubs, there is actually a
little bit of distance requirement. They won't -- they won't want tall trees and really it's
about safety; right? So, they -- they have two factors. One is you don't want tall trees up
against the cars and, secondly, they want to maintain the drainage off the highway and
so there is some standard requirements we have to meet to -- before we can landscape
we have to make sure they approve the landscape plan to those standards and, then,
secondly would be maintenance of that landscaping and the -- yes, the HOA, whether it's
grass or -- or sprinklers or shallow rooted shrubs, all the above would be HOA
responsibility and that's all through a license agreement. ITD has done that several times.
I'm not sure I have done it a lot here in the City of Meridian, but in the city of Eagle the
Castlebury berm, you might be a little familiar with that one on Chinden, there is -- any
grass that cheats across the right of way is -- is the burden and responsibility of the HOA
to maintain.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Yorgason: Sure.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 16 of 58
Simison: Council, any additional questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor, I had a question for staff.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just a little detour really quick, but I wouldn't go far. A question for Deputy Chief
Bongiorno. Outside of the five minute response time, with the construction of a new fire
station I assume that will help, what is the response time currently and what's the
anticipated timing?
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I can't give you what the time is -- excuse
me -- to that area. That green blob map that we had -- this is outside of that area, but we
are -- we are revamping and working on true response times at this time. Right now the
-- the -- Chief is working with our GIS people to fix and look at those maps in reality of
what the times are. So, I don't have that information at this time. I do know that in my
report that I put the closest truck company is roughly 16 minutes away and NFPA
standards usually shoot for 12 minutes, so -- and, actually, the Eagle fire station is closest
to this position than ours is. Unfortunately, Station 8 -- there is no direct route from here
to there. Station 5 is going to be the -- the straight shot for this particular development
because of Highway 16. So, they are blocking off McDermott. So, McDermott will no
longer be viable for us, so they are literally going to have to go around the mile to get to
this location. So, Station 5 is still going to be the fastest and closest station there.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: That's a little scary. So, no green blob map. Sorry to hear that.
Bongiorno: Yeah. My understanding is it's a -- it's going to be a brown blob map.
Strader: Okay. Whatever color of blob is --
Bongiorno: Yes.
Strader: -- usually going to work for us, but -- so -- but can you take a swag at it? I mean
are -- are we talking like this is it a ten minute drive, this is a -- I mean even if it's like a
Google Maps thing, you got to give me some kind of an idea --
Bongiorno: Sure. It's 3.3 miles. So, if I was to take a swag it's probably seven minutes.
Let me look real quick. I can tell you.
Strader: Okay. And maybe, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 17 of 58
Strader: If you don't mind while you are researching that, Mr. Yorgason, what mitigate --
what mitigants are you going to put in this development considering it's not going to be
served within our five minute response time? Which that's the standard that we try to set
for the whole city. Not a standard that we meet unfortunately today, but we are trying.
So, what can you guys do on your end to make it so these homes are safer? I mean help
me think about how you are approaching this.
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Strader, I would say two things. One is we
have had some good discussions with Joe -- with the fire department and when we get
started on the development we always try to think, okay, we think of streets, we think of
emergency services, we think of everybody and his answer was -- and I will let him speak
for himself -- was I'm not concerned. So, I don't see a need for mitigation when he
expressed I'm not concerned. Having said that, I also know the City of Meridian has
approved this Brighton subdivision, which is a very large commercial facility, so I don't
know what -- what's changed, because you all approved it not that long ago. Like a little
over a year ago and we are just on the edge of it. It's not that many -- like seconds more.
So, I don't know the -- I would defer to the fire chief, I'm not going to have -- to be able to
answer that question very well, but we -- we don't see a concern from our end and we
have -- we have -- we appreciate the support and the comments from the fire chief.
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Deputy chief.
Bongiorno: Council Woman Strader, so your nonscientific -- again it's 3.3 miles. Right
now it's six minutes. Obviously right now with all the construction they are doing on
Highway 16 it takes longer to get through that intersection. I see heads nodding as -- as
we all know. I mean I have concerns, because that's -- that's the only station that can get
there within that five minutes. As we all know, with a structure fire it's three, one and one.
So, you are going to have three engines, a truck, and the battalion chief. So, you have
got 35. You are going to have probably 43 down Linder. You are probably going to get
32 and, then, the truck company is coming from up here and, again, that's -- and it's not
even the closest one. The closest one is in -- is in Eagle. For us we are getting -- you
know, we have another one on order, but I'm not sure where the ops chief has it planned
to be stationed. So, I mean I have concerns. Dave, sorry, but I do it. It is just -- it's just
-- we got one station that's close by and that's it. And, then, they are -- they are going to
have to wait because of the three -- two in, two out rule for fighting a structure fire. I mean
we just --we just have to wait until that second engine arrives on scene to -- to allow them
the time to go in and fight a fire. Excuse me.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Don't we already have a fully functioning truck that's available to use right now
that you can put at Station 8 in the meantime?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 18 of 58
Bongiorno: I can't answer that question. I'm not sure. We --we have a second one, yes.
I just don't know what the status is of it.
Simison: I think -- I think that should -- before this would ever be in operation, obviously,
Station 8 would be open, you know, so -- from that standpoint. And I -- I don't want to get
into how people are going to drive there, but will Highway 16 be a faster route to get onto
at Ustick and, then, get off here? I don't know. I mean those -- those -- I mean --
Bongiorno: Yeah.
Simison: I can see that being a more direct route, you know, faster route than going other
ways, so -- but --
Bongiorno: Around the mile.
Simison: -- we don't know yet.
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor, if I could add one more thing. I know that Brighton is planning on
building a light at the entrance of the site on Chinden, which also in some ways helps with
the in-out access. May or may not help with response times. That's, you know, for -- for
Joe to cite. But this is first we have heard about mitigation, because I have never heard
of that in the one year of working on this project of a need. It's -- I'm not aware of a need.
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor and since -- and Dave mentioned the light and that reminded me.
We also have that subdivision that's going to be to the north of The Oaks. North of the
Oaks North -- what is that? Prescott?
Yorgason: Yeah. Yes.
Bongiorno: Bill is -- yeah. So, Prescott. So, we will have Rustic Oak that will go through.
So, we have -- we have got a cut through to get to Chinden for Station 8 and that's
probably going to be the quickest route really is that cut through down Rustic Oak,
because that will get you from Ustick to Chinden the quickest route.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. This is more along the lines of what I was wanting to hear, which was I
assumed that eight would serve this -- we are just saying that because Highway 16 hasn't
been flushed out and this road -- it's a little bit of a tenuous link, but, yeah, I mean it will
be completed; right? What is the exact timing of when that station will be --
Bongiorno: Station 8? I'm sorry.
Strader: Yeah.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 19 of 58
Bongiorno: Right now I think we are late summer of 2023.
Simison: October is what we are --
Bongiorno: October'ish now? Okay. Haven't heard.
Simison: We are -- where we are. We are on time. On schedule.
Bongiorno: Yeah.
Strader: Perfect. So, well in advance of this project being delivered.
Bongiorno: Yeah.
Strader: Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Bongiorno: And really for-- for-- sorry. For-- Mr. Mayor and Council Woman Strader, for
us I mean, obviously, we can -- we can talk to Dave about -- we have talked emergent
situations in the past, you know, in your clubhouse put -- put in an AED and a first aid kit.
I mean that helps a ton and, then, obviously, they can't start building until they have water
anyway, because you have to have water to be able to -- to go vertical. So, you know,
the -- the safety features will be there, it's just a matter of -- like the Mayor was saying,
what's -- what's it going to look like for us to get there and -- and we really don't know yet,
because they are still doing a -- making -- making a giant mess out there.
Strader: Thanks.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you, Dave.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone signed up on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, three people signed in, only the applicant marked they wanted to
speak.
Simison: Okay. If there is anybody that would like to provide testimony, please, come
forward at this time. And if you can state your name and address for the record and be
recognized for three minutes.
Peterson: My name is John Peterson and I live at 6786 North Pira Lane and I live in the
subdivision that is adjacent to this subdivision that's being proposed and I am in support
of this subdivision, because it's really nice. They are not going for like a really high density.
They are not trying to put 200 townhomes on 20 acres. It's actually a really really nice
subdivision. It has lot sizes that are congruent with the rest of the subdivisions that are
in that area where I live. They are actually putting in like nice amenities, like a swimming
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 20 of 58
pool and walking paths and really nice landscaping and so it's just like a really nice
subdivision, you know, and I'm really glad that they are not trying to just throw in at the
maximum density that they could possibly get, you know what I mean, and they are just
putting in something nice in the area and Maddyn Homes also builds -- builds really nice
homes. So, it will keep the values of the homes in the surrounding areas high, which is
good. That's all.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you very much. Is there anybody
else present that would like to provide testimony on this item? See if anyone's come on
online. Just have ACHD online so -- at this time. So, seeing no one else coming forward,
would the applicant like to come forward for any final comments?
Yorgason: Again, good evening. Dave Yorgason for the record. Sorry I didn't know
mitigation was going to be a question tonight. We have had a lot of good discussion with
all the agencies along the way. We are providing a well site and working with the water
company to meet the needs of the water suppression system in the area. This week,
frankly. So, we -- we think we are doing our part. In fact, more than our part and -- and
so with that we -- I will stand for any other questions you have, but we ask for your
approval tonight as presented.
Simison: Thank you. Dave, just out of curiosity, when do they think they will build a well
there and what's their time frame for that?
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor, appreciate you are saying that. So, we have a tentative agreement
with the water company, but, of course, nothing signed until we are done tonight and it's
going to take some -- some time to --to drill the well through the water resources process.
I don't know if that's a year. I mean that's going to be some long time. So, to your point
these other infrastructure things are easily built. When I said a year from now that's very
optimistic and so I don't have a hard date for you, but I know that it's not in this fiscal year.
It would be the following fiscal year when -- when they would have the -- the finances
allocated. Their fiscal year. Allocated to -- to construct it. So, I don't know if it's a 12
months or 18 months. It's -- it's not five years. They are ready to go. I know Brighton is
pushing pretty hard to get theirs done, because without our well lot they cannot move
forward and so we are all neighbors working together out there to make this happen.
Simison: Thank you.
Yorgason: You're welcome.
Simison: Okay. I think you are off the hook for now.
Yorgason: Bring me back if you need.
Simison: Okay.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 21 of 58
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I move we close the public hearing on Item 4.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay? The ayes have it
and the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I think it's a straightforward application. I can appreciate I think what is -- it's
good that our Council is concerned about the future and making sure that we are able to
serve our residents well. These projects, too, that involve I think other outside agencies,
a different watering company, to me are always -- they are always hard for me and I think
we have got another one later on tonight that deals with another agency, so I expect a
little more robust debate on that particular one, but I think this is a good addition to our
community and I'm happy to make a motion if I may, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: You may, Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to approve
File No. H-2022-0059 as presented in the staff report on tonight, December 6th, and to
approve that as presented.
Perreault: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just a brief discussion. I think anytime we are considering an annexation that
is on the outer boundaries of our area of impact, it's important for us to look at our
response time as one of our components. We ran into an issue where we had to build
two fire stations at the same time and a big part of what created that situation, besides
the fantastic growth that we have enjoyed, which is a good problem to have, is that we
did a lot of annexation in south Meridian, some areas of which took over ten minutes to
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 22 of 58
reach -- even sometimes 12 minutes and so I just think it's important that we keep an eye
on that. I think the fact that we have gone through Station 8's ability to reach it a couple
different directions and that it's a six minute response time gives me comfort around that,
not being the same situation in this case. Just wanted to provide that context.
Simison: Thank you. Any other comments?
Borton: Yeah, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just to dovetail on that, I think -- and good applicants want to make sure that
response time is addressed by us as well. I like this project. Just to highlight some of the
elements that I thought is worth noting. I mentioned the design. I think it's a very
thoughtful design. I think we love seeing some R-4 blended with this R-8 transition to the
south. I think the amenities -- it's just really a well laid out project and I appreciate the
alternate compliance along Highway 16 and kind of the -- the collaborative approach to
solving that actually provides even a little more buffer than what would otherwise be
provided, which I thought was nice to see and the inertia from the --with the project to the
south gives additional comfort. This is the end of the road, so to speak, at that edge of
the city, so for all of those reasons I think it's really well designed and done and I'm glad
to support it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: You know, I -- I really do believe that this project checks all the boxes in my opinion.
I think it's well laid out. I think it's well thought out. Whoever gets that corner lot in the --
in the -- in the -- that would be the -- the -- the -- the -- that one big one right there and it
-- it's just going to turn out that one. So, that would be -- yeah. It's just a pretty -- it's a
pretty layout. It's a pretty subdivision. I love the renderings from the houses.
Congratulations to the -- the -- the development team. I really like this subdivision quite
a bit.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just like the fact that a neighbor adjacent to a development is in support, so
that's always good to see. Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 23 of 58
Perreault: Well, it's nice to have a development that's staying within our future land use
map designation. Been having a lot of those conversations about requests to change
that and so it's very nice not to have that request. I also appreciate the access that this
is going to have to Highway 16, such that services can be accessed really in three
different cities pretty quickly. That's one of the things that we have been paying a lot of
attention to is where our service -- what -- what's going to service the projects that are on
the outlying areas or in our area of impact and, of course, our hope is that some -- some
of those residents on our west side of the city will be using that Highway 16 to alleviate
some of our traffic on Ten Mile and -- and so I appreciate that part of this project as well,
that I think it will be a really good location for those residents to have access to multiple
services around the valley.
Simison: Anybody else? I think that's the most conversation we have ever had after a
motion has been made on a project most everyone agrees with. Then with that we will
ask the Clerk to call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Good luck in getting water,
roads and other things soon.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
5. Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren
Bailey, Conger Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd.,
approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust Grove and Lake Hazel
intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd.
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land
from RUT to the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single-
family attached lots &93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common
lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15 zoning
district.
Simison: All right. With that, Council, we will move on to our last item of the evening, a
public hearing for Hadler Neighborhood, H-2022-0064. We will open this public hearing
with staff comments.
Parsons: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. The last item on the agenda this
evening is the Hadler Neighborhood. The subject property consists of 20 acres of land
currently zoned RUT in Ada county and is located at 7200 South Locust Road. You can
see here on the exhibit on the left-hand side the future land use map designates this
property as medium density residential, which means we anticipate densities between
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 24 of 58
three and eight dwelling units to the acre. Currently there is an existing residence on the
project and some outbuildings and those will be removed upon development of the site.
Also if you look at the zoning map here you will note the existing zoning designations that
surround this particular property as well. So, you can see here it's going back to Council
Woman Strader's comments, we have annexed some properties in south Meridian and
this one touch -- is bound on at least the --the west side and the north side and it's eligible
for annexation and some of it's developable and some of it isn't at this time because of
utilities. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss with you a request to annex the 20.5
acres of land from RUT to R-15 zoning district and, then, plat the property with 145
building lots, which will consist of 52 single family attached lots and 93 single family
detached lots and 11 common lots, at a gross density of 7.25 dwelling units to the acre,
which is at the -- the upper end of the spectrum allowed by the designation. Again, the
applicant-- like the --the previous application, the applicant is proposing two development
phases with this application and I will go to that quickly. You can see their phasing plan
here. Phase two is basically east half and, then, the west half is their -- the majority of
their -- is their first phase. Average lot size is approximately 3,600 square feet, which
exceeds the minimum 2,000 square feet in the R-15 district and staff finds that the -- the
plat complies with UDC standards and generally complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
This one's a little unique. Similar to the -- the last project. This site does abut Locust
Grove and because it's an arterial roadway we try to minimize access points to that
roadway. If I can jump back here, you can see here that Brighton recently had a project
approved north of this site and as part of that project they are building a majority of the
collector road that runs along the north boundary of this site. So, the applicant is going
to build the remaining portion and, then, have their access that ties into that collector
roadway. So, that's something that's going to happen. And, then, there is two additional
stub streets, one to the east here and, then, one to the south as well. Originally staff had
recommended an additional stub street in this location. As we got to Planning and Zoning
Commission we worked with the applicant and decided to make this a larger open space
lot and provide a pedestrian connection to that -- that property to try to enhance
connectivity in the area. One unique thing about this particular project is that this is the
first project that is in the Kuna School -- School District boundary and so at the -- the
public -- at the Planning and Zoning Commission we had Robbie Reno from the Kuna
School District testify. He is here tonight to answer any questions you may have as part
of this project and there is -- all his comments are also part of the public record. Other
concerns that were brought up by Planning and Zoning Commission was parking and the
applicant, as we went -- worked with the applicant they were -- shared a parking plan.
Primary concerns by the Commission for the -- the parking concerns were just the
narrowness of the lots and, then, also because this is a reduced street section or a
slimmer -- a smaller street section, but it meets ACHD's policies. It does limit parking on
certain sides of the road and so that's something that the Commission felt caused some
concerns as well. So, they brought that up and -- but I just wanted to mention regardless
of the on-street parking, the applicant is going to have to meet UDC parking requirements
for single family residence. So, they are going to have to provide off-street parking in
accordance with the UDC requirements. The applicant is proposing approximately 3.49
acres of qualified open space, which is approximately 17.45 percent. So, this does
exceed the minimum of code. And amenities include picnic area, a playground, water
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 25 of 58
feature and, then, multi-use pathways along the collector road and also Locust Grove
frontage, so that, again, they do exceed UDC standards and I would also mention to
Council -- I know you are probably aware of this, but they are in pretty close proximity to
a pretty amazing regional park as well. So, that's -- that's always a good benefit to a
development in this area. So, Planning and Zoning Commission, however, did
recommend denial at their-- at their hearing on -- at 11/3. Testifying in favor we had Laren
Bailey and Hethe Clark, the applicants, and, then, commenting on the application was
Robbie Reno, again with Kuna School District. Looking at the public record again for the
Planning and Zoning Commission for tonight's hearing there was none -- no additional
public testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission at the hearing included
school capacity, the proposed density of this project, and, then, on-street parking as I
mentioned. So, basically, there are really no -- the -- the recommendation from Planning
and Zoning Commission is denial, so, essentially, we -- we have struck all the conditions
of approval because of that recommendation and the Commission did cite their reasons
for--for denial was based on, again, school capacity, lack of commercial services to serve
the development. The density and character of the development were not consistent with
the existing and approved developments in the area. That was the finding that they made.
So, other than the denial, there really are no other outstanding issues for you this evening
and staff will stand for any questions you may have.
Simison: Thank you, Bill. Council, questions for staff?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Thank you. Thank you, Bill, for that presentation. Did I hear you say that the
streets are more narrow than the standard public street width?
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Woman Perreault, no. ACHD has
certain standards and you can have a -- a wider road or you can have a narrow road and
in this particular case they took the options of going with a narrow road, which is allowed
per ACHD policy. That's -- that's all I was trying to convey is that they meet ACHD's
policies and they -- they -- they are building roadways to ACHD's templates. But with the
narrow road comes -- comes with less parking. So, you can have parking on one side of
the street and not the other when you take advantage of that --that specific street section.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: So, am I hearing correctly that -- that the parking plan that we see up here is
-- is not viable, because they are showing parking on two sides of the street? Is that --
am I understanding you correctly?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 26 of 58
Parsons: Mayor, Members of the Council, no. This was just the exhibit that the applicant
showed where you could get on-street parking, which -- which side of the street can be
parked and which can't be. So, essentially, where you see these red areas, that's where
they envision additional on-street parking and so ACHD, if I remember correctly, required
the applicant to build this to a wider street standard in this location and this is why you
see double parking and, then, the reduced street sections are located along the looped
roads here along the west, south and as you head north or east and that's why you see
only red on one side of the street, not on both sides.
Perreault: Thank you. That's helpful.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: First time we have had a Kuna School District thing come up, so that's really
interesting. What is the cutoff of where -- I'm just curious like going forward is there a --
what is the -- where -- where -- where is the boundary of the Kuna School District? What
can we expect going forward? Anything that's south of -- you know, it looks like half of a
mile south of Lake Hazel or where -- what's the cutoff?
Parsons: Mayor, Council Woman Strader, I don't know exactly the -- the cut off, but I can
tell you it starts here where we are at tonight and, then, Skybreak, which was approved
recently, was stated -- was just right on the cusp of their boundary, but going south from
Skybreak it starts bleeding into their school district as well. So, it's -- it's -- it's upon us.
It's happening very quickly or could potentially happen.
Strader: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Bill, is there pedestrian access from this to Discovery Park? Is there going to
be any kind of southern pedestrian access? All the applications we have had so far have
all been on the north -- northwest side of the park, so I don't know that I have ever seen
any information about that on the south side.
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Council Woman Strader, essentially, you can see their entire
frontage. So, there will be a collector road that's built into their entire boundary and as
part of that road work -- road project they will be constructing a ten foot multi-use pathway
that runs along their entire boundary and we did talk with the applicant about working on
a safe crossing to get into the park across the -- that collector roadway. So, yes, we do
envision that happening and that's why you see this micro path location here to tie into
the pathway and, then, ultimately head east and head into the park.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 27 of 58
Simison: Seeing no more questions for staff, would the applicant like to come forward?
Clark: Hi, everybody. Hethe Clark. 251 East Front Street in Boise, representing the
applicant. As Dave mentioned, it's really good to see Council Member Cavener. You
know, appreciate -- hope you are feeling better and I needed to make one more visit here
before Council Member Bernt left, so -- we are here to talk about the Hadler Subdivision
and I just want to talk a little bit about a project that's very similar to ones that you guys
have seen that we have brought forward within the -- within the city over the past few
years. It serves an important need. So, let's talk first -- let's see here. There we go. A
little bit about the annexation route and how this fits in within the city. The project is just
south of Lake Hazel, east of Locust Grove. It borders Discovery Park. It's on the south
of Brighton's Pinnacle Subdivision. It's an area where the -- where the city has invested
and has indicated that it intends to grow. The pink areas are all annexed. Many of those
were part of the large 2016 annexation that was undertaken by the city if you -- with -- I
think it was like 1 ,300 acres, if I remember correctly. A little bit more about that. I know
you are all familiar with the corridor. It's been very active with the development of
Discovery Park. Gem Prep. There has been significant -- significant residential
development over the past few years. Lavender Heights. Pinnacle as I mentioned. The
Keep. Sky Mesa. Diamond. All of these other projects that have come in around the
city's new park and also the city's new south Fire Station No. 4. That will be online next
year as I understand it and as you drive by you can see that the walls are already well
under construction. In addition to that, I would just point out that there is a -- a wall of city
annexed property to our west. So, this is well within the areas that the city has already
grown into. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan and the planning, as Bill mentioned,
this is medium density residential, which does permit between three to eight units per the
acre and, then, zooming out a bit, I thought I would emphasize that this is in addition near
one of the neighborhood centers that the city has planned for. You know, city services
are all available and none of the emergency service providers or utility providers have
indicated any objections. I would also point out that there are upcoming Eagle Road and
Lake Hazel Road improvements that are planned for the area and Lake Hazel, which runs
just north of us, is planned to be the new Chinden. It's -- as you all know, it's going to be
a five lane eventually. So, this is an area that -- that the city has planned for a lot of
activity and that activity is coming in the near future. This is our site plan. We are
proposing 144 homes, not 145. We took out one lot in response to the comments with --
with staff, so that one right -- let's see if I can get this to work here. This lot -- we took out
a lot in order to increase the open space right here where the pathway is located. The
overall density is 7.2 units per acre, which is within the -- the planning for the
Comprehensive Plan standard and we also have a 17.5 percent open space, which
includes the large central park area. As in our other projects that are similar to this, so
that would be like Movado, Verado, Solterra, these are high quality homes with a smaller
footprint. We are talking about homes that are between 13 -- about 1 ,300 and 1,800
square feet. It's a very amenitized project. I will mention it again here in a second, but
there is 11 amenity points for this one, which is super high compared to four, which is the
requirement. Again, we have done five similar projects in Meridian, along with another
project in Boise. They have all been very successful, because they cater to an
underserved portion of the market. The folks who buy in these projects are looking for a
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 28 of 58
smaller home with lower maintenance, but high quality. You know, they -- we study our
buyers. We know who they are. They are empty nesters often who are downsizing. They
are young professionals who want to lock and leave it type solution and sometimes they
are a divorced parent that's looking to keep the -- the kids in the same -- in the same
school district. The product's been in high demand since we developed it ten years ago
and it contributes to the diversity of housing stock in the -- in Meridian. It serves an
important need. And, again, it is consistent with the comprehensive planning between
two and eight dwelling units per acre and this is a screenshot from the Comprehensive
Plan. But there are other Comprehensive Plan policies that are promoted here. For
example, we want to encourage a variety of housing types in the area, avoid the
concentration of one type of housing. This brings in a housing type with an appropriate
level of density right within -- next to the city's new park and the fire station. We have
considered the area in our design. We have provided open space in the center of the
project that -- that's really just a -- a frisbee throw away from Discovery Park. That open
space will also connect, as we understand it, to our neighbor to the south, which is
planning for open space in that location. And to Council Member Perreault's question,
we are extending the -- the regional pathways, which will help allow for a pedestrian
access to the -- to the park. So, particularly now where we have a housing recession
that's looming, we have interest rates spiking, you know, we need a variety of housing
types in the city in order to keep the housing market healthy and so we think that this is
an appropriate use here. With regard to pedestrian connectivity, we have our typical five
foot sidewalks along all the roads. We have our internal pathways and the regional
pathways to Discovery Park. That's about a half mile of new regional pathway that's going
to be constructed with this project. And I think while I have got this up I will maybe address
Council Member Perreault's question about the roads and the parking. So, we have -- as
with every application we have conversations with ACHD about road widths and road
standards. If you go in front of ACHD, particularly Commissioner Hansen and several of
the Commissioners, though, they are very much pushing for 27 foot road sections and
the reasoning for that is obvious, for maintenance reasons and because it also still
provides a safe product. So, that they will push you for 27 as your default and with a 27
foot road section you have parking on one side. Now this area along the north heading
out to the stub to the east, that is a 33 foot road section at ACHD's request and so that is
why we show parking on both sides there and so the -- the parking exhibit that I -- that we
provided is accurate. As I mentioned, we exceed the project amenities requirements with
11. 1 -- I won't belabor that, but there is the two acre central park and we think that that's
a great connection with the -- with Discovery Park. Again 17.5 percent open space that
exceeds the -- the minimums. And we have two types of homes in the project. Single
story is the area -- is what we show in yellow and, then, two story that's shown in pink in
the center.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Real quick, Hethe. Go back to that slide. I think you have got a really good
decision to remove that one lot. A lot of these slides all still show it.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 29 of 58
Clark: Yes.
Borton: So, clearly a good call to remove that one.
Clark: Thank you.
Borton: You had made a reference to one of the amenities in this slide prior. I was just
curious. I hadn't heard it as an amenity. Attractive landscaping. I don't know what that
means. Is that -- is that an amenity?
Clark: I think it is. You know, I think having a --
Borton: Rather than points for it, like it's a -- it's a way station or it's a gazebo or it's --
just have never heard anyone reference attractive landscaping as a standalone amenity.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton -- I -- you know, I think it's -- what we are trying
to say is that it's thoughtful landscaping, trying to make sure that the project hangs
together. I don't know that there is a specific amenity point that's associated with that.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Clark: So, we have also provided elevations with the application materials to show what
the project will look like. And again -- and you can see here, if you look closely, you can
see that the homes are arranged between 1 ,300 to 1,800 square feet. And so with that
in mind and the size of the home kind of still sitting here on the -- on the screen, I want to
talk about the agency responses and so other than Kuna School District, the agencies
have not indicated any concerns and while we respect and appreciate the district, we
have some concerns with the approach that has been undertaken here and we would like
to discuss that with you tonight. So, Kuna School District has provided a letter dated
November 2nd, 2022. The letter shows that there is currently capacity at all the schools
that would serve this project. In fact, this is information that was provided to us in October.
There is capacity across the district. You can see that there is currently 570 vacant seats
with capacity at every elementary school. We also know how fast the district is growing
based on information that they posted on their website. Their growth rate has ranged
from negative three to positive five over the past six years for an average of 1.33 percent.
So, the -- based on the data and the information that we have, the question is not whether
there is current capacity and, actually, this question is the same question that we have --
I and this Council have had several times over the past several years with regard to West
Ada projects and that's a question of how the capacity will be used, when the district will
have to start taking steps to ensure that there is capacity for growth. We have been
through this question before. The Council -- as I said we have been talking about this for
several years. We know the drill. You know, West Ada follows your planning. When the
capacity is used up they stretch it, they do busing, they modify boundaries, they bring in
portables and, then, eventually they bring in -- they -- they bond. But because they are
doing their best to be -- the -- the best stewards of those tax dollars as they possibly can
they are not going to run the bond until the capacity is used up and the -- and until they
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 30 of 58
know that the facility is going to be used on a long-term basis. So, as I understand it, this
is the first application before this Council that's in the Kuna School District. We have
spoken with Kuna School District and they have informed us that they would inform this
Council that they can't serve our project unless we make a cash payment per lot of 3,720
dollars for all 144 residential lots or nearly half a million dollars. You know, we, obviously,
have significant concerns about that. This is from the agreement that was proposed to
us. So, the first concern is where does the number come from? We have done these
projects before. We know what numbers of students come from these projects. For
example, you see Verado on your screen. It's a very similar project. It has the same
housing type and size. We reached out to West Ada. We asked them for the actual
student generation from Verado, just to know how -- how that's functioning. West Ada
informed us that it's .124 students per lot, which makes sense given, again, that these
are 1,300 to 1,800 square foot homes, largely owned by retirees and empty nesters, with
a few exceptions. Here is another way of looking at it. The Kuna School District is telling
us that Hadler will generate 102 students based on their generation rate of .7. That's
nearly twice West Ada's rate of .43 and it's significantly higher than the actual generation
rate that we have -- excuse me -- that we have experienced, you know. So, we think the
numbers are way higher than what would actually be generated out of a -- out of a project
like this with an older demographic and, in fact, given what we have experienced this is
likely to add to the tax base, rather than take up significant student resources. So, we
have concerns about where the numbers are coming from, but we also have concerns
about the money they use --what the money would be used for. Kuna School District has
told us they will only support the project if we make a donation. There is no control on
the use of those funds once the donation is made. But we have been told what the money
is likely to be used for. This is based on the district's needs assessment, which they
provided to us, and a significant number of those projects are, quote, deferred
maintenance. They include kitchen remodels at a couple of the middle schools. ADA
upgrades. With regard to Kuna High School there is money for the field turf at 1.2 million.
A hundred thousand for a performing arts center. Upgrades for football turf, baseball
fields, tennis courts and the track. And you can see that very little of this has anything to
do with capacity to serve new students that would be generated per our product -- by our
project. So, they have asked for a donation, but we don't know what it would be used for.
The majority of the funds they have identified are not capacity related. There is no control
on how the funds will be spent, where they would be spent and there is no way to confirm
that we would be paying our proportionate share and that's a problem for a lot of reasons
and, one, is under Idaho state law any fee established to mitigate the -- the financial
impacts of development has to comply with the Development Impact Fee Act. That's Title
67, Chapter 82. Now, of course, there is no such thing as a -- as a school impact fee.
But even if there were this doesn't meet the standards for an impact fee. With impact
fees you know they have to be paid out within eight years. With impact fees you know
that they can only be used for certain types of facilities that are related to the impacts of
growth. There is no capital improvement plan here that says that it's going to be used for
addressing growth and there is noway to request a proportionate share analysis. In short,
there is just no way to ensure that the funds will be used to increase capacity. So, you
know, more fundamentally, you know, the district saying that they can only provide
services if we make a voluntary donation. You know, we have concerns about that,
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 31 of 58
obviously. You know, the payments they have asked for do not satisfy the requirements
of the Impact Fee Act, which is mandatory if the fee were to be imposed. In other words,
they are asking us to agree to something voluntarily that would be illegal under state code
and even if we do it there is just no way to ensure it's going to actually address the needs
of our students. So, you know, we just -- excuse me. We are asking to just follow the
rules in the way that we have experienced that with -- with other school districts in other
jurisdictions. The city-- this city has been through this already. We know that the answer
is that we have to get behind the district's efforts to support a bond. That's how we have
handled it for a hundred years in this state and these ad hoc impact fees aren't the answer.
So, with that I think my time is up and I will just -- I would just mention one thing, Mr.
Mayor, is that if we are fortunate enough to get an approval tonight, I think the one
housekeeping item that we would have to go back to is in the red lined conditions of
approval in the staff report. In order to make the change that Bill mentioned we would
just need to modify condition 2.A as I have noted on the screen. So, that was a lot.
Simison: Thank you, Hethe.
Clark: Thank you.
Simison: Council, questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: You mentioned the -- the demographic in Verado and I'm familiar with all of --
all of the neighborhoods that you had -- had mentioned that are -- you anticipate modeling
this after. Do you think that given that location that you are going to have the same
demographic as Verado with the park, with the -- the YMCA down the street -- swimming
pool there? Do you really anticipate there being an older demographic in this equivalent
to Verado?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, absolutely. Remember these are 1 ,300 to
1,800 square foot homes. The size of the home is what drives it more than the -- the
location. The location is great, because we should be wanting to have lots of different
housing types all around Discovery Park, so that all types of people get to -- to use it at
all different, you know, areas -- areas of their life. You know, I can definitely picture the
empty nester wanting to take their dogs out and going to the dog park up there, because,
you know, that's the type of person that really likes to use a dog park. So, no, we don't
expect it to be any different.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 32 of 58
Perreault: I think we are going to see more families purchasing. I assume these are -- if
it's the same model these are going to be for sale. I think we will see more families
purchasing these types of -- especially townhomes. Well -- well, the two stories for sure,
but the townhomes as well, because -- well, it just depends what happens with rates;
right? Housing prices were keeping families from purchasing single family residences.
They were moving into townhome style, patio homestyle and duplexes and I think that we
are going to see that come into play even more for a variety of reasons. So, if these are
modeled after this -- this -- other neighborhoods, there is going to be some two-bedroom
units, as well as some three bedroom. Do -- do you think this particular product, if it's
similar, is going to -- is going to accommodate -- I respectfully, being in this industry, I
disagree with you. I think we will see more families in this than we have their other
products, because of its location and because of what's happening in the market. So,
just -- I want to put that out there and just understand that -- to that end that's the reason
I'm asking the questions about access to the park. And in regard to the amenities -- never
thought I would say this, but I actually don't think a playground is necessary in this, which
is -- I never said that before. I had to say that before. So, in that regard are there any
other amenities that were discussed besides having a playground, since the park is so
close that might, then, meet-- if you are saying that you think it's going to be more seniors
and more singles than families, why have the playground here and, then, have a
playground in the park next door.
Clark: Too many slides here. Maybe it will get there. So, yeah, the -- the idea is not to
duplicate anything that is at Discovery Park. The idea is to have the types of-- you know,
a playground that would be complementary and so this applicant in the past has done
things like climbing boulders and those -- those sorts of -- of playground amenities that
would be a little different maybe than what's over at -- at Discovery Park. So, I don't know
that there has been a specific design that's been concluded there and I would ask -- is
there anything else that you would add to that? Mr. Mayor, just conferred with my client.
One of the thought processes that went into -- with the idea of maybe having some of the
more focused younger child amenities there is just that it -- it is a little bit of a walk for a
little kid to be able to get all the way up to the Discovery Park, so -- so this would allow
for some things that are a little bit closer if they were to cater to the younger demographic
there.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I didn't mean for that ominous sound to have a --
Clark: Is that a record scratch that I just heard?
Strader: It sounded like it. If you could pull up the -- the renderings -- okay. So, I had a
question which was -- and this is -- it looks like you have got your detached here. But if
you kind of go through the attached and detached, I was trying to figure out what the
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 33 of 58
dimensions are of the street frontage. Like can you actually fit a car that's not blocking a
driveway in between these homes?
Clark: Yeah. I think it's -- it's between 32 and 38 feet of street frontage on most of the
lots.
Strader: Okay. Just so I'm clear on that -- okay. So, you are saying there are -- there is
32 to 38 feet of street frontage on average in your entire development. So, that's exclusive
of the driveway.
Clark: Yeah. Council Member Strader, maybe I can clarify one thing. So, the -- the way
that we have designed and the way the parking exhibit works is that there is room to park
between the driveways on the attached product and, then, with the other product we
typically put that on the other side of the street, so that -- if that makes sense. Let me see
if I can pull up the --
Strader: If you could pull that up, just so I -- because I'm not totally following.
Clark: I think I have the -- I think I have the drawing that Bill showed earlier.
Strader: Or if we have to I'm sure Bill could bring it up if we need to, but --
Clark: Just -- it moves through very slowly.
Strader: There we go.
Clark: So, I -- I think -- if I could -- let's see. So, we have the seven here. We have the
single story product up here. Nine. Only counting on the one side of the street. And,
then, on these we have two sides of the street, because it's 33 foot product. Or 33 foot
road section. And, then, down here we have only used the one side of the street, because
it's the 27 foot road section.
Strader: Okay. So, if I take -- let's just take an example. Let's take the row of -- now I'm
getting your attached and detached mixed up. But let's just take the row across from the
nine. So -- okay. So, you are saying like for this whole section -- like the whole -- you
know, let's call it upper left-hand quadrant, besides the driveways there are nine -- there
is enough space for nine parking spaces on the street. You have got a row of like 15
homes. I'm assuming another ten right below it. I guess I'm a little concerned about your
--just -- are you going to have enough parking? It's not super obvious that you will from
looking at this.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I -- so the -- the -- there is not currently an
on-street parking requirement in code. So, we -- we meet the code standard and, then,
in addition to the code standard we have 82 parking spaces and, you know, this is a little
similar to the conversation that we had with Commissioner Seal at -- at Planning and
Zoning --
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 34 of 58
Strader: Yeah.
Clark: -- and he had asked the question about, okay, what are you going to do on the big
Super Bowl party or whatever and, you know, my response is is that, well, these are 1,300
to 1,800 square foot homes. We are not going to have 40 people there for the Super
Bowl party. But we also -- we don't design restaurants' parking lots for the New Year's
Eve party and we don't design residential neighborhoods for the Super Bowl Party. You
know, we designed them to make sure that they are functional and we have -- and this
one has been designed to code, plus 82 additional legitimate on-street parking spaces.
Strader: Uh-huh.
Simison: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Just to clarify, each lot that's on the perimeter, which is the attached, represents
two residences; correct?
Clark: No. Each -- so, on the -- some of those are going to be attached. So, it's -- it's a
lot -- or excuse me. A residence on one straddling the lot line and, then, attached on the
other side. Is that -- did that answer your question?
Perreault: So, with the homes that are all on the north and the west side, each lot
represents one residence --
Clark: Correct.
Perreault: -- the attached -- of the attached product.
Clark: Correct. And Council Member Strader, I may -- one thing I would note, too, is that
when this has come up in the past we have done studies of the parking in some of the
other projects and we presented them at prior application hearings. We have done drone
studies where it -- you know, various times of day, various times of night, to look at, you
know, whether there was on-street parking at all. That's always shown very little on-street.
If there is a concern here we would be happy to -- to show you how that's functioned in
the other projects. But, again, we are code compliant with it as it exists, plus 82 on-street
parking spaces.
Strader: So, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just so we are clear, when you say there is an average street frontage of 32 to
38 feet per -- per residence, it's really not 32 to 38 feet of eligible parking frontage; right?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 35 of 58
Because you have only got one side of the street available to a pretty large degree. Okay.
Let me chew on it a little bit. Think about it. Thanks.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Oh, he is deferring to age. Okay. And looks. Okay. Councilman Borton.
Borton: Hethe, you have done projects of all different types and sizes and I had the same
parking concern, but in some of the -- the solution it seemed to be in this particular
development the size and you referenced it a little bit, the size of the -- of the property
attached or detached, is -- is so small that it really doesn't lend itself to the family that --
that has the, you know, mom, dad car and the three kids each have -- in the five car family
and kids on the streets that sometimes you see worse parking problems with larger lots.
The garage is full of stuff and you got three or four cars. It seems like this wouldn't lend
itself to the three or four car family. Is that the design element?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Borton, that's correct. Yeah. These -- it's 1,300 to
1,800 square foot homes. So, you know, if it's -- if there is a young family that's in it, it's
a starter home. Before there is five kids they are typically out of this. You know, they are
not -- they are not going to be in -- in this type of a home. And, again, it's two spaces in
the garage, plus 20 foot driveways, you know, that -- so, you have got plenty of room for
parking, even if you had a little bit of storage in the garage.
Borton: Okay. Thanks.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton -- Councilman Bernt.
Clark: Already forgetting his name.
Bernt: Same haircut I guess. That's funny. So -- so, in a previous slide you had
mentioned similar subdivisions and I'm not sure if the same builder builds in all of this. I
-- I don't know. But would this subdivision be like a Movado or a Stapleton? Those are
two very different subdivisions.
Clark: No. This would be more like Movado, but the -- but the -- the smaller product type
portion of Novato -- Movado. Excuse me. So, the -- the example that I provided you of
Verado is probably the closest one.
Simison: Hethe, one thing that I'm -- I'm assuming the mail pickup locations are those
little brown boxes? Am I close to where those, in theory, would be on either end of the
linear pathway? Where you have -- my -- I guess, you know, I only have what's near my
home for another subdivision I drive by and we have cars parked on the right-hand side
and, then, people are pulling up on the left-hand side, there is still room for us to get
through because of the wider streets, but when these are smaller streets, I -- I don't know
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 36 of 58
if you -- can you reserve a place for people to stop in? I don't know how busy it's going
to be if it is a smaller area, but just worried about people being able to access when you
are trying to get people to stop in an area.
Clark: Yeah. I -- Mr. Mayor, we anticipate that the -- the mail kiosk -- can't think of the
correct word right now -- will be near the pathways. So, they would be in locations kind
of like around here or around here, where you are not going to have as much of a
confluence of home and driveway, you are going to have actually more room to pull out if
you need to to be able to do it.
Simison: Those are areas where you currently have parking slated. I'm just -- do you --
even if something was like parking for -- no parking except for picking up mail -- because
you have a smaller street, that's my concern, is that cars may be parked there and other
cars are pulling up to get their mail and, then they are -- you don't have room for other
traffic to get by. Small thing. Minor thing. Just a noticeable thing that I'm seeing as --
even in the very small subdivision behind my subdivision nobody walks to the mailbox.
They all drive up at 5:00 o'clock when they get home or 5:15 to -- to check their mail.
Clark: Absolutely. Yeah. The -- so, with the 27 foot road sections, they are signed --
there will be signage on the other side saying no parking. So, there would only be parking
on the one side. But that's actually a great note and we will take that into account.
Simison: And, then, I won't give you my comments on the school district. I will save that
for the school district.
Clark: Okay.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I will ask a question, because it's an interesting part of the staff report. So, Mr.
Parsons can -- can see if your answer suffices, but it references -- and it may be
academic, because you have got the park to the north, but the allocation of open space
qualified one half of the arterial street and I don't recall ever seeing a staff report reference
to the new UDC requirements and -- and some uncertainty as to whether or not it meets
those. So, Mr. Clark, can you present evidence that these buffers are enhanced beyond
the pathways, trees and grasses?
Clark: Yeah. I'm sorry I'm laughing, because I remember -- when was it, a year and a
half ago or 'ish when we redid the landscaping ordinance and I came and provided
comments and one of the comments was I don't know what the heck these things mean
on those standards. It's -- I -- it's just kind of funny that -- to -- to be back here. So, the
questions are -- well, you know, whether this aligns with the quote, unquote, enhanced
amenities with social interaction characteristics and the enhanced context with the
surroundings. I think those are the two factors that staff mentioned that they weren't sure
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 37 of 58
if it satisfied. So, I -- I think it's pretty straightforward the landscape buffer includes the
regional pathway and the regional pathway is where you go to walk, where you go to
interact with your neighbors, where you take your dog to go up to the Discovery Park Dog
Park. So, I think it's pretty clear that there are social interaction characteristics that are
associated with that pathway. In addition, the regional pathway also connects to
Discovery Park. So, it's a way of being conscious of the surroundings and the overall
design and so from that perspective we see that as satisfying both. So, I hope that
answers the question, Council Member Borton.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I just have one more question. So, the sewer services and everything are
dependent on Apex phase three. So, what's the timing of your project?
Clark: Yeah. Council Member Strader, the -- the timing of the project is -- I think given
where we are in the year and where we are likely to be in the construction cycle next year,
I don't think we will have paving in '23, it will probably be '24. And so that means that we
-- we fully expect that those services will be there by the time we are ready to -- to go
forward.
Simison: Anything else from Council for the applicant? All right.
Clark: Thanks, everyone.
Simison: Thank you very much. Council, do you want to take a break before we get into
public testimony? We got a yes. So, we will go ahead and take a break and reconvene
at five after? Ten after? Five after. 8:05.
Recess: (7:55 p.m. to 8:05 p.m.)
Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come back from our recess. And, Mr. Clerk, do
we have anybody signed up provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did. We have one in person and online with their hand raised.
First is Robbie Reno with Kuna School District.
Simison: Robbie, welcome. If you would like to state your name and address for the
record, please.
Reno: Robbie Reno. Kuna School District. 711 East Porter Street, Kuna, Idaho. We are
your neighbor to the south and like the staff said, this is our first property that involves
your -- your great city. First, Mayor -- Mayor and Honorable Members of the Council, it's
interesting times in the city of Kuna and our -- and our school district boundaries. The
applicant -- the reason that we are here coming to -- not only your Council and our City
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 38 of 58
Council expressing concerns on growth is because of the unprecedented growth that's
happened in Kuna. Currently right now there is 5,000 homes that are up -- that are
annexed, plotted and approved to be built on top of the Hadler Subdivision that has not
been approved or annexed and so because of that and the growth that we have had, yes,
Mr. Clark showed our growth patterns. Well, we have had COVID in the middle of that.
We have had a decline. We have had increase. But even if we take the 1.33 at 5,800
kids, that's still over 700 kids in one year. That's enough for an elementary. We try to
push for 600 kids for an elementary as the size. So, if every year we are getting 600 kids
every year, that's a lot of kids and we have -- we had a capital plan. We have had to
scratch that and we took a year process with our constituents and with our community to
create a ten year plan that was -- that finally got adopted on -- the first phase of it last
month at our board meeting. But in that -- in that plan -- in that ten year plan that we --
we are going to need six elementaries, two more middle schools and in addition to the
current partial high school that has been built and so we have a lot of growth that is coming
our way that is approved. So, our board is having to take action and so that's kind of the
back story of why -- why I'm here as an agent of the board. Our board has recognized
this and wants to take action on those. Mr. Clark mentioned Idaho Code that schools do
not get mitigation fees or, sorry, impact fees and he's correct, but there is an Idaho Code
Section 67-6513 that is the subdivision ordinance that you, as Council, are -- sorry. Not
Council, but it includes school districts in that, that a developer or subdivision, which this
is a subdivision, can have mitigation and that's what we have asked for them for that, to
help with the mitigation, so it's not passed on all hundred percent to the current residents
of the city of Kuna. The client referenced that he doesn't know where the money is going.
We have been collaborative and we work with them that we put it in a discretionary fund
-- sorry, not discretionary fund -- a capital -- a capital improvement fund. We gave him
that list, so that he could choose which projects and which things his -- he would want to
put his name on to help promote his subdivision for those things. We are collaborative in
this process. We want to work with developers and we want to do this.
Simison: If you can wrap up.
Reno: And -- and so we -- we -- we want to work with the developers to come to a
conclusion to help, so that we -- if we don't, so that we can mitigate those -- those capital
projects, so we don't have -- so, that we can build schools. For example, we have gotten
over 60 acres donated at that cost of -- or sorry -- over 160 acres donated that has saved
us -- our district 27 million dollars. Well, currently that's the cost of one elementary to
build. So, we don't have to bond for 54 million dollars to build one elementary. We only
have to bond for 27 million. So, that as a mitigation has helped -- helped our school
district and our board be responsible for this and all we are asking is -- this -- this is a
simple annexation and that we just -- we can't serve without collaboration with that
developer.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 39 of 58
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Thanks, Mr. Mayor. And I -- you know, I realize we gave Mr. Reno three
minutes. I kind of look at him as a representative of a group and so I guess I just was
going to ask if he needed more time to kind of explain his basis, maybe that we consider
that. If -- if not I -- I do have some questions for him.
Simison: Do you need more time to --
Reno: I will just -- I will take the questions, because I think that's more important. It will
save you guys time and I can go on and on, but I know you guys have specific questions.
Cavener: Thank you, then, Mr. Reno.
Reno: Thank you, though for the opportunity. Yes.
Cavener: So, if I understand correctly, you are both a high school principal, but also an
acting agent of the board?
Reno: Correct.
Cavener: Can you kind of walk the City Council through what -- what that role is?
Reno: So, we joke in the -- as the admin team in the -- in the Kuna School District that
you are not just an admin, you wear multiple hats, because we run a tight budget and we
run very efficiently that we have multiple positions within our position. So, I'm lucky
enough to be the principal of Swan Falls High School, our newest high school. That's not
quite a high school. So, I have some -- some -- some time in my day to -- to take on this
additional task. Another administrator is our district safety coordinator on top of being a
principal. Our other -- another administrator Is our district title. I mean we just have
multiple roles and so got it. As -- as the board has designated me and another person in
the district, because it's been a priority of our board to help figure out this situation that
we are in, that's been a priority for the board. So, our superintendent designates those
positions to help the board achieve their goals.
Cavener: Well -- and kudos to -- to you and your team for being small, but mighty and
trying to -- you know, everybody is rolling up their sleeves to serve the students. My -- I
guess maybe my first kind of overall question is what was the basis of determining the
fee amount? Has -- has the district conducted a cost recovery analysis or a fee impact
analysis against your ten year plan? Where did the dollar amount come from?
Reno: So, the dollar amount -- so, we had TischlerBise do a study, how much -- what
would it take to --for impact fees to cover the cost of schools. They came up with a rough
number, about 30 -- 30 -- 34,200 -- 32,700 dollars per door to help with -- to -- as an
impact fee to cover the cost of schools and the growth. So, we took that number as -- the
board took that number and said, okay, if developers can take ten percent, 3,270 dollars,
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 40 of 58
and that be the mitigation -- that we are not asking our current residents to burden a
hundred percent of -- of the burden, that we are only asking for 90 percent to help pass
our bonds, to help that and to be more efficient with those. That's where that -- that --
that number came from.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, a couple of follow-ups if I may.
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Yeah. So, Mr. Reno, how -- how many units in the Kuna School District history
has this fee been attached to?
Reno: Current -- so, this is new in our process. You know, when you start something
new you don't know what you are doing and so currently we -- we --through land donation
-- we don't say straight -- straight money. We want to be collaborative. Are there capital
projects? Are there other things -- land, other capital expenditures that you can do to help
offset the cost of using bond monies to pay for schools and so currently we have one, two
-- four -- four developers for sure that have agreed to -- to -- close to previous amounts
before we got the TischlerBise study and, then, we have had two land donation sites that
are equivalent to the 3,270 per home.
Cavener: Okay. So, Mr. Mayor, maybe -- maybe I didn't ask the question the right way.
So, since you -- the district completed this TischlerBise report -- and, frankly, I -- I would
hope that it's something the district would share with the City of Meridian -- how much
have you collected -- how much have you assessed -- how much does -- I guess the city
of Kuna assessed on your behalf and collected?
Reno: So, the city cannot collect it. We have to collect it and so --
Cavener: Okay.
Reno: -- currently --
Cavener: So, how much is that? How-- how much have you assessed from development
where you have said we need 3,200 dollars per door -- how many doors have you
collected money for?
Reno: Current -- well, we put it on -- we -- we -- we help -- we work with the developer.
We put it on -- okay. The building permit or the occupancy permit and that's something
we worked collaboratively with this developer, said, okay, when it's an occupancy, you
know, that's when it would -- to help the developers sell their property and ensure that the
product doesn't incur debt on them. Currently we have not -- we have only collected land
donations, because other projects have not commenced.
Cavener: Okay.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 41 of 58
Reno: They are in the pipeline, because there is a sewer problem in the city of Kuna.
Cavener: So, if -- if -- if -- if I were to say that you have collected zero dollars as a result
of this assessment fee I would be -- I would be correct?
Reno: Correct. We have --
Cavener: Okay.
Reno: -- we have gotten land and we have agreements with other developers.
Cavener: Okay.
Reno: But they have not broken ground on their projects yet.
Cavener: Mr. Reno, I would love to see a copy of that report that you guys have -- have
conducted. I think that's helpful for us.
Reno: Yeah.
Cavener: This is not going to be the -- the last time that we will have an application for
an annexation in front of us in Kuna.
Reno: Correct.
Cavener: And understanding the consistency of your approach -- and certainly we see in
Meridian all the time -- developers see a benefit to their development to include extra
green space or land for schools and we certainly applaud that. There is a difference of
that being a competitive element to incentivize their neighborhood as a place for families,
as opposed to -- to requiring them and I think one of the things that this Council has been
really supportive of is that we want to make sure that we are addressing the impacts of
schools holistically, but I'm -- I just want to be real frank with you, I'm -- I'm -- I'm very
hesitant for the -- an annexation within the City of Meridian to be the very first one to either
ask or condition or anything like that, some type of -- of a fee for us. So, it's just -- it just
seems a little out of sorts for me to -- to hear from the district to say this is -- this is where
you guys are and maybe a good message to go back to your school board is that we have
a very strong collaborative relationship with the West Ada School Board and we would
love to be able to hear from Kuna School District members as well.
Reno: Absolutely. Absolutely. And do I just provide that to Mr. -- the city clerk?
Cavener: Yeah. That would be great.
Reno: Great.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 42 of 58
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: To that point, Mr. Reno, what -- what has the school district done with the Kuna
City Council in terms of -- of informing them, having meetings, trying to work through this
-- this situation and what's been the outcome if they have had these meetings?
Reno: We meet once a month with the Mayor and his legal team and our legal team. We
-- we do that. We have done joint meetings with the school district and their city council
-- and the city council -- city council. Very involved with them and being collaborative with
them.
Hoaglun: Follow up, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Are they stopping development or are they -- have they done it -- we have
looked into moratoriums at one point with our West Ada. I mean where -- where are they
in that process? What -- what -- what's the outcome of those meetings?
Reno: So, like I said, it's been mixed; right? Once that developers have supported us
we have been in support of them and they have passed and ones that haven't -- some
haven't and some have. But we are -- we are getting that to a much better process with
our city and so --
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. It's really interesting. So, just to recap, make sure I'm following. So, it
sounds like you have had -- since you have adopted this approach you have had seven
developments that have either donated land or paid this mitigation fee --
Reno: Or other mitigation.
Strader: Or other mitigation. Okay.
Reno: A developer donated a bus.
Strader: Okay.
Reno: Other -- other things to help with that.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 43 of 58
Strader: Got it. And, then, the approach with your city council has been you are -- you
are providing your opinion on each development and you are asking developers to
provide this fee --
Reno: Or mitigation.
Strader: Or mitigation. Okay. And so I -- yeah, I mean because one -- I -- I think the
biggest issue I would have is consistency; right? And -- and I think this is going to be a
much bigger issue than just this development.
Reno: Correct.
Strader: And we are aligned in the sense that I personally feel it is very unfortunate that
we don't have a way to build new schools efficiently and effectively in the state of Idaho.
We deal with that with West Ada all the time, too. This is just a different approach,
certainly, than West Ada has taken, but I appreciate -- you know, you are giving a very
clear answer as to whether you can support these students. So, is the math behind --
you have got -- so, you have got a limited amount of capacity. You have 5,000 units
coming. You are also -- you also have kids graduating every year and so is that based
on a projection of the delivery of those units over time? Like how-- what kind of went into
the -- if you don't mind -- you don't have to give me like the ins and outs, but --
Reno: I will give you a simple -- a simple answer. There is capacity and working capacity.
Like this room --
Strader: Right.
Reno: -- the occupancy of 440. But we know we could fit 600 people in here. An
elementary school has ten classrooms, but by that--you know, by an architect's definition,
ten classrooms, 30 kids per class, you -- you have -- that's enough for 300 kids for that
elementary. Well, we have to have a special ed room. You can't have more than ten, 15
kids in that room. Kindergarten class you don't want 30 kids in that class, you want 20,
25. And so when you do that workable capacity, that -- that architectural capacity of 300
kids per that -- for that school of ten classrooms is not really 300, it's more like 225. So,
yes, we -- one thing this process has done is made us get better at our data, because it's
getting attacked. I mean -- and so we need to get better at our data as far as -- because
currently we publish our architectural capacity, not the workable, teachable occupancy.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I very much understand, because we went through with West Ada and
they eventually, because of our non-stop pestering, created a projection model that
differentiated between physical occupancy and, you know, they -- they have attempted to
do something similar around what their actual serviceable capacity is. I don't know if it
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 44 of 58
ever really arrived at the same level. But in terms of the concern about the amount that
is approved -- so, you have 5,000 units approved. Is that delivery in the next five years,
ten years, 20 years?
Reno: So, we have a projection in the next ten years --
Strader: Okay.
Reno: -- that will be about 4,000 kids without a seat -- if we don't -- if we don't build those
six elementaries, build those two middle schools and finish another 5-A high school.
Strader: Yeah. Okay. That's really helpful and I just want to appreciate you for coming
and being very frank about that. We face the same challenges, but we have had a little
bit of a different approach so far from our district. But this is helpful.
Reno: We tend to be the first -- we -- we did all day kindergarten as the first district in the
state and so we -- we like innovation.
Strader: Fantastic.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Also, like my fellow Council Members, trying to wrap my head around how this
model will work. So, my understanding the intention, then, is with this collection of fees
that the district would use cash to -- to build and move forward. So -- or is this going to
be some sort of down payment or cash that leveraging -- and the reason I'm asking is
because the assumption is that all of these homes close and upon occupancy you receive
funds. But the economy doesn't work like that. You are going to have ups and downs in
the next decade and so if you are planning on delivering these schools over a ten year
period and you don't have the cash to build the first one, because enough homes haven't
-- haven't closed, how is that a stable model of funding and then -- and you kind of made
this promise to developers at the front end, but, then, you can't deliver an elementary
school in two or three years, because other developments haven't -- it just -- it's -- it's
creating a designation of one developer dependent on others closing their developments
as well and I -- I guess I'm just not understanding how that is something they can rely on.
Reno: Correct. But if we don't pass a bond we will -- we have -- we can't support them
anyway and so it's not a -- it's not going to -- it's not going to fix the system, it's just to help
our constituents, our patrons see that developers are helping and so we can sell a bond
to the people and that's -- it's to -- it's to help make up that difference, because right when
you build a house and you buy it in November, those tax rolls don't go to our levy rate
until that next year and so there is a gap there and so we are -- that's another way to look
at it, too, is we are trying to fill that gap as far as that component. But, like I said, it would
go into a restricted fund where we can't -- you know, I'm not going to get a half a million
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 45 of 58
dollar raise because I got this money. No. It's going to go to capital -- it's going to go to
a restricted fund to build off of those -- those -- the -- the capital projects over the ten year
plan.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Has the city of Kuna officially passed a policy that they are going to require
this for new developments within city limits?
Reno: One thing that they have done is they have made Kuna School District a critical
agency. Currently, you know, fire, police and sewer and --those are critical agencies. We
are now considered a critical agency under the city of Kuna code. So, they can deny
under a request of a critical agency.
Perreault: Okay.
Reno: I don't know if West Ada is a critical agency in -- in your city.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton. Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: Sorry. One -- one more thing I have. So -- so, I don't know if you are familiar
with what Mr. Clark was presenting in terms of West Ada's plan for when a school -- when
schools are over capacity, they kind of have a, you know, priority list to how they handle
that. Do you have something similar before you get to the point of constructing new a
building?
Reno: Correct. Currently we bus Reed Elementary. We bus kids to Indian Creek and
Ross, because -- and that's one thing we are getting better at our data. We want to look
at our district, because we are still condensed, we are not spread out. This -- this
development and other developments will help spread us out. But right now we are pretty
condensed, centralized, so we can bus kids to elementaries, we can add portables, but,
then, again, you know, we can do those things as -- as we -- as we need. But, yeah, the
-- we -- we shift elementary schools, we shift between our two middle schools, and we --
we only have one high school and the annex of the high school. We move programs if
we need to. We can redo boundaries. We have -- we have done that before. So, for
example, in our last ten year plan, the plan was to take 6th grade that was in the
elementary schools, take the bond money that was passed, so we could only bond for 40
million -- we don't have the tax base that Meridian does. Eighty-eight percent of our tax
base is -- is residential and 12 percent is commercial. You guys are way better at
commercial, which is awesome for you and takes the burden off our -- off home owners.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 46 of 58
But what we can do is we can -- we can redraw lines and -- and -- and do those things,
too.
Simison: Mr. Borton, did you have any questions? Okay. Mr. Reno, I had a privilege of
seeing Swan Falls, a beautiful facility, and should be very proud of while you are there
and Senator Bernt is -- definitely will -- is a big advocate of the CT programs and if you
haven't been down there you may want to go check it out as well in the future. As an
agent of the board -- these are not directed towards you, but I will ask the question --
Reno: Yes.
Simison: -- as it was inferred. Would Kuna School District be supportive of this project if
they had received a financial contribution from the developer?
Reno: Yes.
Simison: So, that is the policy of the board that if you pay them money they will advocate
in support of residential growth and development.
Reno: Or mitigation.
Simison: Or mitigation.
Reno: And so yes. As the board -- that's the direction the board is taking.
Simison: Okay. So, it really has nothing to do with your ability to serve now or in the
future, it's -- you pay, you're approved, in Kuna.
Reno: Sorry, Mayor. The hope is that as we collect these it will help bridge that gap, so
that we can pass those bonds from -- from our constituents.
Simison: Okay. Yeah. Personally I'm just going to give my two cents. I have -- I have
spoke out against ITD having a very similar policy of voluntary payments for Highway
mitigation when they don't have an impact fee statute. I understand there is a need, but
I -- you know, I'm not the attorney up here, we have two others, but I highly encourage
this Council not to consider these type of things in the deliberations. This voluntary or not
exaction -- I'm going to use those words. Not their legal team. But it just -- it doesn't feel
right. You know, if -- if there are state laws that need to be changed, we will go help you
try to -- and we do. That's what we work with. But I don't think this is good public policy
when it comes down to a financial -- to get an agency to agree based upon a financial
contribution and if you don't do that, then, they are not going to be supportive. That's my
two cents, so --just had to say it on the record. And I know it's not you, it's your board's
policy.
Reno: Yeah. Yes. Yes. No. I know. And that's one thing that we all got to remember is
I'm an agent of the board.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 47 of 58
Simison: Yep.
Reno: It's not me that's doing this.
Simison: Absolutely. So --
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I know we are not here to make a determination on Kuna's board policy. I
agree with our Mayor, but I just want to say I don't -- I don't think it's a feasible financial
model. That's my primary concern. That being said, if the city were to agree to annex
this property, how will -- and -- and not -- not encourage the applicant to make that
contribution, we can't -- we can't condition it, how is -- how is the city and the -- well, you
can't speak for the city. How is the school board going to treat the applicant? Are they
going to still allow the -- I mean, obviously, you have to allow their students to attend
schools, but is -- is this going to create a challenge for them in any other way?
Reno: As far as -- so, if you -- I mean, yeah, this is --this is developments on our northern
boundary. The closest elementary -- because we don't have a school on the east side of
Meridian Road, as far as like that -- that area, they would have to be shipped all the way
to Ten Mile is that -- the zoning for that school district is on Ten Mile and -- I forget. It's
not Ardell. Mason Creek. So, it's a -- I think it's 7.1 miles from that subdivision to the
closest elementary. 7.1 miles. Yeah.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. I -- I --just some feedback. You guys are doing it the way you want to do
it and I get that. As a decision maker who wants to support making sure we treat schools
as an essential service in our community, I -- I personally think a moratorium -- or a more
principled approach would -- would -- would make more sense, because if you had come
up here and said in the next ten years, you know, we can't serve -- you know, we are
going to have 4,000 kids without seats and that's the decision making point for us and it
wasn't about this fee, then, I would be behind you a hundred percent. But it's that there
is this tradeoff, which you have -- yourself said outright that you would support the
development if the fee was paid. I'm -- I'm having a really hard time with that.
Unfortunately, I think I would have to sort of exclude that from my decision making tonight
for that reason. It's not personal. I -- I get it. You are here as one -- a representative.
You know. But I -- I -- I do want to say I hope that we can work together in the future
closely to try to come up with an approach and, you know, the -- this impact fee issue is
a huge issue. I don't know. I think we are all stronger together trying to figure it out
together. So, thanks for coming.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 48 of 58
Reno: Thank you.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I just want to quickly say thank you very much for being here. I have learned
a lot. I know it's hard to have these conversations. We are all sitting up here and making
very candid -- sharing our candid thoughts. So, thank you for being here this evening and
spending your time doing this with us.
Reno: Absolutely.
Simison: Sorry about the game.
Reno: It's okay.
Simison: All right. Thank you very much.
Reno: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Julie Edwards. And, Julie, you can unmute yourself.
Edwards: Hello. Can you hear me?
Simison: Yes, we can.
Edwards: My name is Julie Edwards. I live at 1310 East Mary Lane in south Meridian
and I just wanted to say that I appreciate the Kuna School District coming forward with
their honesty and concern for accommodating their new students. I sometimes feel like I
wish West Ada would do the same. I just wanted to say, too, that I feel like the -- it's easy
for the developer to say, well, it's just -- it's just another hundred kids. That's all. But in
the bigger picture, just south on Locust Grove -- I believe it's Locust Grove and Hubbard
and to the south, there are hearing signs there for 536 homes going in. So, beyond the
-- you know, the 5,000 that are planned there is 536 just to the south of this project.
Another thing is the housing. I think a variety of housing is great. I would still love our
wide open pastures, but I understand that's disappearing. So, a variety of housing for a
variety of people is great. However -- but we also like space to breathe; right? People
want to walk outside. I agree with -- I can't remember which Councilman said it, but
getting rid of -- if, at all possible, the playground and even minimizing the green space to
whatever the requirement is. I think 13 percent or something. Because of the school --
or I'm sorry. Because of Discovery Park just to the east. Common driveways -- I'm always
going to kind of-- I'm not a fan of the common -- common driveways and on the on-street
parking map, the bottom right section there is a common driveway and, then, there is one,
two, three, four -- about 15 houses -- 14 houses where there is no parking on either side
of the road. So, you have no parking -- extra parking for the common driveway and about
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 49 of 58
14 houses in a stretch there. So, less green space, because there is a whole bunch of it
at the park, and slightly larger lots, so, then, if somebody does have smaller kids and they
wanted that small little playground, they could just get -- put a play structure in their
backyard. And as far as variety of houses, too, I don't know if there is a variety of housing
prices. For example, Lavender Heights just to the north of Discovery Park, I stopped and
looked at one of their flyers last year and they had two-bedroom, two baths homes, about
1,100 square feet for a half a million dollars and it is four houses sharing one driveway.
So, I'm pretty sure there aren't people out there who are so excited to spend a half a
million dollars and share a driveway with three other homes.
Simison: Thank you, Julie.
Edwards: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any questions? All right. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone
else signed up, Mr. Clerk?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was everybody.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody present that would like to come forward and provide
testimony on this item? If you would like to come forward.
Yorgason: Good evening. For the record Dave Yorgason. 14254 West Battenberg Drive,
Boise. I do not live near this place, but my son does. My son would be a potential buyer,
an occupant for this community. My son is a newly married -- in fact, I was texting him
during the evening here. He is -- he is studying for his CPA exam. He is trying to be --
he does tax work here in the City of Meridian. He is a resident of Meridian and he rents.
He would love to buy. Interest rates are awful. We could have discussions all day long.
We are not. But we could talk about how tough the housing market is because of what
interest rates have been doing. It might be a little bit short term. I think in the summer
we could see a little bit of relief, but until we do it's really tough. So, I would just like to
say that my son, who is newly married with a six month old child, might be a potential
buyer for this community. I'm not going to say I'm supporting or against. That's not my
role here tonight. I would also like to say I appreciate the discussion about schools
tonight. This is a tough thing and leave it at that. And stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Dave, just -- you do development out in the Kuna area and what -- what -- I
guess you could speak for yourself. I'm just curious to what developers think about this
approach that the school district has taken? I mean that's -- it-- it's -- it seems interesting
and I know that developers do -- oftentimes will donate land for a school site and whatnot,
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 50 of 58
but I don't know what you want to share or give me your thoughts on -- on that
arrangement and if there should be something more formal. I'm just -- it is an issue. We
-- we talked to West Ada about this, trying to figure things out. Hopefully, they figure
things out. But it does have an impact on cost of homes, so --
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor and Council Member Hoaglun, consistency is really important and
predictability is really important in the development process and when you get surprised
with a big fee and there is no line item for it, it doesn't quite work very well. So, it's -- it's
difficult. I know of many out-of-state developers who are not experiencing -- well, I will
just say they are considering suing the city of Kuna. I'm not aware of a lawsuit filed yet,
but I heard of one today that's debating it today. With a pending application, by the way,
because they got this notice from the city -- from Kuna School District. I sympathize with
Kuna School District. They are in a tough spot and I always try to work with schools the
best I can. I really do. I grew up in Meridian, West Ada School District. Graduated
Meridian High School. I get it. This is not -- this is a tough situation. But consistency and
predictability are -- are important in the process. Hope that's a vague enough answer to
help answer the question.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Yorgason: You're asking for my son's referral?
Perreault: No.
Yorgason: Sorry. You should ask the question.
Perreault: No, I hadn't thought about that, but thank you. No. I -- I would just like to pick
your brain while you are here, because we don't get you very much.
Yorgason: Oh, sorry.
Perreault: What --what are your thoughts or perhaps -- you know, I know you can't speak
as a representative of the SB, but the ratio of townhomes and patio homes is -- you know,
we -- we talk about diversity of housing and -- and we have had discussions about
Meridian encouraging or -- or desiring additional units that meet that need, because that
does help offset some -- some of the cost really -- you know, cost issues, maintenance
issues, for -- for residents that -- that maybe now -- now cannot afford a single family
home in a larger community. Would -- what -- what do you think of where our ratios are
currently and -- and whether that's something that would be beneficial to the city to
consider -- I mean we -- we can't require it, obviously, but, you know, it's -- it's something
we have had discussions on.
Yorgason: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Perreault, I will speak in vague terms and not
support or pick apart this development, other than to say it's been interesting watching
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 51 of 58
Meridian evolve and mature, following the footsteps of Boise, where Boise has gone
through -- continues to go through this evolution. I see Boise today denying applications
because there is not enough density and/or encouraging the developer to come back --
will you bring back a few more units, because we need more housing in our city of Boise.
That happens -- I don't know if I can say more than not, but it happens quite a bit. Meridian
is headed that direction probably. I don't know if you are there today, but I could see
Meridian being there in the future someday. As far as your mix of housing product type,
really depends on location, in my opinion. You saw an application I had before you tonight
out on the rim. You need less density. You know, bigger lots or whatever. But when you
are next to urban infrastructure, like parks or other facilities, I think higher density is more
appropriate. I'm not going to speak to this project. That's not my intent tonight. But that
-- I do think that's where your densities belong as a city is next to public infrastructure.
Happy to sit down with you afterwards if you like. Any one of you.
Simison: Treg's buying tacos across the street afterwards, so --
Yorgason: I have not had dinner yet. Thank you, Mayor.
Simison: Thank you, Dave.
Yorgason: You are welcome. Thank you for your time.
Nary: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Mr. Nary.
Nary: So, Mr. Mayor, I -- I think you and -- and the Council sort of understand the dilemma
here and understand the -- the problem and I guess if it's okay I would like to at least for
the record -- because the public understands the dilemma you face, because they have
raised the issue about mitigation in the statute and there -- and the word is in there and
the -- and the word is defined by you as to what that mitigation means. But the statute
also goes on to say that mitigation, if it's based on fees, the fees have to be created
through the impact fee process and these weren't. These are created by a similar process
or a like process to impact fees, but they don't follow the impact fee process, because the
impact fee process doesn't contemplate school fees. So, therefore, to apply the mitigation
standard under the subdivision of Idaho Code Title 67 is problematic when you want to
apply a fee that wasn't promulgated properly under the statute. So, therefore, you can't
do that. So, that's -- that's problematic one. Under our ordinance you also have to be
able to find that services can be made available and that the concern they have here is
that they are saying services may not be available. All school districts are constitutionally
required to provide education for the children in the district. So, they constitutionally have
to provide it. How they provide it is up to them. Whether it's contracting with other
districts, whether it's changing shifts, whatever the tools and levers that they use that all
school districts have to address are all available to them, just like the West Ada School
District as they have told you previously. But the serviceability of it is really problematic
when their mitigation factor they are using isn't supported by statute. So, then, it's up to
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 52 of 58
you as the Council to decide is their methodology of trying to enforce that and, then,
wanting you to apply our code to saying it's not serviceable based on this one
methodology they have chosen, which isn't supported by statute, is that reasonable?
Does that gain enough weight by this Council to want to deny a project simply on that one
lone condition. So, those are problematic issues for decision makers to face, but I really
wanted the public to understand, because, again, I -- I understand. I have sat here a long
time as well and I understand the dilemma and the concern that exists out there from all
school districts with growth and this Council has wrestled with this for many years with
growth. So, I understand the concern. I understand the why. But the method here really
is problematic in statute and ordinance to be supportive of -- of that, because there isn't
the underpinning of that for you to defend this. And, again, if we were to apply it and the
opposite -- as we have stated in the past -- the parties don't have the ability necessarily
to appeal the failing to annex the property, but they can make a takings findings -- a
request for a takings analysis for a finding if the denial is going to be based on something
that is not based in statute. So, now we, then, have to provide an analysis that we aren't
taking your property improperly by forcing you to do that. So, those are things I think for
the public perspective. I know this is probably very legalese and nobody else is going to
care much about it, probably, but I think it's important to at least put on the record that
although those are really compelling reasons of what their concerns are, I think the
support for it just isn't there.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this
item? If not, ask the applicant to come forward to close.
Clark: Members of the Council, Hethe Clark, 251 East Front Street in Boise. Thanks for
the conversation. A couple just quick thoughts. You know, I think what Dave said is
exactly spot on. You know, what you need to have in all of this in solving this tough nut
is consistency. You know, the 67-6513 has these requirements related to impact fee --
the impact fee statute in order to provide for that consistency. So, people know that if
they pay those fees that there is something that's being provided and as part of the
outcome. You know, I worry that some of this actually makes getting the bonds passed
more difficult, but I will leave that for tacos at some other point -- some other time. I -- I
would also note that a 1.33 percent growth rate is actually 66 students per year, not 660
students per year, but it -- it is a concern that, you know, we are going to try to be
supportive of and, you know, it -- just the same way we are with West Ada. We are a
small user of public services. We know our product. You know, we have studied it. Black
Rock Homes has done all of these projects. They study every inch. They do follow-up
polls with their users. They -- they know these folks. They are relatively small users of
public services and so we think that because of that and because it provides really a
needed housing type and because we have jumped through all the other hoops, we would
ask for your approval tonight and appreciate your time.
Simison: Thank you. Hethe, quick question for you. You alluded to earlier that the reason
the street widths may be what they are is because of a preference of ACHD. Which --
would you prefer if you had your choice to have these streets wider, so that there was
more parking throughout the development?
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 53 of 58
Clark: Mr. Mayor, I think -- and this is -- this is planning by Hethe, probably not more than
-- than speaking for the applicant. But, you know, in general I -- I think a narrower road
section is a good thing. A narrower road section leads to slower driving. It's usually more
safe. It also has less public maintenance cost associated with it and they -- and they
function great. You know, we have -- we have -- you know, we -- we see them all
throughout the valley. This is actually becoming more of the norm than not is a 27 foot
street section and so from that perspective I -- I think we -- I think we are good with the
27.
Simison: Okay. Council, other questions for the applicant?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: You guys have consistency -- consistency down. All of your houses look the
same. I'm wondering if -- intended to be a joke. Anyway. I'm wondering if -- if the -- no.
Truly, though, I -- I -- that's the only thing that I have to -- to say that is a negative from
what I can see is that they do look so much the same. So, are the renderings that are in
here -- is there going to be more stonework? Is there going to be more variety than what
you have done in your past projects?
Clark: So, the -- the renderings are all example and, of course, you know, Meridian
doesn't have single family design standards, so it -- it will be -- you know, it will be up to
the applicant to identify what is marketable. So, we will make sure that it is marketable.
Is that -- is that a -- a good enough answer for you, Council Woman Perreault?
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: No. I know it's something we can't condition. I'm kind of just joking around
with you. But I really do -- I would encourage you and the applicant to give some more
variety, just -- just because this is a purchased product. If -- if it's a -- if it's a leased
product it's different; right? Folks don't have as much investment in it. But for the sake
of future value -- try to make it a little more interesting.
Clark: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Okay. I guess you can take a seat in the front row. Off the hook.
Clark: Okay. Thank you.
Simison: Actually, Hethe, I did have one more question. I don't even know if it's -- that's
really for you or not, since we are talking about schools. There will be a charter school
that will be built half a mile away. Are they precluded from attending -- the students here
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 54 of 58
are they precluded for any reason? I'm not exactly sure how the charter school
boundaries work or don't work.
Clark: Mr. Mayor, I -- I don't know the answer to that, but as far as I'm aware there is
nothing that would preclude it. In that -- I think you are referring to Gem Prep, which is
-- which I mentioned during the presentation and is just within a few hundred yards.
Simison: Okay. Thanks.
Clark: Yeah. That's a good point. Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Maybe I can at least scratch a little bit of the itch of your question, because it's
one that I had as well and, then, maybe some deliberation before we close the public
hearing. As -- as I recall -- I -- as many of you know I coparent my oldest and he lives in
one school district with his mom and another school district when he's with us. He's been
a big chunk of time attending a charter school and he was eligible to go to that school in
part because when he lives with his mom he was living in that particular district and most
charter schools follow a tier and if they are over -- if they are under capacity, then, they
can open it up to students that are outside of that district. So, it really ultimately depends
on what enrollment at that Gem Prep school would be, is if students from this particular
development would be able to attend or not. Just for what it's worth.
Simison: Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, maybe some deliberation on this, in keeping the public hearing
open. I came into this particular item with a lot of uncertainty. In part because I think
decisions here tonight could have some impact on future decisions for our Council down
the way. To me there -- there -- there were two questions and can -- I think we are kind
of--the two questions that came up are should -- should this be developed -- and certainly
I think it meets the intention of the Comprehensive Plan. I appreciate the -- the testimony
that we heard from Julie about always concerned about density and I think from a dense
product that our Comprehensive Plan calls for, this is a -- a unique type of density and a
good type of density, that it's not one that's going to drive a lot of traffic on our roadways.
I think this particular model has really scratched the itch for the need in our community,
which is why I applaud that we are seeing something higher density -- of a higher density
in Meridian before some of the lower density comes in first. So, then, it really comes to
is -- is now the right time and the feedback from the school district has really -- really
weighed on me and, Mayor, I want to commend you. I thought your question of the district
representative was -- was spot on, is that this -- this feels like coerced donations and I
really struggle with that particular piece. I would hope that we, as a Council, have the
opportunity to engage with the Kuna School District and get a better sense as to their
needs to be a better partner. But I -- I'm not seeing anything tonight that would cause me
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 55 of 58
to be -- to press pause or to delay approving this annexation. So, I'm in support. I think
it's a good fit to support some of the other land uses that are in the surrounding area. I
know that we as a Council are kind of moving into this new district area and this was
within my district and so I have taken a hard look as to how this fits within District 6 and I
think this is a -- a good addition to our community.
Simison: Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: A question for staff. Bill, this -- the -- the applicant has asked for a modification
of that condition 2.A with removal of one lot. It looked like there was a request for two lots
and it looks like the removal of the one lot accomplishes what the Planning and Zoning
Commission was asking for. Is -- is that acceptable from your perspective?
Parsons: Yeah. Mayor, Members of the Council, that is correct. Right now, as
mentioned to you in my presentation, there are no conditions of approval, but if the
Council does decide to overturn the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation,
then, this condition would need to be modified based on what the applicant was showing
you tonight.
Hoaglun: Thank you, Bill.
Parsons: To align with the revised plat that was shared with Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. Just a few comments. I -- normally I think this far out into our area of
impact I wouldn't like to have a huge amount of density, but I do agree that considering it
borders a public park that that sort of changes the dynamic. I think it's great that it would
have access to that park so directly and it does provide a needed housing type and we
have talked a lot about that kind of missing middle housing type and this does feel like
what that is. I do think Julie has an interesting point, which is, you know, we are -- we are
seeing this type of housing product, but are we really going to see a more affordable price
point? I think that's a question that only the market will end up determining. Markets
change, things change and evolve, so that as long as we keep supplying it -- oh, hopefully
everything's all right over there. I think as long as we keep supplying it we are doing our
end to keep the market healthy and -- and provide that housing. The parking for me has
been a concern. I'm a little bit hanging my hat on the analysis they have done on the
demographics and the users of this type of product. I'm really hoping that we are not
going to see multiple cars per household. I -- I feel like the narrow streets and the -- the
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 56 of 58
parking are sort of a setup for a bad situation to the extent that we do end up with larger
families at all that -- that come in here because of affordability issues. That's my only real
lingering concern. I am very moved by the situation that the Kuna School District is in. I
just -- I -- I don't feel like I can rely on -- on their rationale, unfortunately, as we already
discussed. So, I think I'm okay with this one, providing that -- that housing type. But I --
I -- I don't really want to see super narrow streets in general. We have real parking
concerns and I also hate common driveways and this doesn't have a ton, but it -- it does
have some. So, it's a little bit of a mixed bag. I really came into this thinking based on
the Kuna School District capacity, I would be an absolute no, but I just -- I -- I feel it would
be illegal to rely on their analysis, unfortunately.
Perreault: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Perreault.
Perreault: I agree with my -- my fellow Council Members' statements and just have one
more thing to add about -- you know, I under -- the consistency element. I understand
from a developer standpoint how sometimes we look at what would seem to be a really
similar development in one location and say, hey, we think this works and move it to a
different location and say, hey, we think it doesn't, but it's -- but it's similar. So, I'm going
to be clear about why I think this works in this location and that is Discovery Park is one
element, but Lake Hazel is going to be widened here. Eagle is going to be improved.
Locust Grove is not. It -- it -- it's a -- it's a little rough up until you get to Overland. But it's
a -- it's a nice overpass. They are not over capacity on Locust Grove. So, because this
is in the location that it's in I think this makes it appealing, in addition to agreeing --
agreeing with Council Woman Strader, this is -- this is very much a needed product in our
community and I also don't -- you know, don't typically like these types of projects this far
south, but because of how that road network is going to develop and its proximity to other
recreational and services that we know are now finally coming into the south side of
Meridian, I think this will work for this area.
Simison: Council, further comments, questions, or motions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Move we close the public hearing on H-2022-0064.
Perreault: Second.
Cavener: Second.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 57 of 58
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 and
the public hearing is closed.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton. Going five for five for different motions. I like it.
Borton: Fellow Council Members have described the -- the reasons that this project
should be supported. One of the additional ones is we talk about consistency. It is -- you
know, our comp plan is where it all starts as a guiding document and -- and medium
density is what was intended to be here. So, being consistent with that long-term
planning, this does just that. So, for that and all the other reasons expressed, I move that
we approve H-2022-0064 as presented in the staff report of December 6th, 2022, and
with the modified condition and understanding the actual conditions of approval would
probably be brought back next week is that realistic or -- or does it need to be done
separately procedurally?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think our intention was to try to bring them
back next week --
Borton: Okay.
Nary: -- for findings. But, yeah, we could approve it tonight subsequent to the findings
coming back for approval.
Borton: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: One comment and it's on behalf of the Kuna School District -- take aside all of
the efforts -- thank you as an educator. You are -- you are spending your night -- you
don't get a lot of them. My wife's an educator and administrator. And you work your tail
off. So, we appreciate you coming out to Meridian and sharing your thoughts on behalf
of your school board, collaborating with our city. Come as often as you can, but, please,
know that we appreciate you and the time and sacrifice you make in the classroom and
-- and running your school. Okay? Very very very much appreciate that.
Meridian City Council
December 6,2022
Page 58 of 58
Simison: Is there further discussion on the motion? If not, Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, yea; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Anything under our future meeting topics? Or a motion to adjourn.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Move we adjourn.
Simison: Motion to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes
have it. We are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:04 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON 12-20-2022
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK 12-20-2022
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
Public Forum - Future Meeting Topics
The Public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at
www.meridiancity.org/forum to address elected officials regarding topics of
general interest or concern of public matters. Comments specific to an active
land use/development applications are not permitted during this time.
By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at the Public
Forum. However, City Counicl may request the topic be added to a future
meeting agenda for further discussion or action. The Mayor may also direct
staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET
Date : December 6 , 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 is for this forum )
Name ( please print ) Brief Description of Discussion Topic
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for S. Black Marlin Lane Vacation (H-2022-0078) by Damon
Beard, Arch PLLC, generally located just South of 1-84 on the northwest corner of S. Meridian Rd.
and W. Overland Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0078
A. Request: to vacate the remainder of S. Black Marlin Ln., located within Lots 10 - 18, Block 1 of
Interstate Center Subdivision.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : December 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1
PROJECT NAME : S . Black Marlin Lane Vacation ( W2022 - 0078 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes )
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/6/2022
Legend
DATE:
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Stacy Hersh,Assistant Planner -
208-489-0576
SUBJECT: H-2022-0078
S. Black Marlin Lane-VAC
LOCATION: Lots 10— 18, Block 1 of Interstate Center ®®
Subdivision, S.Marlin Way,in the SE
1/4 of Section 13,T.3N.,R.IW.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to vacate the remainder of the private road and public utility easements for S. Black Marlin
Lane and W.King Salmon Lane on the subdivision plat for Lots 10-18,Block 1 of Interstate Center
Subdivision.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Damon Beard,Arch,PLLC.—2929 W. 537 E. Forest Ridge Drive, Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owner:
Pat Morandi,Roaring Springs—400 W. Overland Road,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Craig Callaham, Quadrant Consulting,Inc.— 1904 W. Overland Road,Boise,ID 83705
III. NOTICING
City Council Posting
Date
Newspaper Notification 11/20/2022
Radius notification mailed to 11/17/2022
properties within 500 feet
Pagel
Next Door posting 11/18/2022
IV. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
Per UDC Table 11-5A-2,vacation of the private road requires approval from City Council at a public
meeting; vacation of public utility easements requires approval from City Council at a public hearing
when a new or amended plat isn't proposed to be recorded to vacate the easements.
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant proposes to vacate the remainder of the private road(ingress/egress easement) and
public utility easements for S. Black Marlin Lane and a portion of W. King Salmon Lane on Lots 10-
18,Block 1 of Interstate Center Subdivision(see Section VI.A below). Interstate Center Subdivision
was originally platted to be a business park with individual lots having access served by a private loop
road. Since then,the subdivision has been developed into a single recreation facility
(Wahooz/Roaring Springs). In 2006 the Owner recorded a document that eliminated the need for S.
Black Marlin Lane and W. King Salmon Lane (Inst. #107006039),however,the City's process was
not completed to formally vacate the private road and applicable utility easements. In 2021,the
applicant approached the City about his future expansion plans to the Roaring Springs Water Park
which included new pools/attractions, site work, operations building,mechanical building, additional
cabanas,food/beverage building,and a new parking lot Upon further review,it was determined this
roadway and utility easements needed to be vacated to allow the expansion, and the project was
conditioned to complete this process prior to occupancy of the first certificate of occupancy.
A legal description and exhibit map of the private road proposed to be vacated is included in Section
VI.B below. The public utility easements proposed to be vacated are depicted in the exhibit in Section
VI.0 below.
Relinquishment letters were received from Cableone, Idaho Power, Intermountain Gas Company,
Lumen,and NMID for the easements proposed to be vacated. The proposed vacation will not impact
City utilities as this property was previously located and developed in Ada County.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the vacation of the private road and public utility easements as
proposed by the Applicant.
Page 2
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Interstate Center Subdivision Plat
e�+L4
k NN }' [ uNPLATTEO
g 19 m 1mW11-_E 34M95' N GMS33Y 72■ JV N p►�p'W E 22gef f N 9rT.47'11'E Ay]p' f f 1
M06 OI 99.16• MR I IM IY 0.3]r-4�1 a1�`4TJJtl f I '
�Az�C��45��Y4�H1 1 � t • � G�qq G T`
a,e><aKartv;ti�=4;P log �pp `�
LL %atl#is � ;�L� r g If G 9
'C88888888R8s8883: i i � � R as � - g-�
'RtibiQ�R S 6s»a i !- R Yq u
a
iRFayy 6f�8s:aa��g yam• Nm+ [ � .ar iRRp
:'X8Y:,�ii.r vzw„ I I Fi _xVSw BWE 4 —1W UN"IBM +
sciRR:;.q'J6L1tt9[ Rf
kl�
p>rkkgR'd k�,�hA.4 i a� i f
mom ' r g9�1
�S Tk t d
s R yam[ al" a Nm.rsrr /,sr� i4�ar#� 3gs
VA ______ 3 E
w�sv[ ^r.r w e1 aam m A f 11
S £1 w ra+rar r n omr�c ' IN � � � � � ' f
n ■ �L 1( 7160R IM p i 4Sr.W 9 q;4 o p� w [ g 0 a P1.ss.
K 9rTr E
�IZg
zq*e R fR
❑ S ow v�C�
6 t f
-M3
8 n
j«
stew• 4'+.PT i !y-�O
41;
Y o g:
g, 5 �LoL a�y 3.-LACK MARLIN IJNE��J �A �7J�. IJ y- ary iJC
/32
k 44 ? N I� � 8= �� � i�• � a 1r 4� s�!' I
lit 1:
�i �� r a � � u � c • � s+ a
---+.ate--- --'+ems=�- ---1---;.arY_.-1 �v �•Y�e 9 �g a.# .9.N:�� �i �-i.:a s^
S 019r'27'01 M94' - 69° 3.llig'y�41.
gq �cea��ia cgs
gg $y4 a'E =8 1 ��8 .1 Srp mA 3 B :egR # _$^ate;
00
aa [Jill
= :aall 3i
r N SOUTH MERMAN EkOAO ^ n A
R• �S71,RI[,N[� iC mSri yab � -� � F��€S� 83i
MAN S
aH nmPcr m■sr�tr1 a s@ u i - $
Page 3
B. Legal Description of Private Road Proposed to be Vacated
Vacation S. Black Marlin Lane
Interstate Center Subdivision
(Legal Descripbw)
This vacation is all the private roadfpublic utilities easement shown an the Plat of Interstate Center
Subdivision, recorded in Book 74 Page 7656,Ada County Records as S_Black Marlin Lane and W_King
Salmon Lane located within lots 10 thru 1S_
vnC
Page 4
C. Public Utility Easements Proposed to be Vacated
=. w
uNPLA TTEO OIw '
N ad3117�E J�-E�
N 01'G3'I11 E .W N 0 Syr w 2293Y N OD3WW E 2Z18T N OR430'IIIr W£ Zp' I r
I I ,
fs.Ir G.W t4.r.4Y aa5 Zr 2•Zt.OI
=ana5q;S;4iX �ffi 1 � �s rS t T�
IR
W.ySq{KEg:Cslggagv k y€ v x ;i � b3
ce9�;zasR�A$$M'I�a6E � F
EC888888asasaa88 S- I • Y 9 �' n g'S s s
�~ pla
:Iiiaa�`h6 :sie�iPip R A
ii�a[INsalzssaxa,rJlR Iae� YM3Y] [ ay laaoe
BLUE _ Ae0.W' L
+:us=a-�=say[S�Ei_ R � b 6� I�6 �■y��a.■ ito3
= 7i9Xi:A9tE + $ �i $ 3✓3 p r $3O
RTk1NW4 x�4a:4I'is=4lkq'.tty I w � ■i��
�ruc :tava� tj _
= w 09E [ 7o'1r 7'[ • I p
R g B •m-sar c aixaa• #;�v ie�S i 3 ff
Si w �3 -____ --- R gg
- ----- n y 9 if-gal
Y �
vve• N1.a 1 " �, ;wao�z n lt�pp �� '@p �~i ^" �['� ��p �
S nav ; 1 Y N 9 jw[ .6NTV E
P tl
e I aYsav Haas •a+.u• `a
, a Q l M aanYSY E Y 07t3']'1'E Y n ppi 3?jY E �
>}
pR� �� � ,f_ � ;^ova �
�r3 I ■ IQ 0
o9+37r E ]fs9'„ �' S !p
ors a J"Fm
je priY]>'S
6IF
� Z
AN J
k. 5� JD MARLIN., L Pd r,.� ./� .}�•e
jj
If iix
�� r8 _� I u � � l 1 I, ? Mr .. 'v r +fir -. w v 1• a r
-5 ola-Wi
Yya 3 � � 7A I pi ` �9g �.4 g� ; yns S3, ��_eti+ ■N'y� ��;[es]pµ
�4ea -ePR s�B
•
3 qq P i
n g I- F zv 4rp 9 - 5 � �
I� OZ Z �§ [E -
ngS�� g is9 3 YSJ SS 3 r -1
mp g I4 OffR Fs �a x3 �ls � 21! Y� # 11
1 sa3Sga,I A! ■ ■e o g3
zM a v? 3S � a af{_ 3a e 5 �i3Rf�Ra L eda ��?3 iffs. 8 d�
++ NIA 9� SOUTH MERIO+AN ROAD 'J 1 ${
1 i7ii s w 6 9 _ _ _ ) y 6 U � all
f1E.R1t,R1L (STATE MICMwAY ND. ev u § S
u I Ir»eai w vr9nts lirt.[s-s>{7C7
a
Page 5
V IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Lost Rapids West (SHP-2022-0014) by KM Engineering,
generally located on the south side of W. Chinden Blvd., 1/4 mile west of N. Ten Mile Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2022-0014
A. Request: to re-subdivide one (1) building lot (Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5, Block 1, Lost Rapids
Subdivision) into two (2) building lots on 1.628 acres of land in the C-G zoning district.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : December 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2
PROJECT NAME : Lost Rapids West ( SHP - 2022 - 0014 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish totes tify
( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes )
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N ---
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/6/2022It
_
DATE: �R
Al BPYi
TO: Mayor&City Council
4
x E�
R- r.: 4AMoi �
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner 1 r arr.FS' C
208-884-5533 '3-INQEN'SLVD
s u ti W 5ILYFA RN Eft LH F .� }w sl_YEA�
SUBJECT: SHP-2022-0014 ,,EW
Lost Rapids West 1 J ti W 3LLI{N•
{� W Suzy{Y C4Y1 LN
LOCATION: Generally located on the south side of W...R-s F'
Chinden Blvd. 1/4 mile west of N. Ten q x- °
* Ly eRE�trr
Mile Rd.,in the NE 1/4 of Section 27, } 2 F4 °{F '
TAN.,R.1W.
z Ki
Z = b
.,
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Short plat to re-subdivide one (1)building lot(Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5,Block 1, Lost Rapids
Subdivision)into two(2)building lots on 1.628 acres of land in the C-G zoning district.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant: Cameron Scott,KM Engineering,LLP—5725 N. Discovery Way,Boise,ID 83713
B. Owner: GFI—Meridian Investments II,LLC—74 E. 500 S., Ste. 200,Bountiful,UT
C. Representative: Same as Applicant
III. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Legal notice published in
10/23/2022
newspaper
Radius notice mailed to property
owners within 500 feet 10/20/2022
Posted to Next Door 10/18/2022
Page 1
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
The short plat proposes to re-subdivide Lot 4 and a portion of Lot 5,Block 1,Lost Rapids
Subdivision into two(2)buildable lots. The property consists of 1.628 acres of land in the C-G
zoning district.
Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for compliance with the criteria set forth in UDC 11-6B-5
and deems the short plat to be in compliance with said requirements.
The street buffer along W. Chinden Blvd.was constructed and landscaping with the previous
subdivision improvements.
Future development of the proposed lots should comply with the dimensional standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district.
Access to this property should be provided via the existing driveway along the southern boundary of
the site; direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited.
V. DECISION
Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this
report and in accord with the findings in Section VIII.
Page 2
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Short Plat(date: 8/25/22)
PLlE OF
WEST
LOST RAPIDS WEST SUBDIVISION
APES ONGION OF ALL OF LOTAANDAPORTIONOF LOT 5,BLOCK I OF LOSTRAPIDSSIBCFN91M,
STRAATED IN A FOROON OF THE NOHHFAST V4 OF SECTION 27,WMIRIP 4 NORFH,RAIK,E
i WEST,ROSE FAMMM,CRY OF MMIMAK ADA=RM,I W O
2022
W.Chir k 58oukvrd 12EIJ26]
�IFl Clef IxET�IMt]MA-t6AdA —- - �r,N
Earl:Jft x A � E] !i
n sr•Tx>= 1�5n�__ ___— _ _ Is w__— __—_- ter,_ - xo
V �
Ala I�
I
I' I�
RECFwXn lnwAJ,� r Yl9:]35 E mm I -
HIM INEEK
I sxEEr t-ruT ua.E.R�,1].z fur xo1Es
rT`__ ter___ ___L__ __ iXEQ 2-(F1rRRr/•IE OF OMYQS
I � n R,", � SNEEI 1-IIi11RG1Ei AxP 1PR"1TWL4
I I ss § Y
I I � LEGEND
y I Fyurap ruweiu n*,.S Xm6D
! Pn SL ® N. R61 LN155 OTN EFl,—E 1,]TE1
I I
� F-0IMV 1!S•FFEAi 1NiH fLL`lIC GP MYd®
■ •xSN Ie6oY.xE�IKF]YxM ye'eE,Yx xe
.� I � Miuu"IIC tM uYdx:b 1�5k 1616Y
} I • >t1 In'N—NM I•WTIE[w•Yw XE3
I ] � 5 6 IISN 166RY
} A I e &M,1 Ha C.1Plsh]]-hl Srvo ..—10 CR 31)
g �� IeelRgldf5�11�Vlui V ILT hw�A
1uxRER
II x[YNLEYi IAT ruxeEl
I I ,4nd owswt A®0.ti1Twr, IXJJko.x I11E
a �} 1'���]SO xFld,lal ar-ufei IGT IInE
I I I I SFL'n6e u1e
n M xLwLEYT EWrGM'U.E
I I
� II II W _ —_ Er.EElvrr IrvE
+ L'M SGs'C 9JlIDe GYMC`If(�xQiC 0]
L---
W9'1]'1E'x R3Y,25'
-—-- -
RHHH7106
Ie�M10V1 RI IIw a slab m[llf m Ruvs,n>�leYaFlmUl,
y1y�� Kx'cnz cF nln 6]En1Y,GWA.
� R] mxe]s snEst xn eiStf6 a.n1[erT•,Iwc.
SLI TWEY NARMTFWE
11E IIISa:r.E:F 1XR sSmEx R ro aESIla1—111E IAA W"
xFFPFn:FussxH xlu ed'l. -N x FELL ausl£•A-
5 x)t,L1E].1 YCM..ErI'a RECYW-E FN.xC R h
+°usTic Yc sxx�'=iiYT[s°�xo el*sre:Tic larc ccx
NOFES
,. 11xs sueuxeAu Is v,alECT TA KYSTRLCIY-w.XwEA.Tnr.u.r-r_uc wl.m.wcE.as RE[r=mo�L rnaes ac[c=s Eas.o-rt
]. ,13 SHT,1n NFaL81 18 JM tr,YI9ek 1 ME suME.Yi TO n xOZTx sISu.N rotlEz[sFA4 r^3CYRICl,G•ECrT ffz IxsT. r,[I Iyp
x es snrin nowv,wrs la r+4 lT,IWCX 1 Mc eulunr m e slr•or Ywllxv Irlrlxo'e•9lort�leis.rb.
so-1 wRo.
fif62
es xHe1r•XER<ly,IPIS la xp Ir,ILVGI 1 iulE>:IIrt Q.T m.4f'nF IE9rH1 sE1W Mn xtiQ QafIIPR Fpe F T.vc f N C I N E E R�N G
* zul r-nxmTa �
a.. 16 sXTAM 111-4..Lris 11 O1T IM 9� Q a
, 8S 8 A0M `LG1]. 1p 1- O a I-A17 E1Q AT ME 1.
I'NEea91[P,.
PT
:f PT 4 11 £ 1 M. R— Po —2
] Irrr�E.w p.xwn u
exIG4 ORENnY_E CIxErFC rl1 L6T V6 CCwY.x P]PE01:Po5R`RI-rn+v LhRxk a fAOU fLOT YCE 6W�E]�T FCR
=u311C ulII1RF$�Tr Cf IEAtllxl STx FEI IllV13.PIr FP'6[69r:gll.^.x=sE55ERRE]IYd.",PIFI,M I6i REVaV£
Page 3
B. Existing Approved Landscape Plan(dated: 4/22/19)
i
I i � III j � l o II
a
a_
I I I I I f L --_-'-
0
f I a�
I I W
O � I{I �~••� AiR4R0YR�
-- — --------------®----------------- — r r —= — -------°------ --
R.v`recnew� nwttxun¢�s�al¢r u:o �m
N ^ vve wca Q11 nmrmc vu iwrz max^x`a" mn a..�m«s�wu uuw mcrs xn m 1xu®
e 2
Page 4
VII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS&CONDITIONS
A. Planning Division
Site Specific Conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this
development: H-2018-0004 (AZ, PP,VAR; DA Inst. #2018-079970)and H-2019-0056 (FP).
2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City
Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time
extension is obtained,per UDC 11-613-7.
3. The short plat prepared by KM Engineering on 8/25/2022 by Kelly Kehrer, included in
Section VI.A shall be revised as follows:
a. Reference R.2—Include the recorded instrument number of the Record of Survey prior to
recordation of the plat.
b. Include a new note: "Minimum building setback lines shall conform to the applicable
zoning regulations of the City of Meridian at the time of issuance of a building permit."
c. Include a new note: "Any re-subdivision of this plat shall comply with the applicable
zoning regulations of the City of Meridian in effect at the time of re-subdivision."
d. Include a new note: "Lots shall not be reduced in size without prior approval from the
health authority and the City of Meridian."
e. Include a new note: "The bottom of structural footings shall be set a minimum of 12-
inches above the highest established normal ground water elevation."
f. Include a new note: "Direct lot access via W. Chinden Blvd. is prohibited."
4. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals
noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance.
B. Public Works
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Commercial lots require 6-inch sewer service line
2. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches
3. Construction plans show new sewer service to Lot 2, but not a water service. Water services
cannot cross lot lines, if new water service is required, easement over that water service
including the meter must be shown and obtained.
General Conditions:
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. 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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the
development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
Page 5
3. 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.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete
fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety
Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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.
7. 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, and water infrastructure for a
duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing
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.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health
improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a
surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-4B.
14. 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.
15. The 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.
16. 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
Page 6
certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
17. 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.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development
plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The
contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian
Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and
Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. 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 I I" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for
review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO
NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be
submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. 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.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for
abandonment procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(UDC 11-313-6). 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 development plan approval.
24. 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 I I-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207
and any other applicable law or regulation.
VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
Page 7
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the
Unified Development Code;
The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Commercial and the
current zoning district of the site is C-G. Staff finds the proposed short plat complies with the
short plat standards listed in UDC 11-6B-5. Future development should comply with the
dimensional standards for the C-G district listed in UDC Table 11-213-3.
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services will be provided and are adequate to serve the proposed lots.
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvements program;
Staff finds all required utilities will be provided with lot development at the developer's
expense.
D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting
services as services are already being provided in this area.
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and
Staff finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
F. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short
platting the structure on this site.
Page 8
E IDIAN.;---
Applicant's Presentation
Page 4
Lost Rapids WestCity of MeridianShort Plat
Proposed Development PlanShort Plat
Proposed Development PlanConcept Plan
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Ledges Business Center (SHP-2022-0015) by Kent Brown
Planning, located at 4120 N. Linder Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/SHP-2022-0015
A. Request: Short Plat to subdivide an existing commercial office lot into two (2) building lots on
approximately 2.28 acres of land in the L-0 zoning district for ownership purposes.
i
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : December 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3
PROJECT NAME : Ledges Business Center ( SHP - 2022 - 0015 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes )
If yes, please
provide HOA name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N ---
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/6/2022 Legend G C-N 0
DATE: R 15
Project Location pt
R 15 y� -�RQ�pt
G� L-O
TO: Mayor&City Council [Eil
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner R-4q�'```�` _ -
208-884-5533 R=$
SUBJECT: SHP-2022-0015
Ledges Business Center Short Plat R-4
R-$
LOCATION: Located at 4120 N. Linder Road, in the
North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 rt RUT R-15
of Section 36,Township 4N,Range 1W. _ R-40 L , acm-T�-
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Short Plat request to subdivide an existing office lot into two (2)building lots on approximately 2.28
acres of land in the L-O zoning district,by Kent Brown Planning.
II. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Kent Brown,Kent Brown Planning—3161 E. Springwood Drive, Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owner:
Kevin Amar,Biltmore Co.—1580 W. Cayuse Creek Drive,Meridian,ID 83646
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. NOTICING
City Council
Posting Date
Legal notice published in
11/20/2022
newspaper
Radius notice mailed to property
owners within 500 feet 11/17/2022
Posted to Next Door 11/18/2022
Page 1
IV. STAFF ANALYSIS
The proposed short plat will subdivide the existing office lot into two(2)building lots for future
ownership purposes. In 2006,the existing parcel received annexation and preliminary plat approval
[Whitewater Subdivision(also known as Redfish)] but the property was never final platted. The pre-
plat has since expired.
The subject property is located directly north of Sawtooth Middle School and takes access from N.
Linder Road. Each lot shares a single access with the other one(northern access)being for emergency
access only in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. Lot 1,Block 1 is developed with a new 20,000 square foot,
two-story office building(A-2020-0203) and an existing accessory storage building will remain on
Lot 2,Block 1 and will be utilized by the office user on the northern lot until such time as the
building is converted to an office use or removed when a new office building with a future certificate
of zoning compliance and administrative design review application.
In addition,the plat depicts the entire parking area to have a blanket cross-access easement as
requested by Staff. However,the specific plat note also notes a utility easement; any utility easement
should be separated out from the cross-access easement and placed in its own depiction and plat note
to ensure the actual dimensions of the utility easement are depicted on the plat. Further, Staff wants to
ensure the cross-access easement also includes a cross-parking component for the shared parking.
Staff has reviewed the proposed short plat for substantial compliance with the criteria set forth in
UDC 11-6B-5A.2 and the required zoning regulations of the L-O zoning district and deems the short
plat to be in substantial compliance with said requirements.
V. DECISION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed short plat with the conditions noted in Section VII of this
report and in accord with the findings in Section Vlll.
Page 2
VI. EXHIBITS
A. Short Plat(dated: 9/26/2022)
�� s.a�e Yki�el,un Ad Plot Showing
Ledges Business Center-Su6di vision
51tuoted in the Southwest 1/4 of the Northwest 1/+ of Sectian 36,
S-ly -,nk I Townshlp i North, Range 1 West, Bolse Meridian,
�!--.�_,��_—•- -_-`---- -----1^-y^�� —__L__— Clty of Meridian Ado CaYnty, Idaho.
2822 N
o �r
j — —
scds I'.3w
a F `ow
Xw+MMk,w.,,..�L w�•wgwH HMenl M dF.ew�wr O r..a aK Yw�w x.r
�ia,� � S MYw+nlw t M i..rrrY h M+++V►ham+y,r.,.Y^Mw • �'rl�i�,�� �T
}rw Y M wort n1 T•wMM Yr rM eY.IPe�r 4rYMW.r ti� Q
`y .4yr�..,.�,a r 5prr ow rraa M»'MIA�14rW r Ui x�r
h�uinMYwr e.w, IbMrf•Md rl,.
e•el 1 �t !ll.�w,mear'a FF.rY+,r is�..�rwwi.v�hr]T�i.Yr�� u tl.
rrir-
�I i
r•P �kL7ti F
awe f Beef Peg.
IOANa
�w�oR
SU Y nwo dmr
196 �4� �zx z�r �w ue aaxa RVEY uo.e•aen
'°1° ,_,�,e0 �r�•i , GROU P.LLC wow mwcxrur ca,
Page 3
'IIiFM
� raj
�I 13
'10.
poll
pq
' •, '
,
�l11. �.
in,311
�kv
,��
KV
I �
�` -+4ly
+:
VII. City/Agency Comments& Conditions
A. Planning Division
Site Specific Conditions:
1. Applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this
development: AZ-05-021 (Whitewater Subdivision,f.k.a. Redfish Subdivision; DA Inst. #
106165912);A-2020-0203 (MBG Office Building CZC&DES).
2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained within two(2)years of the City
Council's approval of the short plat,the short plat shall become null and void unless a time
extension is obtained,per UDC 11-6B-7.
3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature,have the Certificate of Owners and the
accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized and obtain signatures from the Ada
County Highway District and Central District Health Department.
4. The short plat prepared by Idaho Survey Group on September 26, 2022 by Cody M.
McCammon, included in Section VI.A, shall be revised as follows:
a. Add a plat note stating the subdivision is subject to the existing Development Agreement
and include the DA instrument number(DA Inst. #106165912).
b. Add a separate plat note for any utility easement(s) and include the recorded instrument
number(s).
c. Plat note#7—Include the recorded instrument number for the cross-access/cross-parking
easement; ensure depicted cross-access easement on the plat includes cross-parking
5. Prior to building permit submittal for any new commercial building, Certificate of Zoning
Compliance and Design Review approval shall be obtained.
6. Lot 2,Block I is a non-buildable lot until such time as the existing storage building is removed,
converted to an office use, OR remains as an accessory storage building to the new office
building on said lot with a future CZC and DES application.
7. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the previous approvals
noted above does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance.
B. Public Works
General Conditions:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains adjacent
to the development.The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant
shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department,and execute standard
forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the
development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. 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
Page 5
surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set
forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all incomplete
fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety
Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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.
7. 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, and water infrastructure for a
duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing
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.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-health
improvements, prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to occupancy, a
surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-14B.
14. 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.
15. The 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.
16. 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.
17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings
Page 6
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.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street
Lighting (http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights shall be
installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the development
plan set for approval, which must include the location of any existing street lights. The
contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of Meridian
Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian Transportation and
Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of existing street lighting.
19. 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 I I" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for
review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO
NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be
submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting that
may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. 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.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for
abandonment procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C.1).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 development plan approval.
24. 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.
Page 7
VIII. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
In consideration of a short plat,the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the
Unified Development Code;
The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Medium Density
Residential and the current zoning district of the site is L-O. Staff finds the proposed short plat
complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is being developed in accord with UDC standards
for the existing zoning district and previous approvals.
B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services will be provided to this property and are adequate to serve the
future commercial office building sites.
C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvements program;
Staff finds that the development will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
All required utilities were provided with the development of the property at the developer's
expense.
D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting
services as services are already being provided to the immediate area.
E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and
Staff finds the proposed short plat to create a new office building lot will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or general welfare.
F. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with short
platting this site.
Page 8
W IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Alden Ridge Subdivision (H-2022-0059) by Dave Yorgason,
Tall Timber Consulting, located at 6870 N. Pollard Ln. and three (3) parcels to the north and east,
directly east of State Highway 16 and south of the Phyllis Canal at the northern edge of the
Meridian Area City Impact
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0059
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4
(20.35 acres) and R-8 (4.45 acres) zoning districts.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 65
building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning
districts.
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : December 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4
PROJECT NAME : Alden Ridge Subdivision ( H - 20 M059 )
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 QRAk
y
2
3 <<I -
V2eF a lbL, 5mcre ,i
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/6/2022 Legend
DATE: 0
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2022-0059
Alden Ridge Subdivision ------
LOCATION: 6870 N. Pollard Lane and the three(3)
parcels to the north and east,directly east
of SH 16 and directly south of the Phyllis
Canal at the northern edge of the
Meridian area of City impact,in the NE _ 53
1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 21,
Township 4N, Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 24.8 acres of land with a request for the R-4 (20.35
acres)and R-8 (4.45 acres)zoning districts and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 65 building lots and 10
common lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land in the requested zoning districts,by Dave Yorgason,
Tall Timber Consulting.
NOTE: The Applicant has also requested Alternative Compliance to the required landscape buffer
requirements adjacent to State Highway 16; the Director has approved this request per the analysis in
Section V and the findings in Section IX below.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage AZ—24.8 acres; PP—21.7 acres
Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR,up to 3 du/ac
Existing Land Uses County residential
Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential
Lots(#and type; 75 total lots—65 residential building lots and 10
bldg./common)) common lots
Phasing Plan #ofphases) 2 phases
Number of Residential Units 65 single-family units
Density Gross—2.97 du/ac.
Pagel
Description Details Page
Open Space (acres,total Approximately 3.18 acres of open space proposed
[%]/buffer/ ualified) (approximately 14.4%
Amenities Four(4) amenities are proposed—swimming pool,
picnic area,pathway network, and dog waste stations.
Neighborhood meeting date May 26,2022
History(previous approvals) No application history with the City
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access is proposed via new local street connections to Pollard Lane,an
(Arterial/Collectors/State existing street(partially private and public)at the southwest corner of the
Hwy/Local)(Existing and property. Pollard Lane accesses SH 20/26 through a future public road access
Proposed) southeast of the site(N. Rustic Oak Way). Access to all proposed homes is
shown from new internal local streets.
Stub No existing stub streets.Applicant is proposing two stub streets with this
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross project; one to the east boundary and one to the southern boundary.
Access
Existing Road Network No, except Pollard Lane and Old School Lane,private streets.
Capital Improvements Meridian North:Bikeway Signage/Community Improvement project is scheduled in the IFYWP
Plan/Integrated Five Year to include establishing new bikeway corridors with wayfinding/bikeway signage,from N.Black
Cat Road, crossing State Highway 20/26/Chinden Boulevard to N. Long Lake Way
Work Plan construction in 2026.
Black Cat Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from McMillan Road to Chinden
Boulevard between 2036 and 2040.
The intersection of Black Cat Road and Chinden Boulevard/US 20126 is listed in the CIP to
be widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 7-lanes on the
west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030.
The intersection of Star Road and Chinden BoulevardIUS 20I26 is listed in the CIP to be
widened to 5-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south, 7-lanes east, and 5-lanes on the
west leg,and signalized between 2031 and 2035.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 3.3 miles from Fire Station#5.
Station
• Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5
minutes. Future development of public roads may assist in reducing response
times in this area.
• Resource Reliability Fire Station#5 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%)
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths and turnaround dimensions but
requires a secondary emergency access to construct more than 30 homes.
Water&Wastewater
Page 2
1 1 1
- • - • .. � ' Celle la Irve J
��, - - _ -= ■�_- all 1.1
. o -
1
W
� - • r - j nnum
�11111\lII llllll 111• I�-
Irri,: _a nnmml J liti 3,
• n 11 6� 11
3 �� '-_ o ljlw �I :mnun•�iit mw mnumnn�__�-e e- '� �1,�
llllll llllll � -111111 llllll��• -` -
11.111111� -■ . III.111111
�� • � � 11.11114 -_ �� •�.�.�� I11.111111� I
' II111111111 I • � /////( 111111111111111111
CHINDEN
111111111111111111 ��i■ �~ IIIIIIIIIIIIIII llllll
.......� 11111 IiaaGi. 11111
nn_e,Inllln 2` � f, �f ��Ul:>Ir1__,nuun
IIr -Ili 1117 n iii mrr 1:tl qlq ,p' 'hnry/ =.IGiGIN .m 1j-
U J:re_=nu= U1•:11:, �unno all.- �.�,�- Ia -_-nu
�� =�•• 1 m�.��Ii11111Y� i� _11111■iiiii-`'�mm����-�Illjn�„ =�I111111Y�
y I � 11 y I nm n111111111111 IIu1111�-_.� {��_ n
Irr� _ 1: . . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIr�llrrnrrr■
- = W .....
1 1 , • ,
11
B. Property Owner:
Kyle Enzler,Ryenn Holdings,LLC—2610 E. Jasmine Lane,Meridian,ID 83646
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 10/19/2022 11/20/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 10/13/2022 11/17/2022
Site Posting 10/23/2022 11/28/2022
Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 11/18/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Low Density Residential(LDR)—This designation allows for the development of single-family
homes on large and estate lots at gross densities of three dwelling units or less per acre. These
areas often transition between existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need
to respect agricultural heritage and resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and
maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area. The use of open spaces,parks,trails,and
other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area. Density bonuses may be
considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land
dedicated for public services.
The subject 22 acres is located at the northern edge of the Meridian area of city impact(AOCI)
and includes four(4) county parcels containing three(3)rural county homes. The largest home
located at the northeast corner of the project is proposed to remain while the other two homes
are shown to be removed upon development of the site. The subject site abuts SH 16 on its west
boundary and the Phyllis Canal along the entire north boundary which limits any connectivity to
the north or west. To the east, two county residential parcels exist and will remain with their new
access being to the south through an approved development(Pollard Subdivision). South of the
subject development is the aforementioned Pollard Subdivision that is zoned R-8 directly abutting
the site and C-G south of that; this development was approved as a mixed-use development
consisting of residential and flex space/commercial uses. The subject property is designated as
Low Density Residential on the future land use map consistent with surrounding large lot
development to the north and east and is a transition from the mixed-use designations along
Chinden/SH2O126 to the south.
The Applicant is proposing 65 building lots on approximately 21.7 acres of land which
constitutes a gross density of 2.97 units per acre, near the maximum density allowed within the
LDR designation. The Applicant is proposing two zoning districts within the development to
better transition from the R-8 zoning to the south R-8 zoning is proposed along only the
building lots abutting the south boundary with the remaining area proposed with the R-4 zoning
district. The minimum building lot size proposed is approximately 5,500 square feet which
exceeds the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size for the R-8 zoning district along the south
Page 4
boundary. Within the R-4 area, the minimum building lot size is approximately 8,000 square feet,
at the minimum lot size for the zoning district(there are a number of lots along the perimeter of
the project that exceed the minimum lot size requirement).
To further help transition from the development to the south, the Applicant is proposing a 30 foot
wide buffer with a walkingpath along the entire south boundary; Stafffinds this buffer and the
proposed zoning designations to be an adequate transition from south to north. The adjacent
county parcel to the east is approximately 4.6 acres in size with the home located on the east
third of the property, approximately 230 feet from the east property line of this project. In
addition, the submitted plat depicts a total offour(4) building lots and a stub street along the
east boundary. One of these lots is a large estate lot while the other three comply with the
minimum lot sizes of the requested zones. Because of the proposed design and the location of the
existing county home, stafffinds the proposed site design offers adequate transition to the east.
The Phyllis Canal and SH 16 are located wholly outside of the subject project boundary so no
direct transition is required as these features are delineations themselves. However, due to the
anticipated noise from SH 16, some form of transition and/or buffering should occur along the
west boundary.According to the submitted plans, 6 building lots are proposed adjacent to the
shared west property boundary with the one remaining home located at the very northeast corner
of the site. Code requires a minimum 35'landscape buffer from this project to SH 16 which is
shown on the submitted plans. Therefore, the rear lot lines of the proposed homes are no closer
than 130 feet to the edge of the pavement for SH 16 and future homes should be even further from
the highway after setbacks and building placement are included. Stafffinds proposing less lots
along this boundary should minimize the number of homes most affected by any noxious effects
from the highway.
The proposed development is located at the north edge of the City's AOCI with an approved but
undeveloped project to its south as its path to annexation and public street access.Access to the
site is a main point of discussion and analysis with this project and timing of development is
integral to its success because there are currently no public streets constructed to the subject
development from existing public roads. There is existing right-of-way(ROW)from the subject
-- - tl .v : �_ �• ,F,. - .. :LA Q0.,OBIIVISIOH ® �
YEJHIBIT
- - ------ -- --- - -
11
Page 5
site to Chinden but no physical road within the ROW. This will persist until Brighton
constructs Waverton east-west through their site and connects to Pollard Lane at the west
boundary.According to the Applicant,Alden Ridge will connect to Pollard Lane with
Brighton's first phase of development for its required public street access but full construction
(curb,gutter, and sidewalk) of the Brighton owned segment of Pollard will not occur until
phase 2;phase 1 of Pollard Subdivision has received final plat approval and does not include
the noted segment of Pollard Lane(see blue box below):
The roads outlined in black in the exhibit above are part of Pollard phase I and have received
final plat approval whereas the roads outlined in red would be part of phase 2 and have not
received final plat approval.ACHD has stated within their report that they will not approve any
final plat for Alden Ridge until a public road(Waverton Drive) is constructed to the project for
access(see Exhibit VIII.H). Therefore, this development is contingent upon the construction of
the adjacent project to the south. Commission and Council should determine if development of
this project constitutes orderly growth and satisfies the Comprehensive Plan and City code
despite being contingent upon another development for access and sewer infrastructure. Staff
recommends a DA provision around the timing of development consistent with ACHD and
UDC 11-3A-3 for access to the project. Further analysis is below in subsequent sections.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and
rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as
proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA that encompasses the land proposed to be
annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to be
signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the
Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the
DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:11www.meridiancity.o- Icompplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with 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). Staff finds the proposed design to develop
this site with two large estate lots, a majority R-4 development, and a transitional row of R-8 lots
promotes a diverse set of housing options that should meet the needs,preferences and financial
capabilities of future residents.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks" (3.02.01G).All public utilities are not currently
available for the project site due to its location being at the north rim of the City's AOCT
Specifically,Alden Ridge is dependent upon Pollard Subdivision to the south for sewer and public
road access. There are anticipated and approved improvements in this area that will provide City
sewer to the property with Brighton constructing a lift station with phase I of Pollard
Subdivision; water will be provided to the project from Veolia (Suez) Water and not the City of
Meridian. In conjunction with the timing of utility development,ACED has noted they will not
approve a final plat for this project without a public road being constructed to the subject site.
This future connection should occur with phase 1 of the Pollard Subdivision to the south where
an existing segment of Pollard Lane resides within public ROW and will connect to the new east-
west road, W. Waverton Drive. Staff has concerns regarding the construction timeline for the
required public road access to Alden Ridge.
Staff finds the existing development does not provide for appropriate levels of service for this
project but the planned development of the immediate area should create appropriate conditions
Page 6
for levels of service to and for this proposed project. Staff has included provisions regarding the
timing of this development with the noted and anticipated hurdles.
"With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable
open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A). The proposed project will construct sidewalks
within the entire development and extend public roads to adjacent underdeveloped county parcels
for future connectivity. There are no nearby schools but the submitted plans show adequate
pedestrian access to the proposed open space and amenities within Alden Ridge. Future public
road connectivity will also allow for easy and safe pedestrian and vehicular access to commercial
development planned along Chinden Boulevard, SH 20126 to the south. Staff anticipates both
customer and employment opportunities to be nearby the subject development.
"Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as
well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is proposing to
construct new local streets within this development that stub to underdeveloped properties to the
east and provide connectivity through the mixed-use project to the south, Pollard Subdivision.
However, as discussed, the timing to establish these street connections is not entirely clear due to
the project to the south not currently being complete and no existing public road connection to
Chinden exists. The Applicant is coordinating with the adjacent developer to the south but the
fact remains Alden Ridge development is directly tied to the development of Pollard Subdivision
to the south for public road access. For this reason, Staff supports the internal circulation and
the proposed stub street locations but has concerns regarding the overall connectivity to nearby
roadways and their timing of construction.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan but notes
the important access deficiencies that exist at this time.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
According to GIS imagery,there are three(3) existing homes and several outbuildings within the
project boundary. Staff understands the home located in the northwest corner of the site, located
on the proposed Lot 13,Block 1, is to remain while the other two homes and outbuildings will be
removed. In addition,there is a private street(W. Old School Lane)that exists along the entire
southern boundary and provides access to the two county parcels to the east, 6854 and 5500 W.
Old School Lane. According to City GIS imagery, it does not appear that this private lane is
within the subject project boundary but has confirmed with the Applicant that it is in fact within
the property lines. Further analysis on this is below in the Access section.
Located at the southwest corner of the property,there is currently a cul-de-sac for Pollard Lane
that was utilized when it was a private street;this cul-de-sac now has public right-of-way over it
as it is intended to provide public street access to this development. However,the cul-de-sac and
a large area of the existing right-of-way is not needed anymore as the design of this project has
shifted to the east to accommodate a future Veolia(Suez)Water well site(Lot 5,Block 1)where
the cul-de-sac is currently located. The remaining area of the right-of-way that is no longer
needed will be vacated at a later date with ACHD; the Applicant should provide the City proof
that the right-of-way has been vacated with the submittal of the first final plat application.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is detached single-family residential with a minimum lot size of approximately
5,500 square feet and an average lot size of approximately 6,000 square feet,based on the
submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-4 and R-8 zoning
Page 7
districts per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has noted the development is expected to
develop in two phases with a majority of the development occurring within phase 1 (48 lots in
phase 1 and 17 in phase 2). Staff supports the proposed phasing plan because it includes a
majority of the open space,pedestrian and vehicular connectivity, and both zoning designations.
No common driveways or alleys are proposed within this development.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The residential lots are shown to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat.All
lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size and minimum street frontage requirements for each
zone. In fact,nearly all of the lots within the subdivision are proposed to be larger than the
minimum lot size and with at least 10 more feet of frontage than code requires for each zone. For
example,the R-8 lots are shown with at least 50 feet of frontage (40 feet is required)and the R-4
lots are shown with at least 70 feet of frontage, except one lot that is proposed with 65 feet of
frontage (60 feet is required).
In addition,the subject development appears to comply with all Subdivision Design and
Improvement Standards outlined in UDC 11-6C-3.
F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed detached single-family
homes.Note that detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval,therefore
Staff does not review these for compliance with any architectural standards.
The submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural design variations of both
farmhouse and modern style homes. The homes are depicted with varying roofprofiles, building
materials, and window designs.All of the images depict some form of side-loaded garages which
allows the streetscape to include more building fagade instead of being garage dominated.
Overall, Stafffinds the submitted elevations to show high quality and attractive detached single-
family homes. However, there is concern the submitted conceptual elevations depict homes that
will not fit on the R-8 lots so Staff is requesting additional elevations that are confirmed to fit on
the proposed R-8 lots.
Page 8
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
As discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above, access to the subject site is concern
of Staff due to the required timing component and the fact the subject development is wholly
dependent upon development of Pollard Subdivision to the south. Existing ROW exists from
Chinden to the southwest corner of Alden Ridge via a small segment of Pollard Lane(a previous
private lane)but most of this ROW does not include any road at this time. Pollard Subdivision
No. I is approved and will include the extension of W. Waverton Drive from the east within
Fairbourne Subdivision. The below image depicts the ROW(shown in pink)versus the actual
location of the existing roadways(gray asphalt)with the overlay of the planned improvements
(burgundy lines):
� unKCPo Ci:.
JK ars4co°L
- I
W HIHLrNI FAL\[1R 3
3. —
r 9 _
W rgrvnsmR� —
�I
W WAVERTOH❑R
� z
14 km^ I
WXHIN N^.BCVO-________—_—_
w3
Once Waverton is constructed with Pollard Subdivision No. 1,ACHD will approve the phase 1
final plat for this development, according to their staff report.
Beyond the noted access from off-site,access for the development is proposed via a new local
street(shown as W. Scoria Court) connection to Pollard Lane at the southwest corner of the
property.All building lot access is proposed to internal local streets shown as 33 feet wide within
47 feet of ROW,consistent with ACHD standards.
Further,two stub streets are proposed; one to the east property line and one to the south property
line. The stub street along the south property line is planned to be extended by Pollard No. 2 in
the future but will be constructed as a temporary secondary emergency access from Waverton to
the new local street with phase I of the subject development. This secondary access is required by
the Meridian Fire Department in order to construct more than 30 homes. The stub street to the
east property line will be extended in the future should the adjacent underdeveloped county
parcels ever redevelop.
In addition to access for the properties within the subject application,W. Old School Lane is also
the access to the two county properties east of the subject site. The Applicant has shown an
alternative access for these properties by maintaining a portion of Old School Lane along the
Page 9
south boundary that connects to the proposed stub street to the south boundary;this access is
proposed to remain until such time that phase 2 of Pollard Subdivision develops to the south and
constructs a public road to the east terminus of Old School Lane as their permanent access, as
approved with the Pollard Lane Subdivision preliminary plat. All of these improvements are
noted within the access exhibit in Exhibit VILD below.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II-
3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm
compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence.Note
that there is opportunity for on-street parking where there are no driveways because the internal
streets are proposed as a 33-foot wide street sections. Further, due to the relatively low density
and wide building lots,there should not be number of driveways placed close together that limit
on-street parking typically seen within higher density developments.
I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
A combination of 5-foot wide attached and detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal
local streets consistent with UDC and ACHD requirements.No multi-use regional pathways are
required or proposed within the development as the Phyllis canal along the north property line is
not located within the project boundary. The Applicant is also proposing micro-paths throughout
the site for access to the proposed open spaces and Staff specifically notes their inclusion within
linear open space along the south boundary as well as within between the row of homes in Block
2 that runs north-south and adds a pedestrian loop between two local streets. The proposed
sidewalks and micro-paths comply with UDC standards;therefore, Staff is supportive of the
proposed pedestrian network of Alden Ridge Subdivision.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
There are no collector or arterial streets adjacent to the subject development so no street buffers
are required that are typical in most subdivisions. However, a portion of the west project
boundary abuts ITD right-of-way for SH 16 and requires a 35-foot landscape buffer per UDC 1I-
2A-5 for the R-4 zoning district as it is depicted as an entryway corridor(no portion of the R-8
lots abut this right-of-way). The required buffer should be landscaped per the standards in UDC
Table 11-3B-7C and UDC 11-3H-4 because it is adjacent to a state highway. In addition, all
landscape areas should be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-5,the general landscaping standards.
Lastly, according to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing micro-paths which should be
landscaped in accord with UDC 11-313-12 standards.
The Applicant is showing a common lot along the west boundary that is 20 feet in width and does
not comply with the required width of 35 feet. Due to the existing location of the home and
mature trees, a required easement by the water company along the rear of the building lots, and
the relative limited number of homes along the highway(6 building lots), the Applicant has
requested Alternative Compliance (ALT) to the location of the buffer and its required width on
the subject property—the Applicant is not requesting to reduce the actual buffer width but to shift
it over the west property line so that 20 feet is on the subject property and 20 feet is within the
ITD right-of-way.According to the submitted narrative, the Applicant states that ITD has
approved the inclusion of landscaping within their ROW as they have excess area that will not be
used for future road widening. In addition, ITD has included additional requirements
surrounding the approval of the proposed buffer location;for example, the requirement for ITD
to be able to access any SH 16 landscape areas from within the subdivision and not along the
highway for safer access. Staff is supportive of this request because the actual buffer width
Page 10
proposed is S feet larger than the minimum requirement, it will allow for existing mature
vegetation to remain, and allow for a wider berm and more dense landscaping to be placed along
this frontage offering more noise and fume mitigation than if the buffer was solely on the subject
property. Specific ALT findings can be found in the findings section of this staff report, see
Section LY
As discussed above, the required 35 foot landscape buffer is due to the SH 16 frontage being an
entryway corridor. Per UDC 11-3B-7C.3, entry way corridors require additional landscape
design than typical landscaping. For example, additional vegetative ground cover beyond that of
grasses and additional landscape features are required to meet UDC standards. Landscape
features may include berms at a three-foot minimum height, decorative landscape walls,
decorative open vision fencing, or a dry creek design with river rock, boulders, etc. are
acceptable to meet this standard. The Applicant is proposing trees in excess of code with the
combination of a berm and wall but there is no exhibit depicting the style of the wall and no other
elevated landscape features are proposed. In order to comply with the entryway corridor
standards, the Applicant should add additional features as outlined above; Staff has included a
condition of approval to comply with this standard.
As discussed, the Applicant has proposed linear open space and micro paths around and through
the development. These areas should be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 with trees at
least every 100 linear feet and include other vegetative ground cover. According to the submitted
landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing trees in excess of code requirements with sod
throughout; additional vegetative ground cover is required in accord with UDC 11-3B-12. The
Applicant should revise the landscape plans to depict the required revisions with the relevant
final plat applications.
The Applicant is also proposing a relatively short segment ofparkways near the north end of the
site in front of Lots 14-22,Block 1.According to the submitted landscape plans, the proposed
parkway includes one tree per lot and is 8 feet wide, consistent with UDC requirements.
K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing two types of fencing
throughout the site, vinyl privacy fencing and vinyl semi privacy fencing, in addition to proposing
a masonry wall at the top of the berm along the west boundary adjacent to SH 16. Staff finds the
locations of all of the proposed fencing to comply with UDC requirements. However, the type of
semi private vinyl fencing shown within the submitted landscape plans do not comply with the
exhibits depicted with the UDC that requires the solid portion to be no more than 4 feet in height
and the top 2 feet must be at least 80%open-vision. The Applicant is required to revise this type
of fencing shown on the submitted plans with future final plat applications.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing a berm/wall combination along the SH 16 frontage at the
northwest property boundary and notes the wall to be approximately 4 feet in height with a 4-foot
to 5-foot tall berm; therefore, the combined height of the berm/wall is approximately 8-9 feet in
height. UDC 11-3H-4, development along state highways, is applicable in this area of the project
because of the frontage with SH 16. Code requires the berm/wall combination to be a minimum of
10 feet above the centerline of the highway. Therefore, the applicant should revise the height of
the proposed berm and wall to comply with the UDC.
Page 11
L. Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The proposed project is approximately 21.7 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open
space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3,the R-4 area requires a minimum
of 12%qualified open space and the R-8 are requires a minimum of 15%open space. Because
both zones are located within the same project,it is anticipated all of the open space is to be
shared and the total open space required is based on the calculations of combining the minimum
required. Per the calculations,the minimum amount of qualified open space required is 2.77
acres,approximately 120,661 square feet. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is
proposing 4.1 acres of common open space with 3.18 acres of this area as qualified open space,
exceeding the minimum amount required. The proposed 3.18 acres equates to approximately
14.4%qualified open space for the overall project.
There are three main open space areas proposed within Alden Ridge, the centralized common
open space area, the linear open space along the southern boundary, and the linear open space
in the west half of the site with Block 2. The large central open space area is approximately
52,000 square feet in size and is the largest common area within the project. The Applicant has
proposed multiple micro paths throughout this open space for easy pedestrian access. The linear
open space along the southern boundary is approximately 30 feet in width and over 1,000 feet in
length. This linear open space is shown with trees and a micro path for an added pedestrian
element and will also act as a buffer between this project and the project to the south, Pollard
Subdivision, that is approved with higher density housing than what is being requested with
Alden Ridge. The other areas noted as qualified open space include half of the buffer area to SH
16 and a portion of the future well site lot at the southwest corner of the project that is at least
5,000 square feet in size. Both of these areas are allowed to count towards the qualified open
space per the UDC. Because of the pedestrian connectivity and the general locations and uses of
the open space, staff supports the proposed qualified open space.
UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The
project size of 21.7 acres requires a minimum of four(4)amenity points(1 point for every 5
acres). According to the submitted plans and narrative,the Applicant is proposing the following
amenities worth 9 amenity points: a picnic area(2),pathways(2),two dog waste stations (1), and
a swimming pool(4). According to UDC Table 11-3G-4,the proposed amenities and their point
value is correct and exceed UDC requirements for a project of this size.
Consistent with the overall design of the open space, the Applicant has proposed to place the
swimming pool with changing facilities and a picnic area near each other and within the large
centralized open space lot, Lot 13, Block 3. The two dog waste stations are located in separate
areas of the site for ease of access to both the east and west half of the project. Lastly, the
proposed micro paths are located throughout the development and add multiple pedestrian
connections through the project that are not located adjacent to the street. Based on the proposed
site design and zoning, Staff supports the proposed amenities.
A Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend sanitary sewer services to adjacent parcels to
the east for future connectivity.No other connectivity options are available due to the Phyllis
Canal located along the entire north property line and a segment of SH 16 along a portion of the
west boundary.Water service for this project will be provided by Veolia(Suez)Water and not the
City of Meridian. Public Works has reviewed the subject plans for compliance with their
standards and finds them to be in general compliance except for specific conditions outlined in
Section VIII.B of this report.
Page 12
As discussed throughout this report, sewer service for this development is not yet available and
must be provided to this site via construction of the adjacent development to the south, Pollard
Subdivision. Further, a lift station is also required to service this area for both Pollard
Subdivision and this subject development,Alden Ridge. In short, the subject development is
wholly contingent upon the construction and completion of the adjacent project to the south.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the
requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section VIII of this
report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on November 3,2022.At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation and
Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: Dave Yorgason,Applicant Representative; John Peterson,neighbor,
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: Dave Yorgason; John Peterson;
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Planning Supervisor.
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony
a. Support for project due to proposed density and general lot sizes;
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
A-. Fencing questions re ag rding lots surroundingopen space areas;
b. Commission supported the proposed density and lot sizes because they saw the proposed
project to provide adequate transition and would blend in well with the existing
character of the neighborhood.
4. Commission change, (s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 13
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps:
ACCURATE
SURVEYING SURVEYING & MAPPING
s£q P 0 Job No.22-197
Annexation Description
A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the
Boise Meridian and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at quarter corner common to
Sections 21 and 28,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at
the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 89'27' 17"W a distance of
2609.48 feet;thence N 89'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 feet to the west
sixteenth corner common to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34'56"E along the sixteenth line for a
distance of 1317.29 feet to a found 5/8 b inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 at
the southwest sixteenth corner of Section 21 and the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N.Pollard Lane;
Thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 365.15 feet;
Thence N 89°30'47"W along said centerline for a distance of 33.33 feet;
Thence S 83'33'30"W along said centerline for a distance of 55.00 feet;
Thence S 85'48'43"W along said centerline for a distance of 36.25 feet to a found aluminum cap
monument on the southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 16;
Thence N 68'56'21"W for a distance of 155.65 feet to the centerline of State Highway 16;
Thence along said centerline 770.84 feet along a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of
10,000.00 feet,a central angle of 4°25'00"and a long chord bearing N 28'30'55"E a distance of
770.65 feet;
Thence S 60'34'55"E for a distance of 159.30 feet to a found 4 inch brass cap monument on the
southwesterly line of the Phyllis Canal;
Thence along said line the following 8 courses and distances:
1.) along a curve to the right 60.81 feet,said curve having a radius of 340.00 feet,a central angle
of 10°14'52"and a long chord bearing S 74'09'59"E a distance of 60.73 feet to a found
5/8u'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
2.) S 670 00'00"E for a distance of 244.90 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch
aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
t
1520 W.Washington St.,Boise,ID 83702 Phone:208-488-4227
www.accu ratesurveyors.corn
Page 14
ACCURATE
SURVEYING $ MAPPING t
S£q u t t' Job Ito.22-197
3.) S 67°00'46"E for a distance of 47.31 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch
aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
4.) S 61°59' 06"E for a distance of 202.70 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
5.) S 53°06'27"E for a distance of 109.48 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
6.) S 520 52'46"E for a distance of 107.17 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
7.) S 66°52'05"E for a distance of 184.95 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
8.) S 700 40'30"E for a distance of 112.43 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
Thence S 00'31' 50"W for a distance of 557.08 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
Thence N 89'27' 18"W along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1164.95 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 24.802 acres,more or less.
11463
; OF
N J.QE`�
2
1520 W.Washington St., Boise,ID 83702.Phone:208-488-4227
www.accuratesurveyors.com
Page 15
EXHIBIT MAP
ANNEXA TION
�s 2P�5 t k63 LYING WITHIN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 21, T.4N., R.1W., B.M.
COUNTY OF ADA STATE OFIDAHO
rO Ayy<
�h S6717D'00'E s
44
/244.90 P�5 tiP�'53t11463 C��< LEGEND
S6159'06 E S 66 52'05" E ANNEX BOUNDARY
SCALE: 1"=300' �P 202.70' 184.95' —— SECTION LINE
_ PARCEL LINE R/w R/w— RIGHT—OF--WAY
109.48' ` — CENTERLINE
x 5525246 E FOUND 4" BRASS CAP
'107.17
1 11D R/W MONUMENT
57040'30 E FOUND 2" ALUM, CAP MONUMENT,
L 112.43 STAMPED PLS 8961
s N0365�15 E • FOUND 5/8"IRON PIN,
3 LABELED PLS 5710,
/ 24.820± AC. OR AS NOTED
N 8927'18" W CALCULATED POINT
/ 25.00, I o P.0.6, POINT OF BEGINNING
R.o.e.—J N 8977'It; W 1154.95' AND
dSW 1116 CORNER
PLS 7146J
oRNER N 00 34'56"E 1317.29'
20 21 1304.74' 8-
1304_2674'�_ 21 � 114 6 3
29 28 w 1116 —— N 89 27'17 W 09.48'
LINE TABLE CORNER BASIS OF BEARING
114 CORNER 9
LINE BEARING DISTANCE STATE HWY 20/26 N9�/AN J.DPaG
L1 N 89'30'47" W 33.33'
L2 S 83'33'30" W 36.25' Y r f 9lb 0 ACCURATE
S 85'48'43" W 36.25' Z � C
L4 N 68'56'21" W 155.65'
L5 S 60'34'55' E 158.30' '� j SURVEYING & MAPPING
L6 S 67'00'46' E 47.31'
s �` r.. 1520 W.Washington Si.
CURVE TABLE t Boise,Idaho 83702
(208)488-4227
CURVE I ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH www.accuratesurveyors.com
C1 1 770.84' 1 10000.00' 4'25'00" N 28'30'55" E 770.65' fR V 1 CE
C2 1 60.81' 340.00' 1 10'14'52" S 74-09'59" E 60.73' DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197
mmmi
Page 16
ACCURATE � '�► �.
SURVEYING & MAPPING
'It R V I t'' Job No.22-197
Zoning R4 Description
A parcel of land lying in the Southwest Quarter of Section 21,Township 4 North,Range 1 West of the
Boise Meridian and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at quarter corner common to
Sections 21 and 28,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch aluminum cap monument in asphalt at
the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 89'27' 17"W a distance of
2609.48 feet;thence N 89'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 feet to the west
sixteenth corner common to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34' 56"E along the sixteenth line for a
distance of 1317.29 feet to a found 5/8'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463 at
the southwest sixteenth corner of Section 21;thence N 890 27' 18"W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the
centerline of N.Pollard Lane;thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 163.00 feet
to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence N 00'29' 13"E along said centerline for a distance of 202.15 feet;
Thence N 89'30'47"W along said centerline for a distance of 33.33 feet;
Thence S 830 33'30"W along said centerline for a distance of 55.00 feet;
Thence S 85'48'43"W along said centerline for a distance of 36.25 feet to a found aluminum cap
monument on the southeasterly right-of-way of State Highway 16;
Thence N 68'56'21"W for a distance of 155.65 feet to the centerline of State Highway 16;
Thence along said centerline 770.84 feet along a curve to the right,said curve having a radius of
10,000.00 feet,a central angle of 4°25'00"and a long chord bearing N 28'30' 55"E a distance of
770.65 feet;
Thence S 60'34'55"E for a distance of 158.30 feet to a found 4 inch brass cap monument on the
southwesterly line of the Phyllis Canal;
Thence along said line the following 8 courses and distances:
1.) along a curve to the right 60.81 feet,said curve having a radius of 340.00 feet,a central angle
of 10' 14' 52"and a long chord bearing S 74'09' 59"E a distance of 60.73 feet to a found
5/8'inch iron pin with a 2 inch aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
2.) S 67°00'00"E for a distance of 244.90 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch
aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
1
1520 W.Washington St., Boise, ID 83702®Phone:208-4884227 R
www.accuratesurveyors.com
Page 17
Qt� i rfC
ACCURATE z y
� v Z
-
SURVEYING & MAPPING �PA<
'rFR v 10 Job No.22-197
3.) S 67°00'46"E for a distance of 47.31 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a 2 inch
aluminum cap stamped PLS 11463;
4.) S 61°59'06"E for a distance of 202.70 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
5.) S 53°06'27"E for a distance of 109.48 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
6.) S 520 52'46"E for a distance of 107.17 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
7.) S 66°52' 05"E for a distance of 184.95 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
8.) S 70°40'30"E for a distance of 112.43 feet to a found 5/8th inch iron pin with a plastic cap
labeled PLS 5710;
Thence S 00'31' 50"W for a distance of 394.08 feet;
Thence N 89'27' 18"W for a distance of 1190.07 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 20.349 acres,more or less.
11463 w
�r it•2R-2Zp
�L qrF OF
AN d.OPT
2
1520 W.Washington St., Boise,ID 83702•Phone:208-488-4227
www.accuratesurveyors.com
Page 18
EXHIBIT MAP
REZONE - R4
<s �ta63 LYING WITHIN THE SW 114 OF SECTION 21, T.41V., R.1W., B.M.
COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO
10
tir
s
s\
� ss7roo'oa E
/244,90' Pty 0A651g63 cy��C LEGEND
V �w 56159'06 E �S 66 52'05" E REZONE BOUNDARY
SCALE: ti 1"=300' 202.70' 784.95' —— SECTION LINE P
i — PARCEL LINE
553 O627 E —R/w—RIW— RIGHT—OF—WAY
109.48 ` — — CENTERLINE
L2 55252146 E FOUND 4' BRASS CAP
/ I I 107.17' I 3 1 TD R/W MONUMENT
s!/ S70140'30 E o ® FOUND 2" ALUM, CAP MONUMENT,
N0029'13"E 20.3491 AC E 112.43' W)202.15 o STAMPED PLS 8961
' E tl
0 FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN,
N. 1POLLARD LN, LABELED PLS 5710,
OR S 892 � CALCULATED POINT
P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
N 00'29'13" E N 89'227'18' W i !
163.00'
SW 7/16 CORNER T W OLD SCHOOL LN.
PLS 71463 \ G`
CORNER N 003456"E 1317.29' 0 L
20 21 1304.74' __ 2,
1304.74' a- 1146 3
29 28 — W 1/1s ————N 89'2T 17 W 260-8 — 28
CORNER BASIS Of BEARING 1/4 CORNERS Q�
LINE TABLE STATE HWY 20126
LINE BEARING DISTANCE M J.lb
ILI N 89'30'47" W 33.33'
L2 S 83133'30" w 55.00'
L3 S 8548'43" W 36.25 ��t� T Epp ���AT�
L4 N 68'56'21" W 155.65' A�r.r ■VT■
L5 S 60'34'55" E 158.30' 'w 4 r SURVEYING & DAPPING
L6 S 67'00'46" E 47.31' ""'
s >< �'-� 1520 W.Washington St,
CURVE TABLE Boise,8)488-4227Z
CURVE ARC LENGTH RADIUS DELTA ANGLE CHORD BEARING CHORD LENGTH S www.accuratesurveyors.com
C1 I 770.B4' 10000.00' 4'25'00" N 28'30'55" E 770.55' ER v G
C2 60.81 340.00' 1 10.14'52" S 74'09.59" E 60.73' DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197
Page 19
.1111111ACCURATE
3PRYET DI.0 & yAPPIN6 I%Z
`�F t p y 0 Job Na. 22-187
Zoning R8 Description
A parcel of land lyiFkg in the Southwest Quarter of Sectirm 21,Tovunsship 4 North,Range 1 West of the
Boisc Meridian and being morn partiaulady*5cribcd as U lows_
Commencing at the found 2 inch alumiatun cap monument in asphalt at qua=corner wnunon to
Scr.tiuns 21 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W from which the found 2 inch alurninlnt cap monument in asphalt at
the corner common to Sections 20,21,28 and 29,T 4 N,R 1 W,bears N 84"27' 17"W a distance of
2609.48 feet;thence N 99'27' 17"W along the section line for a distance of 1304.74 fact to the west
sixteorlth corner onin on to Sections 21 and 28;thence N 00'34'56"E along the sixteenth line for a
distance of 1317,29 fact to a found 5M'inch iron pin with a 2 irKh Wuminwn cap stamped PLS 11463 at
the southwest sixteenth corner of Section 21 and the POINT OF BECEVP+T1NG-,
Thence N 89127' 19'W for a distance of 25.00 feet to the centerline of N. Pollard Lanc:
Thence N 00'29' 13'E along said cemfflae for a distance of 163.00 foet;
Thence S 89'27' 1 S"E for a distance of 1190,07 Cent;
Thence S 00'3P 50"W for a distance of 163.00 feet to a found 5J8"'inch iron pin wish a cap labeled
PLS 5710;
Thence N 89'27' 1 r W along the sixteenth line for a distance of 1164.95 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 4A53 acres,more or 1css.
11463
1
1520 W.Washington St.,Boise, 10 83702•Phone:208-489-4227-
www.a W u Mtesu RWPDM.Co M
Page 20
/ EXHIBIT MAP
REZONE - R8
LYING WI THIN THE SW 114 OF SEC770M 21, T.4N., R.1 W., B.M.
A COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO
'z LEGEND
REZONE BOUNDARY
SCALE: 1'=300' 4e \�\ -- SEC170N LINE
PARCEL LINE
—R/w—R/W— RIGHT-OF-WAY
�-
CENTERLINE
� Q FOUND 4" BRASS CAP
I TD R/W MONUMENT
i FOUND " AP MONUMENT
STAMPED PLS 8961
• FOUND LABELED P8 I LS5710,RON ,
OR AS NOTED
S 8921118" E 1190.07 A CALCULATED POINT
w L 1� 4.453E AC. P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING� �
P.o.B.� N 8927'18" W 1754.95'
N. POLLARD LN. sw 1/16 coRNERW. OLD SCHOOL Ov. — NU
PLS 11463 \
CORNER N 00'34 56"E 1317.29' o 4
20 21 13D4.74 _ 21 11 46 3
1 D4.74'
29 28 w 1116 `— N 89'27'17 W 2609.48' _ 28 'L
CORNER BASIS OF BEARING 1/4 CORNER
STATE HWY 20126 iyOF
N J.DP�G
LINE TABLE ACCURATE
LINE BEARING DISTANCE. r SURVEYING & MAPPING
L1 N 89'27'18" W 25.00' 1520 W.Washington St.
t Boise,Idaho 83702
L2 N 00'29'13" E 163.00' (208)488-4227
L3 S 00'31'50" W 163.00' ff r7 Y`gE www.accuratesurveyors.com
DATE:JUNE,2022 JOB 22-197
Page 21
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 7/18/2022)
9�
q
a I
so eo � i
(HOTA AOLLAR -T)TA810N '
PART) -
m I
o. H.
q:xv6='" z gx6 T
#qg-ao�s�4g �a=�`e < O p
00xn �p.
�a m€'2�-0�. •£„fr"o'a$ 4ac Nmg'- ` _ > z '�`_x 9 Z
;mgN m Magma ,
Y =Z _
�
A O m
� 1 1
A£ Z Z
€ o'5'9a Z --I(Cn D
�� �m,�o v ��$ Zm
HIAA - �• D = mz g zA=$" g s o jAgz 4 yRA o 2 0
sN.r m r1
I I i
pup
A--r
� � qa
ALDEN RIDGE Kimle Y*Horn
' 3
PRELIMINARY PLAT k
MERIDIAN, IDAHG re.,nano
Page 22
r
h zrsJ l f fJS ..?
1! 14 � .ff
4•
r p n
ff -� f Y '�• I� � Fmk � __ x yb � y }� �� 1 �{{f :i1.
f z 'F': } �••f }� fff
lllt' liq' �• n
—
�
yp • _*_ C F T_ _— i h_
v 114' 1'R
11G'
I I�
284' ra' Iq'
e—an'�•
/ rt/� x • 'JC ap' !p' b(I� o-d ',Irf 30' S6' SOS �¢I '�P' �' 7.' 7q' G0� 57 5N
+y Is+" IRr. lu I I�' I�' IR' I$� IRS Imo=?IQI "I I 'la 21 4R kl'
q ! s $
n '
J� w� voeLaRea sueeuwsray ��
y Y a fMOTA FAPU
ei
Page 23
C. Landscape Plans(date: 7/18/2022)
A 6 G C E F G H J K _
FGR
HEFT L1 .1
SHEET L1 .2
1
co
3
1 � ,
I
5 v /
H Ci
1
I b I
I-
I A I
I 1
:LM
/I - —W OUL LN; 1
Z
g 0 I I I I I I I I T II I I I I I I I I I 1
I.
Q
1
10; z SHEET L1 .3 1 SHEET L1 .4
L......................������������������������������
OVERALL LANDSCAPE & OPEN SPACE PLAN
LANDSCAPE SET SHEET INDEX DISCLAIMER: OPEN SPACE LEGEND
SEE SHEETS 11.1-11.4 FOR DETAILED LANDSCAPE PLANS, -x1oAAFEA �A,�y o �MMON
SEE SHEET L2.0 FOR LANDSCAPE DETAILS. _
12 SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR NOTES AND SPECIFICATIONS. �"E°L-SOLTHeE"""°�
SEE SHEET L3-0 FOR TREE MITIGATION PLAN
Page 24
D. Alden Ridge Access Exhibit:
AL
rTr-�T -
ALDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION
W.WATERTON DRIVE
f Z
r Q _
3 w O
WU
POLLARD SUBDIVISION
� a
_ � .,
-I POLLARD SUBDIVISION
I Po«Moseo hso. � ��
. .. .. �_
CHINDEN BOULEVARD -�
Kimley»)Horn ALDEN RIDGE SUBDIVISION
Page 25
BuildingE. Conceptual
41
Page 26
tr•
` r -
- T
+- ■ �I arm
i k
• i L
' r
,� � r
ate. + iF
i
a
Y -
•age 28
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA)is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,
and the developer.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the
Annexation and Zoning ordinance is approved by City Council.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation. The DA
shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the
approved plat, landscape plan,phasing plan, access exhibit, and conceptual
building elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained
herein.
b. Any existing structures shall be removed upon project development, except for those
specifically noted within the preliminary plat to remain.
c. The existing home shown to remain on Lot 13,Block 1 shall connect to City sewer
services with the first phase of development.
d. Due to access and sewer availability,phase 1 development shall not commence until a
public road access is available to the site and the required sanitary sewer lift station is
constructed by the adjacent development to the south(Pollard Subdivision).
e. The Applicant shall relinquish their rights to access W. Old School Lane and provide the
Planning Division with written proof of this relinquishment with phase 1 development
and maintain access for 6854 N. Pollard Lane& 5500 N. Pollard Lane as depicted on the
access exhibit(Exhibit VII.E)until such time their permanent access through Pollard
Subdivision is constructed.
f. The rear and/or sides of homes visible from SH 16 (Lots 8-12,Block 1) shall incorporate
articulation through changes in two or more of the following: modulation(e.g.
projections,recesses, step-backs,pop-outs),bays,banding,porches,balconies,material
types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up monotonous wall planes and
roof lines that are visible from the subject public street. Single-story structures are
exempt from this requirement.
Preliminary Plat Conditions:
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated July 18,2022, shall be revised as
follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval:
a. With the first final plat submittal,provide the City written proof that the right-of-way for
Pollard Lane has been vacated with ACHD (Lots 5 &6,Block 1).
b. Existing home will get a new address upon development of the first phase of this project
consistent with the development of the new local street access.
Page 29
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C,dated July 18,2022, shall be revised as follows
prior to submitting for Final Plat approval:
a. Depict additional vegetative ground cover in all linear open space consistent with UDC
11-3B-12.
b. Revise the design of the semi-private open vision fencing proposed to be consistent with
Figure 1 in UDC 11-3A-7.
c. Per UDC 11-3H-4,revise the height of the berm/wall combination to be at least 10 feet
above the centerline of SH 16 and depict this height within the exhibit on the Landscape
Plans.
4. Prior to the Commission hearing,the Applicant shall verify the location of the irrigation ditch
along the south boundary to determine if it is on the subject property; if said ditch is proven
to be on the subject property,the Applicant should revise any relevant plans to depict this
ditch as being piped prior to the City Council hearing in accord with UDC 11-3A-6B.
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district.
6. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table
11-3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
7. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval.
8. Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-
3A-15,UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
9. The Director has approved the Alternative Compliance Request to the landscape street buffer
requirements(UDC 11-3B-7).
10. Applicant shall obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design Review
for the pool changing facilities located on Lot 13,Block 3 prior to building permit submittal
for this facility.
11. Upon completion of the landscape installation, a written Certificate of Completion shall be
submitted to the Planning Division verifying all landscape improvements are in substantial
compliance with the approved landscape plan as set forth in UDC 11-3B-14.
12. The preliminary plat approval shall become null and void if the applicant fails to either: 1)
obtain the City Engineer signature on a final plat within two years of the date of the approved
findings; or 2)obtain approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
13. Prior to the City Council hearing, submit conceptual building elevations for the R-8 building
lots.
14. The submitted R-4 &R-8 zoning legal descriptions and exhibit maps are mislabeled as
Rezone exhibits;prior to the City Council hearing,the applicant shall provide revised legal
descriptions and exhibit maps noting these to be"Zoning"instead of"Rezone."
B. PUBLIC WORKS
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1. Subject to the Oaks Lift Station and Pressure Sewer reimbursement agreement.
2. Area requires Pollard Lift Station and force main before area can be serviced.
Page 30
3. Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,
fences,infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within the utility easement.
4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches.
5. Water serviced by Suez and not the City.
6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing&
Inspection. Particular attention needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences
constructed with crawl spaces should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl
spaces. This includes,the installation of rain gutters and roof drains that will carry storm
water at least 10-feet away from all residences. In addition,rain gutters should be placed
around all sides of residences, and backfill around stem walls, should be placed and
compacted in a controlled manner.
GENERAL CONDITIONS:
1. Sanitary sewer service to this development is available via extension of existing mains
adjacent to the development. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision;
applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and
execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service.
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. Water service to this site is available via extension of existing mains adjacent to the
development. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this
development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works.
3. 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.
4. Upon installation of the landscaping and prior to inspection by Planning Department staff,the
applicant shall provide a written certificate of completion as set forth in UDC 11-313-14A.
5. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all incomplete
fencing, landscaping, amenities,pressurized irrigation,prior to signature on the final plat.
6. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post with the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water 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 applicant shall be required to enter into a Development Surety
Agreement with the City of Meridian. 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.
7. 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, and water infrastructure for a
duration of two years. This surety amount will be verified by a line item final cost invoicing
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
Page 31
be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact Land
Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
8. In the event that an applicant and/or owner cannot complete non-life,non-safety and non-
health improvements,prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat and/or prior to
occupancy, a surety agreement may be approved as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3C.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
12. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
13. All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-1-413.
14. 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.
15. The 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for
Street Lighting(http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272). All street lights
shall be installed at developer's expense. Final design shall be submitted as part of the
development plan set for approval,which must include the location of any existing street
lights. The contractor's work and materials shall conform to the ISPWC and the City of
Meridian Supplemental Specifications to the ISPWC. Contact the City of Meridian
Transportation and Utility Coordinator at 898-5500 for information on the locations of
existing street lighting.
19. 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
Page 32
(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 signature of
the final plat by the City Engineer.
20. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES permitting
that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency.
21. 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.
22. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact the Central District Health Department for
abandonment procedures and inspections.
23. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(UDC I 1-313-6). 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 development plan approval.
24. 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 I I-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=273989&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ity
D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=274704&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
fty
E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=274066&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
fty
F. SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=274280&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ity
G. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=275949&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
fty
Page 33
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=278247&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
I. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=277898&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
Ry
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-511-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with the R-4&R-8 zoning districts with the proposed preliminary plat and site
design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development
complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-4&R-8 zoning districts and is
consistent with the purpose statement of the requested zone.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to, school districts; and
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact
on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the annexation is in the best interest of the City, if all conditions of
approval are met.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Page 34
Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian
connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more
information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with
development. (See Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service
providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own
cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VIII for more information.)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare;
and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
platting of this property.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this
site that require preserving.
C. Alternative Compliance findings(Landscape buffers along streets UDC 11-313-7):
The Director has approved your request for alternative compliance to Unified Development Code
(UDC) 11-3B-7 for the subject property,based on the required Findings listed in UDC 11-5B-5E,
as follows:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or
The Director finds it is feasible to meet the UDC requirement for the location of the required
street buffer but Staff finds it may not be the ideal location when all parameters are considered
(location of the existing home and mature trees that are to remain, a required easement by the
water company along the rear of the building lots, and the relative limited number of homes
along the highway, 6 building lots).
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements;
and
Per the analysis above in section V, the Director finds the proposed alternative will be equal
or superior to the code requirement because the actual buffer width proposed is 5 feet larger
than the minimum requirement, it will allow for existing mature vegetation to remain, and the
proposed buffer location allows for a wider berm and more dense landscaping to be placed
along this frontage offering more noise and fume mitigation than if the buffer was solely on the
subject property.
Page 35
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the
intended uses and character of surrounding properties.
The Director finds that the alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or impair the intended use and/or character of surrounding residential properties if
the proposed conditions of approval are maintained.
Page 36
E IDIAN.;---
Applicant's Presentation
Page 4
Meridian City CouncilDecember 6, 2022
•Staff Report•Application Details•Introduce Site
•20/26ChindenLocated NE of HWY 16 & •Approx. 22 acres
•Staff & P&Z Commission supportive•Adjacent to recently approved development•Total density within the range allowed in Low Density Residential •Transition to the south•8 with 2.97 du
per acre 4 & RRequesting mix zoning R•Comp Plan is Low Density Residential •Contiguous to Meridian City limits
•Quality amenitiesGreater amounts of open space & •Transition to the south•Developed in 2 phases•family detached homes Single•65 total residential units
1.Usable open park7.Dog waste stations6.Pathway network5.Picnic area4.Swimming Pool3.9 amenity points (vs. 4 required)2.exceeds required (2.77 A)3.18 acres of open space = 14.4 %
•amenities and quality architectureVariety, Quality homes with nice •Single family detached homes
•amenities and quality architectureVariety, Quality homes with nice •Single family detached homes
•timing for new well siteWater •Questions / Concerns:•Comments: Appreciate the density, transition, quality homes and amenities•Discussions of Support and Neutral•one)onSeveral meetings
with neighbors (2 large group and several one•Neighborhood Meetings:
Alternative Compliance to HWY 16 bufferto the southDiscuss traffic and access and timing of Brighton’s development Agree with staff report conditions of approval
•(needed if more than 30 lots)Waverton2nd access for fire to connect to They agreed to allow us to construct •Coordinated with Brighton to the south•Secondary access for Fire:•: construction
to start in December(statement from Brighton)street Waverton•Agree with ACHD’s staff report
•We agree with staff’s conditions•Staff supports request•vision buffer will exceed minimum requirement (40 feet)W so actual Agree to provide additional landscaping in ITD R•Commercial
use to the south, very limited area for buffer•Preserve mature existing trees and structures for home on north•Landscape buffer required along HWY 16
Request approval as presentedP&Z Recommended approvalconditions of approvalAgree with the staff report and constructioncomplete prior to us starting All required improvements will
be (utilities, access)& Franklin Sensors to the south Closely collaborating with Brighton expansion at Franklin SensorsEnabling additional water for neighbors working together
This is a quality development with
Thank You
Roadway Exhibit
w IDIAN�
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Hadler Neighborhood (H-2022-0064) by Laren Bailey,
Conger Group, located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Rd., approximately 1/2 mile south of the Locust
Grove and Lake Hazel intersection on the east side of Locust Grove Rd.
Application Materials: https://bit.ly/H-2022-0064
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15
zoning district.B. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 145 building lots (52 single-family
attached lots & 93 detached single-family lots) and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of
land in the requested R-15 zoning district.
i
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : December 6, 2022 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 5
PROJECT NAME : Hadler Neighborhood ( H - 20 M064 )
Your Full Name Your Full Address Representing I wish to testify
( Please Print ) HOA ? ( mark X if yes )
If yes, please
provide HOA name
UD
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
STAFF REPORT C:�*%_
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 12/6/2022 Legend
DATE: 0
Project Location
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner ---
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2022-0064 -
Hadler Neighborhood r
LOCATION: Located at 7200 S. Locust Grove Road,
approximately 1/2 mile south of the
Locust Grove and Lake Hazel
intersection on the east side of Locust '
Grove, in the N 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of -- -- e
Section 5,Township 2N,Range lE.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for Annexation and Zoning of approximately 20.5 acres of land from RUT to the R-15 zoning
district and a Preliminary Plat consisting of 445 144 building lots (52 single-family attached lots &92-3
detached single-family lots)and 11 common lots on approximately 20 acres of land in the requested R-15
zoning district,by Laren Bailey, Conger Group.
IL SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage AZ—20.5 acres; PP—20 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential MDR,up to 3-8 du/ac
Existing Land Uses County residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Detached Single-family Residential and Attached
Single-family Residential
Lots(#and type; 156 total lots—445- 144 residential building lots and
bldg./common)) 11 common lots
Phasing Plan #ofphases) Proposed as two 2phases
Number of Residential Units 445 144 single-family units(52 attached, 92-3
detached
Density Gross—7.25 du/ac.
Open Space (acres,total Approximately 3.5 acres of open space proposed
[%]/buffer/qualified) (approximately 17.5%)
Pagel
Description Details Page
Amenities Four(4) qualifying amenities are proposed worth 11
amenity points—picnic area,playground, a water
feature (fountain), and multi-use pathway segments.
Neighborhood meetingdate I July 21, 2022
History(previous approvals) No application history with the City
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District l
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no)
Access Access is proposed via new local street connections to E.Via Roberto Lane, a
(Arterial/Collectors/State new collector street along the entire north boundary.Via Roberto connects to S.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Locust Grove (arterial street) at the northwest corner of the property. This
Proposed) collector street is not yet constructed;the adjacent developer(Brighton) is
approved to construct this collector with their project(Apex Southeast)to the
north of the subject site.
Stub No existing stub streets.Applicant is proposing two stub streets with this
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross project; one to the northeast corner and one to the southern boundary.
Access
Existing Road Network No
Capital Improvements Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove
Plan/Integrated Five Year Road to Eagle Road in 2022.
Work Plan Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to
Amity Road and includes a roundabout at the Eagle Road and Taconic Drive intersection in
2024.
The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be
widened to 5-lanes on the north leg,4-lanes on the south leg,3-lanes on the west leg and 4-
lanes on the east leg and signalized in 2023.
Lake Hazel Road is listed in the CIP to be widened to 5-lanes from SH-69 to Locust Grove
Road between 2036 and 2040.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 4.1 miles from Fire Station#4—within 1 mile of Fire Station#7, currently
Station under construction.
• Fire Response Time The project currently lies outside of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5
minutes. It will be within the response time goal once Station#7 is
constructed in summer of 2023.
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths and turnaround dimensions
including a secondary emergency access to construct more than 30 homes.
■
Water&Wastewater
• Impacts/Concerns See Public Works Site Specific Conditions in Section VIII.
NOTE: Water and Sewer are currently not available and must be provided
to project by adjacent development to the north,Apex Southeast,but the
third and final phase of Apex Southeast is approved.
Page 2
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend
Project Location
Pill
oFscoueer
Med-High
Diensi $
Residential
®® Ciuic
m Density
esidential
Low Density
Residential
e 4101
Zoning Map JPlanned Development Map
Legend R-4 Legend ' ��
R-40 El Project Location
R-
0
Project Location R_ �.
R=15 City Limits
4
RUT C-C R-8 RUT Planned Parcels o
® � R-4 R-8
` ------
R=8�® R--21 ®®
RUT '
R-4 RUT
f UT
L
RR—Rl RR RUT '------- ------
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Avenue,Boise,ID 83706
B. Property Owner:
Blackcatl LLC— 1979 N. Locust Grove,Meridian,ID 83646
Page 3
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 10/19/2022 11/20/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 10/13/2022 11/17/2022
Site Posting 10/21/2022 11/18/2022
Nextdoor posting 10/13/2022 11/18/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(hgps://www.meridianciu.or /�compplan)
Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the
provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public
services.
The subject 20 acres currently contains a large home and other outbuildings with access being
from a private driveway to Locust Grove in the location of the future Via Roberto Lane. The
subject site is abutted by an arterial street to the west, S. Locust Grove, and a future collector
street along the north, E. Via Roberto Lane.Access to the site is proposed via a new local street
access to Via Roberto in alignment with an approved access on the north side of the street within
Apex Southeast Subdivision. Abutting the property to the east and south are large county parcels
that share the same future land use designation of MDR. The City s newest park, Discovery Park,
abuts the property at the northeast corner of the site offering close proximity to one of the largest
parks in Meridian.
The Applicant is proposing 145 building lots on 20 acres of land within the R-15 zoning district
which constitutes a gross density of 7.25 units per acre, near the maximum density allowed within
the MDR designation. For comparison, the adjacent project to the north, Apex Southeast(H-
2020-0057), was approved with approximately 3.7 du/ac and an average lot size of
approximately 7,000 square feet, compared to 3,600 square foot average lot size within this
development. Staff notes these development facts of the adjacent project because it shares the
same future land use designation of MDR but also includes an area of mixed-use designation
while proposing a less dense project. It should be noted that the Applicant is proposing new
housing types for this area of this City and is proposing a higher open space percentage for the
project than what was proposed with Apex Southeast.
The adjacent county parcels to the south and east do not contain a residence and instead are
used as pasture for rescued horses. Because of this,Staff does not find it necessary for this
Applicant to transition the housing density adjacent to these properties.However,Staff does
have concerns with the proposed street layout in regards to the stub street locations. The
Applicant is proposing a stub street near the north east corner of the property which is a logical
and needed location. The Applicant is also proposing a stub street to the south boundary for
future connectivity that Staff does not have concern with. Staff is concerned with the existing
property layout of the adjacent county parcels in relation to the proposed stub streets.
Specifically,Staff believes an additional stub street should be added along the southeast
Page 4
boundary in place of Lots 28& 29,Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub
streets to properties currently owned by the same entity and will not force future road
development to avoid such a long stretch ofproperty line without an intersecting street.
In addition to vehicular connectivity, the Comprehensive Plan desires safe and adequate
pedestrian connectivity through and between developments and to-and-from public spaces, like
Discovery Park to the northeast. The proposal to include a micro path from an internal local
street to Via Roberto, the collector street along the north boundary, is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.In alignment with this, the noted revision to add a stub street in this
location would also allow for better pedestrian connectivity in this area of the site from the
southeast through this development and up to Discovery Parr Furthermore, it allows for the
noted open space lot(Lot 30,Block 2) to be fronted by two public streets to increase its visibility
and remove the additional concern of this area being a remnant area tucked away in a corner
behind building lots. The Comprehensive Plan has specific policies related to these types of
design elements (see 4.11.03) that support Staffs position.
This revision would add both a vehicular and a pedestrian connection between future
subdivisions when the properties to the east and south redevelop—Staff has met with the owner
of the property to the southeast and they have a desire to include connectivity and open space
adjacent to the noted open space of this subject project so Staff finds it even more prudent to
include this stub street in this area.
It is also important to note the Applicant is proposing two housing types within the Hadler
Neighborhood project,single-family detached and single-family attached(two units attached
but on separate building lots). The addition of different lot sizes and housing types is a plus for
this project and this general area as it introduces a different housing type in this area of the
City.However,Staff has some concerns with parking because of the combination of the
proposed density, that most of the proposed building lot frontages are relatively small(32-38
feet wide) when a 20 foot wide driveway is presumed for each lot, and because the Applicant is
proposing a 27 foot wide section that allows parking on only one side of the street and not
both. The Commission or Council should determine if a solution is needed and if so, one
option that could help is to require a wider minimum lot frontage than what is currently being
proposed.At a minimum, the Applicant should provide a parking exhibit showing where guest
parking could occur for this development and quell any concerns of a street section allowing
on-street parking on one side versus both sides.
With Staffs recommended revisions,Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan, as discussed above.Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are
discussed and analyzed below.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation and
rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as
proposed with this application, Staff recommends a DA that encompasses the land proposed to be
annexed and zoned with the provisions included in Section VIII.AL The DA is required to be
signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the
Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the
DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancia.or /�compplan):
hi alignment with the discussion above, Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies
applicable to this project; additional staff analysis to the specific policy maybe warranted and is
in italics:
Page 5
• "Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including
water, sewer,police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01 G). City water&
sewer are not currently available to the site;both sewer and water must be made
available to this site by the developer of Apex Southeast to the north.Public works has
discussed the requirements and outlined the path to receiving services in the Public
Works specific conditions in Section VIII.B. Fire Station #7 will be within %mile of
the project and the project will be located wholly within the response time goal of the
City Station #7 is slated to be completed in later Summer 2023.
The subject site lays within the Kuna School District and not the West Ada School
District. City Staff reached out to the Kuna School District for the purpose of obtaining
a response to this project as they have not opted into our automatic transmittals.
According to this interaction between Staff, all of their schools are over capacity and
they have stated they cannot accommodate additional school-aged children.However,
Kuna School District Staff have not submitted any formal comments and Staff is not
aware of development slowing in Kuna due to these school capacity issues. The subject
site is within walking distance of Discovery Park to the northeast which provides for a
multitude of recreation opportunities.
Staff finds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create
appropriate conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project.
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs,preferences, and financial
capabilities of Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D).
• "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways
connections,easy pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the
incorporation of usable open space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A).
• "Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).
• "Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;
provide for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.01.01 G).
• "Elevate and enhance the quality and connectivity of residential site and subdivision
planning."(2.02.01).
• "Support construction of multi-use facilities that can be used by both schools and the
community."(2.03.01B).
• "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).
• "Ensure that new development and subdivisions connect to the pathway system."
(4.04.01A). The Applicant is proposing regional pathways along its west and north
boundaries to total approximately 2,212 linear feet ofpathway(nearly half a mile).
• "Provide options for passive recreational opportunities not typically supplied by parks
and facilities such as jogging,walking, and bicycling."(4.04.01B).Applicant is
proposing micro paths within the large central open space that have efficient access to
the proposed regional pathway network around the perimeter of the project creating
ample opportunity for these passive recreational elements.
Page 6
• "Work with public and private development and management groups to promote and
implement Crime Prevention through Environmental Design(CPTED) strategies."
(4.11.03).For the most part, Staff finds the project complies with this policy. The
exception is the noted area along the southeast boundary(Lot 30, Block 2) that Staff is
recommending be opened up more and be fronted by two public streets by adding an
additional stub street to the southeast boundary. Currently, this area is largely tucked
behind buildable lots which decreases its visibility from the public street, an integral
point CPTED strategies aim to alleviate. If the Applicant replaces Lots 28&29 with a
stub street and slightly increases the green space, this issue is resolved.
• "Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and
collectors as well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties." (6.01.02C).
Staff finds the aforementioned analysis and policies in general makes the project consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
According to GIS imagery,there is an existing large home and other outbuildings that will be
removed upon development of Hadler Neighborhood.No other site improvements are known.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is detached single-family and attached single-family residential with a
minimum lot size of approximately 3,000 square feet and an average lot size of approximately
3,600 square feet,based on the submitted plat(Exhibit VII.B). These residential uses are
permitted uses in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The Applicant has
noted the development is expected to develop in two phases with the number of lots in each phase
appearing to be similar(Applicant has not provided the actual lot numbers within each phase but
the exhibit appears to show slightly more lots in phase 1 than in phase 2). Because the only public
road access allowed for this development is from Via Roberto,no more than 30 homes can be
constructed. Therefore,the Applicant has proposed a temporary emergency access within phase 1
located on a future building lot,Lot 23,Block 1, along the west boundary. Meridian Fire has
approved this temporary emergency access to allow more than 30 homes to be constructed off of
one access.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The residential lots are shown to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In
addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and
Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). All lots are shown to meet the minimum lot size
requirement of 2,000 square feet. There is no minimum street frontage requirement for the R-15
zoning district so, as discussed above,the Applicant is proposing lots with either 32 feet or 38
feet of frontage with a few lots having slightly more frontage. The Applicant is also proposing
three (3)common drives within the development;two along the west boundary and one at the
southeast corner of the project.
The three (3)proposed common drives depict 3 lots taking access from each of them and include
at least 5 feet of landscaping adjacent to the abutting lot not taking access from the common
drive. The proposed common drive design complies with UDC 11-6C-3D requirements.
The Applicant is proposing the north east-west local street(shown as W. Vantage Pointe Drive)
within the project to be a long, relatively straight roadway. This street is shown with two
intersecting streets on it which allows it to comply with UDC 11-6C-3 requirements for block
length measurement. However, the overall roadway is still long and straight. For this reason,
Page 7
ACHD is requiring traffic calming along this street with future final plat submittals. Staff agrees
with this and is recommending a condition of approval consistent with the ACHD condition.
F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations for the proposed homes.Note that
detached single-family homes do not require Design Review approval but the single-family
attached single-family homes do require administrative design review approval prior to building
permit submittal. The Applicant is required to submit this Design Review and obtain Planning
approval before building permit submittal.
The submitted elevations depict varying roof profiles and colors with the same or similar field
materials of lap siding and stone accents for the detached homes. All of the attached single-family
elevations depict single-story homes with lap siding and stone accents. Overall, Stafffinds the
submitted elevations to comply with the minimum standards but hopes future elevations depict
more variation in finish materials to help delineate the building facades along public streets.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access is proposed via a new local street(shown as S. Peak Avenue) connection to E. Via
Roberto on the south side of this roadway in alignment with the approved collector street access
to the Apex Southeast Subdivision on the north side of Via Roberto.Via Roberto is approved to
be constructed with the Apex Southeast development except for the required detached sidewalk
on the Hadler side of the street. ACHD has approved the Applicant's proposal to complete Via
Roberto with 8-foot parkway and detached 10-foot pathway its south side but notes if Brighton
does not complete Via Roberto consistent with their approvals,Hadler is required to construct
Via Roberto as half of a 36-foot wide collector street plus an additional 12 feet of pavement.
There are no existing stub streets adjacent to the site as Via Roberto is not yet constructed. The
Applicant is proposing two stub streets according to the submitted plat; one near the north east
corner of the property and one to the south boundary near the southwest area of the project. Staff
has no concern with the two proposed stub streets or their locations. However, as noted within
the Comprehensive Plan section above, Staff is recommending an additional stub street be added
in place of Lots 28&29, Block 2.Adding this stub street will provide for two stub streets to
properties currently owned by the same entity to the east and will not force future road
development to avoid such a long stretch ofproperty line without an intersecting street(the
south/southeast boundary of this project). This revision would likely result in the loss of one
building lot and remove one common drive from the project, two points that Staff finds are
positive consequences of improving future road connectivity in this area.
The Applicant is proposing two different street sections within this development, a 27-foot and a
33-foot street section;both have been approved by ACHD as both are considered standard street
sections. The 33-foot street section is proposed for the segment of E.Vantage Point Drive east of
the access to Via Roberto along the north half of the site and for the stub street to the south
boundary. All other streets are proposed with the 27-foot street section that allows parking on
only one side of the street where no driveways exist. Staff notes the Applicant is also proposing a
permanent cul-de-sac at the terminus of Vantage Pointe Drive at the northeast boundary because
this segment of this street segment is greater than 150 feet in length.Staff has requested a
parking exhibit due to concerns with the proposed 27 foot street section in conjunction with the
proposed lot widths, as discussed within the Comprehensive Plan section above. Staff
anticipates the parking exhibit to show adequate parking for the development above the
minimum requirements outlined in code.
Page 8
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table II-
3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm
compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence.
According to the submitted elevations, each home is proposed with a two-car garage which
presumes a 3 or 4-bedroom home and would require a minimum 20 foot wide driveway for each
building lot. In addition, as discussed above, some of the streets within this development are
proposed as 27 foot wide street sections which only allows parking on one side of the street
instead of both sides as allowed on the standard 33 foot section.
I. Sidewalks&Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17&UDC 11-3A-8):
5-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets consistent with UDC
requirements. The Applicant is proposing a 10-foot wide detached multi-use pathway along E.
Via Roberto and an attached 10-foot wide sidewalk/pathway along S. Locust Grove;the pathway
widths are consistent with the UDC,the Meridian Master Pathways Plan, and exceeds ACHD
requirements but the location of the sidewalk along Locust Grove does not comply with Master
Pathways plan as there is a desire to detach these sidewalks/pathways along arterial streets to
improve pedestrian safety. The Applicant is required to place the multi-use pathways within
public access easements adjacent to the public streets unless they are within ACHD right-of-way.
The pathway along Locust Grove appears to be attached to Locust Grove which does not comply
with the UDC or Master Pathways Plan. So, the Applicant should revise the plat and landscape
plan to depict this 10 foot pathway to be located within the required 25 foot buffer to Locust
Grove and at least four(4)feet outside of the ultimate ROW to ensure the pathway remains
detached.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer along S. Locust Grove, an arterial street,and a 20-foot wide street
buffer along E.Via Roberto, a collector street, are required and should be landscaped per the
standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. All landscape areas should be landscaped per UDC 11-3B-5,
general landscaping standards. Lastly, according to the submitted plans,the Applicant is
proposing micro-paths which should be landscaped in accord with UDC 11-3B-12 standards.
The Applicant is showing a 25 foot wide common lot along Locust Grove that is a 22.S foot wide
common lot along Via Roberto consistent with code requirements. The landscape buffers are
depicted with trees in excess of code and include landscape beds with shrubs and other vegetative
ground cover, consistent with UDC 11-3B-7. Therefore, Stafffinds the proposed street buffers
comply with all UDC requirements. In addition, all open space areas are shown with trees, sod,
and other landscaping in excess of minimum code requirements.
K. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
According to the submitted landscape plans, the Applicant is proposing 6-foot vinyl privacy
fencing along the perimeter of the property and the rear lot lines and 5-foot tall wrought iron
open vision fencing adjacent to any common open space areas. Both fencing types and their
proposed locations comply with UDC standards.
L. Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The proposed project is approximately 20 acres in size requiring a minimum amount of open
space based on the requested zoning. Per UDC Table 11-3G-3,the R-15 area requires a minimum
Page 9
of 15%qualified open space. Per the calculations,the minimum amount of qualified open space
required is 3 acres. According to the submitted plans,the Applicant is proposing 3.49 acres of
qualified open space, exceeding the minimum amount required. The proposed 3.49 acres equates
to approximately 17.45%qualified open space.
The qualified open space proposed a. Enhanced landscaping as set forth in Article 11-313,Landscaping Requirements;
consists of%2 of the arterial street h. Multi-use pathways;
buffer to Locust Grove, the full c. Enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics;
collector street buffer to Via Roberto, d. Enhanced context with the surroundings.
the large central open space area, and
the smaller common open space area along the southeast boundary. However, Staff is not sure if
the landscape buffers to the adjacent public streets meet the enhanced buffer requirements
outlined in UDC 11-3G-3B.3 to count towards the open space. Previously, these areas
automatically qualified towards the minimum open space but this is no longer the case with the
latest open space code updates that desires for more than the minimum to be included within the
required buffers in order to count towards the overall qualified open space for a project. The
Applicant appears to comply with the first two points outlined in code but may not comply with
the last two points: enhanced amenities with social interaction characteristics; and, enhanced
context with the surroundings.
Staff recommends the Applicant provide evidence these buffers are enhanced beyond the
pathway, trees, and grasses. For example, boulders, additional vegetation, decorative elements,
decorative fence/walls, additional micro pathways, etc. The burden of proof for the proposed
common open space to qualify falls on the Applicant and not on Staff.
If these buffers do not count towards the minimum qualified open space, approximately I acre
of land must be removed from the calculation leaving approximately 2.5 acres of qualified
open space which does not comply with the minimum qualified open space requirement.
Therefore, the Applicant should provide evidence that the proposed street buffers are qualified
open space prior to the Commission hearing OR apply for Alternative Compliance to reduce
the amount of qualified open space required due to the project's proximity to Discovery Park to
the northeast.
The centralized open space area is depicted with playground equipment, a gazebo with picnic
benches, and multiple seating areas all connected to the surrounding local streets via 5-foot wide
micro pathways. Staff supports the design of the central open space area. As discussed within the
Comprehensive Plan section above, the other common open space area (Lot 30, Block 2) is
approximately 9,300 square feet in size and is tucked behind multiple building lots. Staff does not
have concern with the size of this open space lot but is concerned with its location being a
remnant piece and tucked away. Because of these concerns, Staff recommends the adjacent Lot
29, Block 2 be removed and added to the open space lot to increase the visibility of this open
space area and include an additional micro path connection to the southeast boundary.
UDC 11-3G-4 dictates the minimum amenity points required for projects over 5 acres in size. The
project size of 20 acres requires a minimum of four(4) amenity points(1 point for every 5 acres).
According to the submitted plans and narrative,the Applicant is proposing the following
qualifying amenities: picnic area,playground, a water feature(fountain), and two segments of
multi-use pathway equaling approximately'/z mile in length. According to UDC Table 11-3G-4,
the proposed amenities amount to eleven(11)amenity points and exceed the minimum amenity
point requirements for a project of this size. Staff finds the proposed amenities within this
development are sufficient due to the size of the property,their proposed locations within the
development,the pedestrian connectivity within the project and to and from the nearby regional
park, and because of the general proximity to Discovery Park to the northeast that offers
Page 10
additional recreational opportunities for fixture residents of this project and in this general area of
the City.
M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6):
According to GIS imagery,there is an open irrigation ditch that runs along the shared north
boundary of this site and the Apex Southeast Subdivision to the north. It is not a labeled ditch on
the City's GIS and it can be presumed it is being tiled and relocated as part of the construction of
Via Roberto Lane by the adjacent developer,Brighton. This Applicant is also required to comply
with UDC 11-3A-6 and ensure this irrigation facility along the north boundary is tiled or
relocated.
N. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
The Applicant is proposing and is required to extend necessary public utilities for the proposed
project. Public Works has reviewed the subject applications for compliance with their standards
and finds them to be in general compliance except for specific conditions outlined in Section
VIII.B of this report. However, it should be noted that both water and sewer services must be
provided to this development through the adjacent development to the north(Apex Southeast)
and are currently not available.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the
requirement of a Development Agreement per the conditions of approval in Section VIII of this
report per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on November 3,2022.At the
public hearing,the Commission voted to recommend denial of the subject Annexation and
Zoning and Preliminary Plat requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Laren Bailey,Applicant, Hethe Clark,Applicant Representative
b. In opposition:None
c. Commenting: Hethe Clark;Ronnie Reno,Kuna School District.
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. Ronnie Reno from Kuna School District(KSD), as a representative of the school board,
testified that KSD cannot accommodate the Hadler Neighborhood development due to
school capacity issues.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. School district capacity and a lack of ability to accommodate Hadler Neighborhood;
b. Concern with available parking with the combination of the 27-foot wide street section
and common drives,
C. Concern with proposed density and housing types with no nearby urban services
(grocery, gas stations,medical, office, etc.);
d. Concern that project is proposed with as many lots as possible within project area
without a true identity;
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Commission recommended denial to the City Council due to school capacity issues and
a lack of urban services nearby the density proposed within this development.
Page 11
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
Enter Summary of City Council Decision.
Page 12
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions and Exhibit Maps
i5G
IDAHO 9955 W Emerald St
SURVEY Boise,ID 83704
GROUP Phone: (208)846-8570
Fax: (208)884-5399
Hadler Subdivision
Annexation Description
Project Number 21-360 July 13,2022
Lot 1,Block 1 of Rescue Ranch Subdivision(Book 106 of Plats at Pages 14734 through 14736,
records of Ada County,Idaho),and a portion of the adjacent public right-of-way of S.Locust
Grove Road,situated in the north half of the southwest quarter of Section 5,Township 2 North,
Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho,and being more particularly described as
follows:
Commencing at southwest corner of Section 5,Township 2 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian;
Thence NOD"04'42"W,2655.92 feet to the west quarter-section corner of Section 5,the POINT OF
BEGINNING:
Thence$89"52'50"E,37,00 feet along the east-west centerline of Section 5 to the east
line of S.Locust Grove Road and the northwest corner of Lot 1;
Thence continuing S89°52'50"E,1618.16 feet along the boundary of Lot 1;
Thence S00°04'42"E,335.88 feet along the boundary of Lot 1;
Thence 12.01 feet on a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 225.00 feet,a
central angle of 03"03'27",a chord bearing of N88"20'52"W,and a chord length of 12.01
feet along the boundary of Lot 1;
Thence N89°52'36"W,313.32 feet along the boundary of Lot 1;
Thence 143.71 feet on a curve to the left having a radius of 125.00 feet,a central angle of
65"52'19",a chord bearing of S57°11'14"W,and a chord length of 135.93 feet along the
boundary of Lot 1;
Thence S24°15'05"W,307.54 feet along the boundary of Lot 1;
Thence 75.80 feet on a curve to the right having a radius of 50.00 feet,a central angle of
86"51'39",a chord bearing of S67"40'54"W,and a chord length of 68.75 feet along the
boundary of Lot 1;
Thence N68°53116"w,342.09 feet along the boundary of Lot 1,
Thence N89°52'36"W,669,21 feet along the boundary of Lot 1 to the east right-of-way
line of S.Locust Grove Road;
Thence S89°55'18"W,37.00 feet to the west line of Section 5;
Thence N00°04'42"W,593,86 feet along the west line of
Section 5 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
��15
The above-described parcel contains 20.51 acres,more or less. � p
0
13 4
�� re 0
ygft S `3�
Page 13
3.6-�>aoos e
)
y » 0 c (
0
\ » ® k
r j ® - \ - } § &-
G ` ®
z ® _ [ !
/ / < !
/ \ K § (
a a ' !
/ 2 � � j
$ /s�2 j k iE !
.sZ j § }
CD 0 - % {
I !
-
s § ± 00.
\ �
\@ a
/ %
% \
2 ° : \}\
(A ! CD
3 r< n
j 2 o ` *
« o ) L \ O $ Z)
\ � � \ U
o ! ❑ m O
/ 2
\ � -
/
z k
w /
0
� � 5
/ gtn
ƒ \ (
e = 3 cn
-
in --- '9 9® (.�
m ° 2 -
�w $� eeaRmga . _ » ~�
/ ® ® _ ® vi
^ zegQgz ¥3#*ao y ^ b
SbUIJDGq Q msoe \
Page 14
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 10/18/2022)
��• � � r` IY � iv i� p' i� ,fl�' III� �' e�. s_�,_ � sv :v =v � _, v� __ �� _� _S _i ..i ..i _'
`ems i vZ. X.
Sal ` �=
iv I— i i—i—i i i—
— — -- - ---•-- •----
Page 16
C. Landscape Plans(date: 74W 11/2/2022)
I
L
.m
�e
r # .
m. z
H A D L E R S U B D I V I S 1 0 N ov
NOVEMBER2,2022J'NSRIELTt
MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN me,r,M„,„,,,, ,,,,,-.,,..,„.,.„, " w w
Page 17
-_ _ _ - -
} Fl
--
i-
�M
o m m
p
�S.
w„ y 4'
i
� d
ME
HAD LER SUBDIVISION
NOVEM6ER 7.2027 JENSENBlLTS
Assoc qh.5
MERIDIAN, ID PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN ,� ,,,, ® ELY -®.•.,.^_=..._
Page 18
,
1
r
R rEM�ios
v
r� � r
I � W
I
d L z
> Zx
! a
az
>a
K'.
"
W a
LLJ
/ J
� = a
NOT=S /
:
r��
xl SV�
KEY MAP Ll
SA
UT
I
1
_� rE1Q��MLIf
x �
rn ewe
Fp
?/ L o
aO
PLANT PALETTE In _
13
LLJ
Noyes
®' —. KEY MAP L2
Page 19
D. Open Space Exhibit:
I j
��•�u .. ... .. ... .E.H6 iH
r „ - - ------ - - - ---------- - - 1:: :r - -- --- -- -
jil
1 - L JR, �.
�X
r
i
i
i
Page 20
E. Phasing Plan:
I
I etaac�a-o w.
!I
q� ._,.: :-sn.-,IDS• ,i
I -g r.ylllMF�GfiF q._ _—_ _ _— _— h'Ua:_r
I I- d:��-nr�.w•u-�n�,n.v»�s.wsgywi�^�-rw•..s.rn..iw..iwv_ .�e�-.�-.y_,1��srrw,�.w.a«r_.� ,-ti-..._•,--...-�rw...-+ce+�ra+.s . I
LLLLL
Hil
~�r PHASE 1 PHASE 2
-,z Z
it I; � ���..ea, ,'�:,�.•����„_�.�. p�,�,� .:�,-' . � �1,,;::,
I: E
1
Page 21
F. Common Drive Exhibits:
I FUTURE E.VIA ROBERTO I.N.
a
l: ZERO SETBACK LOT LINE SETBACK LINE LOT LINE
(TYPICAL) (TYPICAL) (TYPICAL)
-
S -- -- — -----, ---- —
I°
,t 3.00, 3.00' 3.00,
Psl O 3.00' 3,00'
BLOCK 1
15 14 13 12 11 10
BUILDING BUILDING BUILDING
•,•1. ORIENTATION ORIENTA71ON ORIENTATION l
.Ia DRIVEWAY
[TYPICAL)
----
e0 Lcc BLOCK 1 0 o r• _ _
VJ w
C]
IL
01 16 DRIVEWAY
/ W.VANTAGE POINTE DR.
1z.00'll 0 17 -.
azo.00 /
BUILDING
E ORIENTATION 20.00
,
BLOCK 4
BLOCK 1 I I E
18 14 1 2 3 c
0 0 s
M ,
I ,
I�
_1
NONTH
40 20 0 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT NO 21-0701-HADL
D N DRIVEWAY
DES ES IGNED By Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC
E
DRAWN By BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLw STE 100
CHECKED BY BT BOISE,ID B3712
ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)864-8181
SCALE ASSHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
SHEET 1 OF
Page 22
` 22
I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
�� --r -------- ------- I BLOCK 4 I I I
1 a
14 I 53 I I 52 I I 51
r
12.00'I E26
23BUILDING0
s - _ ORIENTATION
0
L__ - ------------
-- -----------
(TYPICAL) I \\
awe
1200'li \
s 24
o I I 2
0.00's
00 I BLOCK 1
I: 1 BUILDING \, W.ORION GREENS DR.
.�' ORIENTATION \ - -
ea \ 200 \
y I' 12.00'I _
25 �e,f.
o 0 0
SETBACK LINE---. - - ---- ----- --- N -
(TYPICAL) -
'n' DRIVEWAY
12.00'li 26 (TYPICAL) r a
I
ZERO SE(BACK 5 EEEw z li
BUILDING o °'o °'o AA F
LOT LINE ORIENTATION
(TYPICAL) 29 30 31 32
.IT 12.00'I BLOCK a'
`I F2.� ' 28 3' 3'
L 27 3' 3'
-
°3'-- —°3-- --°' --- °3— °3 °3 °3—
E.CABALLI LN.
E1
NORTH
40 20 0 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL
DW°FILE DRIVEWAY DES IGNEDev Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC
DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100
CHECKED BY BT BOISE.I°B3712
ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161
SCALE ASSHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT www.°�"I---ti°°s.°°m
SHEET 1 OF1
Page 23
BLOCK 4 i 200
33 32 s/ 31 30 o� q� ✓r /�
23 �7 /
i oQ/ oR�F�1D�ryG
22 —7
� \RIpN �
CgEf
\SOR oA�FN4'110 �✓ /
•
��T/oN 21 i l
o i 20 po 2
g oq/�
���/aV 20
mQ�
13
7 i / 5�¢�
14
i 15
/ �� DRIVEWAY /
16 / o O (TYPICAL) /
m� / /
o g, / BLOCK 2
17
S ETBAL LINE o , 18
� (TYPICAL LINE
� �^{ � � �
LOT LINE
\�e (TYPICAL)
w
CAYQCCI(�
i
E®
NORTH
40 20 0 40
HORIZONTAL SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT NO, 21-0701-HADL
DW°FILE DRIVEWAY DES IGNEoev Br HADLER SUBDIVISION CIVIL INNOVATIONS,PLLC
DRAWN BY BT MERIDIAN,IDAHO 1043 E.PARK BLVD STE 100
CHECKED BY BT BOISE.I°B3712
ISSUE DATE 07/21/2022 PHONE.(208)W-6161
SCALE AS SHOWN SHARED DRIVEWAY EXHIBIT
SHEET 1 OF1
Page 24
BuildingG. Conceptual
•.La
I�,��. ga aka i.i� III�■. H 111 11'111 i 11+III;is �„ I�{ ■ '®a i�Y�. i�l
ICI I I �! ! � ii�i�!>�'i�r'! i�li•II•I�I�!
spa i� �i �w ��i'rr V■el ■11 �:.■ref'.I fil r ; itw� iFri;racy 7
C t sue■ � =_ ._... I-i;is>t. ....Ise �3r� +�il�l ;��'�r
_
IL
i
Page 25
JF"6-
1�
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Pr-iE)r-te apimeval vrthe 4io difi nee ., D n shall be epAer-e :..+ between the r;t f
cn�—aixixcicucrvxreitmiccxx
fee of$303 nn shall be i3aid by the n 1;,,.at to the Ul.,,. i r ivis; �
eemmeneement ef the PA. The PA sha4l be signed by the pr-epei4y:owfier-and r-etufned4o4he
Pla-anine Division within six(6)months of the City Cetffleil efan4ine the a-anexatieft. The DA
a. L'„4ufe deve1 ,mot 4t is site shall be substaf4i.,ll eonsistefft the
wed plat, n T`xeape plano,i3hasifiR plan, ee on drive exhib4s-,«
mot, oa 110
1. existifiji�tif Lome a-ad,,,,41.,,:1,1ia shall be f:emoved upon hale 1 develop .+
I
in two omore of the f 1low modulation(e tions to b 1
"'eecryxrTreecrJeTJcc�-yiccics,popelements te bfeak tm monotenetts wa4l planes andmr-oof lines dia4 afe visible fitem-dhee
cr-cnccccrcsccre c.:cc194pcTvrr crcisi couir"cir"cc-rct,
2. The pr-eliminafy plat ine ed in Seetien VILB, da4edOeteber- 4 8, 2022 shall-be fevisedas
a. Deplaee Tots 28 &79 1?leek 2 with. additional stub stFee!opeft si3aee amier-opath
eomeetivity and t o >, the t hot 10 B1 i
�xa;'xee-axe�� �e oven ee-e;?r�e��e�z
wits, rpc—l-�
N7.,,-,t, e Pei..t Pr-ive to help.nit; e its le a-ad st.a l,t,low;.. .
the pathwa-v remains det-aehedeensistent with UPC 11-3-B 7C
2 The!a-ndseape la ifie-luded i Se do V r da4ed ittly 29 November-7 2 l l l l o
revised as follows i3r-ior-to submit4ine for-Final cTa�v�-ccr.
Page 26
a. Devise the!a-adseape la to m4„1, ther-evisionsmade to the stfeet Beet;,...,
PoifAe Drive on the West pr-elimift
b.
above in VTTT A 2
e. Depiet the 10 feet pathway along S. Loeust Gfove to be leeated within the
a • t �h UDG 11 3B 7r 1.
e-}�r'k '�eii�iii�-aet-& C-eirs'r"Jccirt�Vicxr-v�vczr�v-�-c:rcr.
c Pfio,.t the Commission i,oafi then 1;,,.,.ft shall imovide . afk-r ..1.;1.;t�
available i3afkine within the sttbieet de
UDG Table 11 2 A 7 for-the D 15 zoning.list-;.,t
O The A 1;,af4 shall o e the; .,tio diteh all the fieftL, botmdafy is tiled a Vo f
relegated eensistef4 with UDG 3 A 6-Aandaf&.
10. Provide a or-esstifized iffieMieft system eensisteal with the standards as set fer-th in UQG 4-1--
2 A 15,UPC 11 3B 6 and Tarr�
!1. Prief to the City Eneifteef's
easemefA shall be submit4ed to the Plafmine Division and r-eeor-ded for-the multi use pathwqys
1 C T t!`_.oye .1 > V7 D 1. .-tom ,1 1. the D. k' T1 Ate,
mvir� . �eccrsc-vrvvc-iriicr . v crnvvcrcv-ao-icc�diiccr-P��ix�Tcciarcmcix�-ciirrcr�
17 Pfie..t aivl.vifif�f 1.,,;1.1;, i3ef is A.1.,•,;. st.-.,tiye Pee Do.,; oa t 1.
13. Upon eempletion of the landseape installation,a mr-44en Get4i fie,te f!`,,.ti, lot;,,. shag b
14. The l plat 1 h ll b „11 .,n void i f the u,,af4 fails t
�ic�i ezi�ca�3ivvarrnurivcceriic i cn�—a"�iacnrrczzcrrrco crcn�z��
obtain the City Efwifieer-"•jaiuccac-vir-cam%crprcxc=vr"rmiircwvpeccrr»rcne�rcccc-er-ciic-uppivr'ccc
train approvalf a time e*tefisien as set fefl1' in Tirnz-vy—i--�,
B. PUBLIC WORKS
SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
1 Must provide sewer-to an tt,,.,,,, t, t par-eof R7406180010.
2 There euffef4v are no-water-mains t the site. Water-will be eomifw f.,,.,•,the A .. S,,u4heast.
Development,
Page 27
n W e-a-a sewer-in i3afallelminimum 0'o ,mot Easement width ,be e4ei-
ao dif o� "e$o'ciz depth.
G )Where, ,.,to.ties existifif�istif lifie i E.Via Robe,.t T., twO Vales afe ,.0,1
6 A .,-t F A ,. Southeast, ., 1 2" water--main will be 1-., l,t to Ohe .ofner- FT . ,st!`_.-.,,,
and Via RobeAo T=fi. Extend 1 2", ,.,to,-,ti,ai .1.,,,,., T o, ,st!`_,eve to s „the imopegy
n
water-main in Loeust Gfove is fwiuir-ed. The City WOU44
;tee€erthis eenneetienbe made;n E. Ga-v ll; T with, easement,
9.
details
9. At,the eofner-of Cadenee Ave a-ad Orien Greens Drive,the wa4er-mains have mtiltiple odd
:ff.o.,tly. The eufr-efi4 .,fi ,.a, io., adds an ,.t.-., s manhole that isn't. edis net from the pommen let. See the ttpleaded
n n
1. Near-the eoffffnen driveway a4 the sefftheast eefaef ef the site there is a watef
. . ite mei)ef�v that is not being sefyieed by the meter, The meter-shotild be leeated
12. As noted i the Geoteehf,iea Efieifieer-ini4D o .,«t roa b Atlas Mate-ials Tort; P.
Inspeetien,there afe sha4lew eemented soils across the site. Paftieti4af a4tention needs to b-e
foeusedefisur-ifif-tthat t.,11 r-esideftees nstpaete with er-awl simees should be de e :
mafmer-that will inhibit water-in er-awl si3aees. A-pplieafA should adher-e to fveommend4ions
dr-ains that will eafp�F stet:m wa4er-at least 10 feet away from all r-essidenees. Feundation
n.1 le-.,,.,to,.sei=viee lines
GENERAL CONDITIONS-
1 Sanitaffsewer-set=viee to tl s deve ,mot; a-va4Ale via extension F existi—ff to the The Tli EC1tf shall ir7tT1ZICiiS to T1C thr-ough this subdivisiow
aipipliem#shall eeer-dinate main size a-ad r-oti4ine with 4he Ptiblie Wefks Depaft
exeeute standar-d fofms of easements for-any mains that afe r-equir-ed to i3r-ovide-set=viee.
Miniffmm eover-over-sewer-mains is thfee feet, if eovef fFofn top of vive to sub gfade is less
tha-a thfee feet than alternate matefials shall be used in eonfefmanee of City of Mefidia-D.
2. Water-set=viee to this site is available via ex4ension of existinR mains adjaeent to th-e
development. The aim3hea-at shall be r-e, - ensible to install water-mains to a-ad thfo
ao„ol o�t 1; to main size aa r-outifie with D„blie Works
2 All l ,its related t „1.1; life, aft and health shall be eemplet 1 t
6EEwc'ki3Ey4f the scraccdic8-Where—ui3i3iv`r'Ecrvy the nCity Efwiixcci-cm Twixcizixay:pvEc-a
fifial i3la4 as set fet4h i 7zrr ovC1 5C-3B
Page 28
I
MINIM. I .
11
1/
1
1�
1�
�1
- -•j:. ..y:� -
- �l1SS=• - - -
:J
I �I
II M.I 1 \
y
_yeFsaao••� +des_ :•
•
1/
:e1:17
:117
'■llSS_
1I
I
■ ♦ PE r L9 Pr.wdlI
D. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https:llweblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=276691&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
i &cr—I
E. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=275370&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
i &cr=1
F. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL(BPBC)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=276388&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
G. MERIDIAN PATHWAYS—CONDITIONS
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=275182&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ity
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=278590&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and Zoning(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application. In order to grant an
annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with the R-15 zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is
not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan due to a lack of nearby urban services, the
proposed density does not fit with the existing character of the neighborhood and other
approvals, and because the proposed site design will create unnecessary parking issues.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development
complies with the regulations outlined in the requested R-15 zoning district and is consistent
with the purpose statement of the requested zone.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare for the reasons stated in the first finding.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to, school districts; and
Page 31
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will result in an adverse impact on
the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City,
specifically the Kuna School District.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the annexation is not in the best interest of the City.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat is not in general compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian
connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more
information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Commission finds that public services will not be provided to the subject property with
development due to school capacity issues noted during the public hearing. (See Section VIII
of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of
capital improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers except for the school
district as they have testified they cannot accommodate additional school-aged children (i.e.,
Police, Fire, ACHD, etc). (See Section VIII for more information).
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with
the platting of this property.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
Commission is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on
this site that require preserving.
Page 32
Item 22
E IDIAN;---
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: PRESENTATIONS
Ll
H G20 LLC adler Neighborhood
Annexation Route 2016 Annexation AreaAdjacent to City’s Park (Discovery)Adjacent to Regional ServicesAdjacent to City Priority Growth AreaH
Progression of Development H
Comprehensive Plan 8 Units per Acre -3 Residential Medium Density H
Comprehensive Plan/ Roof Tops Commercial & Retail Development Need Widening and Intersection Improvements Eagle Road and Lake Hazel Road Fire)Sewer, Water, Public Services Available
(Near Neighborhood CenterPriority Growth AreaH Neighborhood Centers
Site Plan Area15 Zone –R 17.5% Open Space7.2 U/Ac. 144 Homes20 Ac. H
Hadler Neighborhood Characteristics finishes / yardsHigh quality, low maintenance Smaller, more manageable lotsNeighborhood Characteristics kids in the same schoolDivorced parent,
wants to keep Empty NestersYoung ProfessionalsHome Buyer Profile 92 Homes–Edington 212 Homes–Stapleton 102 Homes (Boise)–Moxie Ridge 220 Homes–Verado 189 Homes–Movado 77 Homes–Solterra
Similar Developments H
Consistent with Comprehensive Planning H
Key Comprehensive Plan Policies The Applicant is proposing regional pathways along its west & north boundaries (2,212 linear feet or nearly ½ mile)•.” (4.04.01A). pathway system“Ensure
that new development and subdivisions connect to the •screening, transitional densities, and other best site design practices.” (3.07.01A). “Require all new development to create a
site design compatible with surrounding uses through buffering, •and construction.” (2.02.02F). Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design •types throughout the City. (2.01.01G). in any geographical area; provide for diverse housing Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size •present
and future residents.” (2.01.02D). that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of Meridian's variety of housing types “Encourage a •H
Pedestrian Connectivity Discovery Park H
Project Amenities Adjacent to Discovery ParkRegional Park(1,618 LF)Roberto Ave. and Via (594 LF) Grove Road 10’ regional pathway on Locust Internal pathwaysPathways Attractive landscapingPlay
and shade structuresLarge grass play area Seating benchesEntry water feature(2 Acres)H
Qualified Open Space Discovery Park 17.5% Open Space H
Home Types H
Home Elevations H
Schools 2022 Letter to Applicant-2-Source: KSD 11 H
Kuna School District Capacity Kuna School District 10.17.2022 H
Kuna School District Capacity growth over the last 6 yearsAverage 1.33% per year Kuna School District Website 11.16.2022 570 Available Student Capacity H Last 6 Years–
Kuna School District H
Verado students)70% fewer (or home tudents per s.124 Equals 31attending WASD = Actual students 0.43 students/lot = 107WASD calculation: 250 HomesH Neighborhood
Projected Student Population H Fewer school age children= New economy, Smaller homes, Older buyers Buyer Demographics: Students Per School 4.54.59Sub. Verado151531WASD30.530.561KunaHighMiddle5-K144
Lots Students Per Home 18.124Sub.Verado62.43WASD102.7KunaTotalSPH144 Lots
Kuna School District Demands H control on use:NO“Donation” Agreement with •
Kuna School District Demands H kitchen remodel ($2m)Bleachers ($300k), ADA compliance ($180k), •Kuna Middle School (Existing Facility):•plumbing fixtures ($40k)Bleachers ($300k), ADA
compliance ($15k), •Facility):Fremont H. Teed Middle School (Existing •($2m)Fire alarms ($125k) and kitchen remodel •Hubbard Elementary (Existing Facility):•including:focuses on “Deferred
Maintenance”, “Needs Assessment” from KSD largely •
Kuna School District Demands H Middle school track ($900k)•FMS tennis courts ($800k)•Baseball field light ($300k)•Football turf ($900k)•Other:•upgrades ($100k), and ovens ($120k)Field
turf ($1.2m), performing arts center •Kuna High School (Existing Facility):•including:focuses on “Deferred Maintenance”, “Needs Assessment” from KSD largely •
Kuna School District Demands H impactsNo ability to confirm funds are related to actual •funds will be spentwhereNo control on •funds will be spentwhenNo control on •related-Majority
of identified needs are not capacity•Summary•
These Demands Violate Idaho State Law H requirements established thereby., Idaho Code, consistent with the 8003-67regulatory taking analysis provided for by sectionsubdivision permit
with conditions unacceptable to the landowner may be subject to the Denial of a subdivision permit or approval of a , Idaho Code. chapter 82, title 67 ofof mitigating the financial
impacts of development must comply with the provisions Fees established for purposes current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision. quality of service delivery to current
residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising may provide for mitigation of
the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political , Idaho Code. Each such ordinance 1329-50through1301-50subdivision permits under sections, Idaho Code, for standards
and for the processing of applications for 6509-67under sectionadopted, amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided Each governing board shall
provide, by ordinance SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.6513.-67•
Contrast with Impact Fees H NO WAY TO CONFIRM THAT THESE FUNDS WILL •to confirm you are paying your fair shareNo ability to request a proportionate share analysis •deferred maintenance)limited
to impacts of actual development (not No approved capital improvements plan that is •funds will be spentwhereNo control on •funds will be spentwhenNo control on •
Summary H exceed City standardsAmenities and open space •services are availablewith growth pattern in area; Annexation is consistent •comprehensive planconsistent with the Proposed density
is •in the Meridian marketProduct type that is needed •
Condition of Approval H.proposed open spaceenhance the currently and to connectivitypedestrian vehicular and boundary for future southeast property to the a pathway leading open space
and stub streetadditional anBlock 2 with 29, s 28 &Replace LotCondition 2.a, as follows:Modify Preliminary Plat •modificationReport with one In agreement with Staff •
Thank you H Add your third bullet point here•Add your second bullet point here•Add your first bullet point here•
Utility and Public Services SchoolsCapacityDistrict has Current Kuna School DistrictTransportationGrove 2022.Eagle to Locust –Lanes Lake Hazel widened to 5 October 18, 2022TIS Approved
by ACHD, South Fire StationWithin ½ Mile of the New New Fire Station–Time Within the 5 min Response Emergency ServicesAvailablePower and Gas Capacity Capacity AvailableSewer and
Water Public UtilitiesH
WASD Student Population Trend H Fewer School Age ChildrenAging Population Demographic + Older Buyers = Homeowner Demographics: District Wide School Capacity Vs. Actual Students 324-11,87411,55012)-Hi
gh (96398,6119,2508)-Middle (65,56216,36321,9255)-Elementary (KSeats Available23-22Capacity
Verado hood Center-Near 250 HomesH Comprehensive Plan
On H street Parking-