2022-04-07
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, April 07, 2022 at 6:00 PM
MINUTES
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Commissioner Nick Grove
Commissioner Andrew Seal
Commissioner Maria Lorcher
Commissioner Nathan Wheeler
Commissioner Steven Yearsley
ABSENT
Commissioner Patrick Grace
Commissioner Mandi Stoddard
ADOPTION OF AGENDA - Adopted
CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\] - Approved
1. Approve Minutes of the March 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Faissy's Child Care (H-2022-0002) by
Faissy Kwizera, Located at 1322 E. Grand Canyon St., Near the Southwest Corner of
E. McMillan Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA \[Action Item\]
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Amina’s Daycare (fka Mulonge Daycare) (H-2022-0012) by
Godelieve Mulonge, Located at 4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare of up to 12 children
on 0.145 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district.
- Continued to May 5, 2022
4. Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Pavilion at Windsong (H-
2021-0102) by Kent Brown, Located at the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and
N. Linder Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 3.42 acres of the subject property from C-C to R-40.
B. A Preliminary Plat on the entire 4.77-acre property to allow 33 townhouse
lots, 2 lots for vertically-integrated buildings containing a total of 12
residential units, and one commercial lot.
C. A Conditional Use Permit to allow townhouses in the R-40 zoning district.
D. A Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed
development
- Recommended Approval to City Council
5. Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC,
Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way
A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning
district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat
phase of the Oaks North Subdivision.
- Recommended Approval to City Council
6. Public Hearing Continued from March 3, 2022 for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-
0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel
#S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22
acres in the requested R-15 zoning district.
- Recommended Denial to City Council
7. Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown,
LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W.
Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single-
family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8
acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood
Residential).
- Recommended Approval to City Council
8. Public Hearing for Records Apartments (H-2022-0008) by Brighton
Development, Inc., Located at on the Northeast Corner of N. Records Way and E.
Fairview Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting
of 472 dwelling units in two (2) 5-story buildings on 10-acres of land in the C-
G zoning district.
- Approved
ADJOURNMENT - 11:18 p.m.
Item 1.
Meridian Planninq and Zoning Meeting April 7, 2022.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 7, 2022, was called to
order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Andrew Seal.
Members Present: Chairman Andrew Seal, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Nick Grove, Commissioner Maria Lorcher and Commissioner Nate
Wheeler.
Members Absent: Commissioner Patrick Grace and Commissioner Mandi Stoddard.
Others Present: Adrienne Weatherly, Kurt Starman, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson, Alan
Tiefenbach and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
X Nate Wheeler X Maria Lorcher
Mandi Stoddard X Nick Grove
_X Steven Yearsley Patrick Grace
X Andrew Seal - Chairman
Seal: Good evening. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for April
7th, 2022. At this time I would like to call the meeting to order. The Commissioners who
are present at this evening's meeting are at City Hall and on Zoom. We also have staff
from the city attorney and clerk's offices, as well as the City Planning Department. If you
are joining us from -- if you are joining us on Zoom this evening we can see that you are
here. You may observe the meeting. However, your ability to be seen in -- on screen
and talk will be muted. During the public testimony portion of the meeting you will be
unmuted and, then, be able to comment. Please note that we cannot take questions until
the public testimony portion. If you have a process question during the meeting, please,
e-mail cityclerk@meridiancity.org and they will reply as quickly as possible. If you simply
want to watch the meeting we encourage you to watch the streaming on the city's
YouTube channel. You can access that at meridiancity.org/live. With that let's begin with
roll call. Madam Clerk.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Seal: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. Amina's Daycare, which
is file number H-2022-0012, will be opened for the sole purpose of continuing to a regular
scheduled meeting. It will be open only for that purpose. So, if there is anybody here
tonight to testify for that particular application we will not be taking any testimony on it this
evening. Could I get a motion to adopt the agenda.
Lorcher: So moved.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 6
Page 2 of 88
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye. Any
opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
1. Approve Minutes of the March 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
2. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Faissy's Child Care (H-2022-
0002) by Faissy Kwizera, Located at 1322 E. Grand Canyon St., Near
the Southwest Corner of E. McMillan Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd.
Seal: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have one item on the agenda,
which is to approve the -- actually have two items on the agenda. One is to approve the
meeting minutes of the March 17th, 2022, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
We also have the Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law for the Faissy's Childcare, H-2022-
0002. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Grove: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adopt -- adopt the Consent Agenda. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay. That motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
ITEMS MOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA [Action Item]
Seal: Usually I move into the public hearing process, but if anybody in here is in for just
the community meetings, there are several going on tonight. So, this is Planning and
Zoning Commission hearing. So, if anybody is here for just a public meeting, you're in
the wrong place. If you are here for the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting you
are in the correct place.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, my apologies. I'm getting word from outside sources that the audio
is not reaching our outside audience.
Seal: Okay.
Weatherly: I'm going to be pausing for a minute while I reset the system.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 7
Page 3 of 88
Seal: We can pause for a minute.
Weatherly: Thank you, sir.
(Brief pause.)
Seal: All right. Sorry about the technical difficulties. We will continue on now. So, at this
time I will explain the public hearing process. We will open each item individually and
begin with the staff report. Staff will report their findings on -- on how the item adheres to
the Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Code. After staff has made their
presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case and respond to staff
comments. They will have 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant is finished we will
open the floor to public testimony. Each person will be called on only once during the
public testimony. The Clerk will call the names individually of those who have signed up
on our website in advance to testify. You will, then, be unmuted in Zoom or you can come
to the microphones in Chambers. You will need to state your name and address for the
record and you will have three minutes to address the Commission. If you have previously
sent pictures or presentation for the meeting it will be displayed on the screen and our
Clerk will run the presentation or you can run the presentation. You guys can work that
out as it comes up. If you have established that you are speaking on behalf of a larger
group, like an HOA, and others from that group will allow you to speak on their behalf,
you will have up to ten minutes. After all those who have signed up in advance have
spoken we will invite any others that may wish to testify. If you wish to speak on the topic
you may come forward in Chambers or if on Zoom press the raise hand button in the
Zoom app or if you are only listening on a phone please press star nine and wait for your
name to be called. If you are listening on multiple -- multiple devices, such as a computer
and a phone, please, be sure to mute the extra devices so we do not experience feedback
and we can hear you clearly. When you are finished, if the Commission does not have
questions for you you will be -- you will return to your seat in chambers or be muted on
Zoom and you will no longer have the ability to speak. Please remember that you will --
you will not be called a second time. After all testimony has been heard, the applicant
will be given another ten minutes to come back and respond. When the applicant is
finished responding to questions and concerns we will close the public hearing and the
Commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make final
decisions or recommendations to City Council as needed.
ACTION ITEMS
3. Public Hearing for Amina's Daycare (fka Mulonge Daycare) (H-2022-
0012) by Godelieve Mulonge, Located at 4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare of up to 12
children on 0.145 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 8
Page 4 of 88
Seal: So, at this time I would like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2022-0012,
Amina's Daycare for continuance and I believe the date that we were looking at is May
5th.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I move to continue File No. H-2022-0012 for Amina's Daycare to the hearing date
of May 5th for them to be able to get the signage posted correctly.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to continue File No. H-2022-0012 to the date of May
5th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
4. Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Pavilion at
Windsong (H-2021-0102) by Kent Brown, Located at the Northwest
Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 3.42 acres of the subject property from C-C to
R-40.
B. A Preliminary Plat on the entire 4.77-acre property to allow 33
townhouse lots, 2 lots for vertically-integrated buildings containing a
total of 12 residential units, and one commercial lot.
C. A Conditional Use Permit to allow townhouses in the R-40 zoning
district.
D. A Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed
development
Seal: All right. We will now continue the public hearing for Pavilion at Windsong, H-2021-
0102, which was continued from March 17th. We will begin with the staff report.
Tiefenbach: Sorry about that. It looks like I was muted. Can you hear me?
Seal: Yes, we can.
Tiefenbach: Okay. Thank you. Let me -- I apologize I'm not there. I'm struggling with a
cold, so probably better for me to be here than there. Okay. This is the Pavilion at
Windsong. This is a proposal for a development agreement modification, a rezone, a
preliminary plat and a conditional use. The subject property is about four and a half acres
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 191
Page 5 of 88
and it's presently zoned C-C. It's located at the northwest corner of North Linder Road
and West Ustick Road. The surrounding area is comprised of single family detached to
the south, east and west. A commercial center directly across North Linder and a newly
developing mixed density residential development at the southeast corner of North Linder
and West Ustick. Just --just a little bit of history on this property. The -- the property was
annexed into the city in 2009. At the time of that annexation approval specific details for
how the site was to develop were not provided. The recorded development agreement
requires those -- those details to be provided when the property is subdivided. Excuse
me. In 2019 the property was proposed for a development agreement modification and
a conditional use to allow a mix of uses, including multi-family, a self storage facility, office
and retail uses. During the City Council meeting there were concerns in regard to the
multi-family component mostly about the -- the density and the height of the buildings, but
there was also comments about overcrowding in schools and traffic. The Planning
Commission did approve the storage, but they -- they strongly -- but they strongly
recommended that retail uses be retained there and when it went to the Council the
Council only approved it for the self storage. They did not approve multi-family on that
site. This property is recommended by the Comprehensive Plan for a mixed-use
community. There is the site plan. So, this proposal is to rezone about three and a half
acres of the subject property from C-C to R-40. You can see that on the graphic there on
the right. It would be a preliminary plat for 33 townhouse lots, two lots for two vertically
integrated buildings, so that all of the -- the townhouses would be pretty much all of the
buildings except for these buildings here on the south, the east and this commercial, all
the rest of this is townhouses. The -- the buildings on the south and the east, those are
two --those are two lots with vertical -- vertically integrated structures, six -- each row has
six units. That would be commercial on the bottom and residential above. Can you still
hear me?
Seal: Yes, we can.
Tiefenbach: Okay. I just got a text from Bill, so I wasn't sure you could hear me. So,
vertically integrated on the two lots on the bottom and, then, a commercial pad up there
next to West Crosswinds. A conditional -- in addition to the rezoning, a conditional use is
allowed -- is required for the townhouses in the R-40 and as I mentioned, because specific
details weren't provided about the development at the time of annexation, the
development agreement modification is required in order to move forward. It's a -- you
should note that this proposal also includes a request for private streets, because some
of these units front on a MEW and I will talk about that shortly. So, again, the --the future
land use map designates this property for mixed-use community. That -- for the purpose
of that is for community serving uses to be seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric
and there is a few different components of mixed use, usually three types of land uses,
high density near employment, being centered around public spaces and accessible.
Mixed use community in particular also says that 20 percent of it should be residential. It
encourages vertically integrated structures and it limits the buildings -- the square footage
to 30,000 square feet. This particular application reflects three types of uses with the
majority of the residential portion of the development clustered around a central open
space. That's what you can see right here. The rest of it is on a commercial arterial with
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 Flo]
Page 6 of 88
a combination of office, commercial, and residential. Staff does support the vertically
integrated buildings, but is concerned about the loss of additional commercially --
commercial viable property if those structures do not build out as townhouses. Our
concern would be the entire development would be built out as residential. It's all
townhouses with just a drive-through there. As a condition of approval, staff recommends
a requirement that at the time of the building permit the ground floors of all vertically
integrated buildings meet occupancy class requirements for commercial structures. My
understanding is that the applicant is amenable to this recommendation. Staff also
noticed that we believe that the vertically integrated structure would be more appropriate
on the north side of Crosswind. So, you can see my pointer here. We think this area
would be better. This is -- would better -- would better integrate with the commercial and
it would reduce the impact of traffic on the townhouse portion, so all the traffic isn't coming
down into here to get to those down to the bottom. Staff has recommended this to the
applicant, but I believe that the applicant --this one they are not amenable to and I believe
their concerns are about the -- how it would affect the community and -- and their -- so, I
think they will talk about that more in detail. At the time of the staff report staff had
concerns with the townhouse row shown as Building D. So, that is down here. At the
time of the staff report that was one long wall. Because it was so close to the adjacent
residences, we had concerns with this wall effect on the townhouses and we
recommended that it be -- it be broken up. Since the time of the original staff report the
applicant has broken them up so if you can see now that one of the houses that is sitting
here is now looking down, so you can see now that one of the houses that's sitting here
is now looking down through the middle of six of this. In regard to access, the subject
property is located at the northwest corner of North Linder Road and Ustick Road, which
are both arterials. There was an existing local road, which is Crosswind -- that's what you
see here -- presently stubs at the property here. This development would close the
existing access on North Linder, which is further down here to the south. It would push it
to the north and it would connect Crosswinds Road. There is also a northern stub, which
is proposed here. The property to the north is still unincorporated in the county. So, that
would be in case it develops in the future. Except for Crosswind Street, which would be
built to a local street to the typical section, all the other roads in this -- all to the south of
this development and up here as well would all be private roads. The preliminary plat
reflects the private roads south of Crosswinds, meets the 24 -- the minimum 24 -- 24 foot
requirements. So, that's what our requirement is the minimum for private roads. Now at
the time of the staff report staff mentioned that the alley -- this up here, if you could see
all the way at the top, the northern road that's running east-west, this was shown as an
alley on the staff report. When we -- when we wrote the staff report we mentioned that it
didn't meet the requirements for an alley, because it dead ended. It also wouldn't work
as a common drive, because there was more than six units on it and it also wouldn't work
as a private road, because it was too narrow and they needed to redesign that. Now,
since that time the applicant has redesigned this road again here to be 24 feet wide.
Although we will mention that this road here is still indicated -- the one in the middle is still
indicated to be only 23 feet wide. So, the applicant will have to revise that accordingly.
All parking requirements have been met, although the applicant should submit a shared
parking agreement between the commercial use and the vertically integrated structures.
We have listed that as one of our conditional -- one of our conditions of approval. One --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 Fill
Page 7 of 88
one thing I want to mention is that the applicant has mentioned in their narrative that they
are proposing a three-way stop sign at the intersection of Crosswinds and North Wafting.
So, on this that would be down in this area. Now, this would be because of the concerns
about traffic coming into the existing neighborhood. However, ACHD staff report does
not mention that stop sign. ACHD commented that traffic calming should be provided in
this area by a bulb out. So, it's not clear to me at this point whether it's going to be a stop
sign or a bulb out. I would defer that to the applicant. But this should be addressed. The
landscaping plan shows a 25 foot wide street buffer adjacent to North Linder and West
Ustick, although at this point it doesn't appear that they meet the tree requirements of one
tree per 35 feet, which would be easy enough for us to remedy at the time of final plat.
Also at the time of the staff report, due to the adjacent residences, staff will make -- staff
recommended a five foot wide landscape buffer to the north. That has since been
provided. That's what you see here. Again, that wasn't provided when we wrote the staff
report. There are seven foot wide attached sidewalks along North Linder and West
Ustick. The Five Mile pathway parallels the creek at the west. This is the Five Mile
pathway basically down here. It parallels the street on the west and it basically dead ends
at -- where the property ends. Staff recommended the pathway along -- staff mentioned
in the staff report that the configuration -- the configuration as proposed was redundant
and unnecessary. So, if you saw the original plans, what it showed was it showed a
pathway along Linder in addition to the seven foot sidewalk and the same thing along
Ustick. It showed an additional pathway and you can still see that here and now. Staff
mentioned that we thought it was redundant and unnecessary. We recommended that
the pathway along Linder be removed, because it was already a seven foot wide sidewalk
and the pathway shown on Ustick be removed and the sidewalk here be widened to ten
feet and, then, eventually, connect on here to the west at the Ten Mile trail. One other
comment we mentioned is that if you look at the way these vertically integrated structures
are shown here, Building H and Building G, each one of these structures has a walkway
going out to the pathway. So, there is 12 there. Parks commented that they had concerns
with that many different little walkways connecting out of their pathways and one of staff's
conditions is that all of those be -- that there would be no more than one pathway per
building. Finally, in regard to elevations, the building elevations show townhouses
comprised of materials consisting of rock, cement board, Hardie board, lap siding, pitched
roofs, exposed timber frame and windows, including on the garage doors. We do believe
that they demonstrate significant fenestration and it's high quality, but, again, if you look
at the buildings on the bottom, these are the buildings that are fronting along Ustick and
Linder and staff did not believe these look like vertically integrated structures, these look
like townhouses. Our concern, again, was that what we would end up with would be a
townhouse project with a drive-through facility. We have received one letter from Mike
and Sandy Archibald. Their concern was, again, about the traffic calming along West
Crosswinds and with that I would stand for any questions or comments.
Seal: Okay. Thank you, Alan. At this time would the applicant like to come forward?
Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record and the floor is yours.
Amar: Good evening, Mr. President, Commissioners. My name is Kevin Amar. My
address is 1580 West Cayuse Creek Drive in Meridian. I'm here tonight to present
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F12
Page 8 of 88
Pavilion at Windsong. Alan did a good job at giving some of the history on this project as
far as -- since we have been working with him on it, but just to give a little more history
that goes back a long way, I first started working in this area trying to purchase Windsong
-- I think it was in 2002 from the Stubblefields and so we have got a lot of history in this
area. I grew up just down the street from here, you know, five decades ago when we
moved to the area from a really small town in Idaho to a little town in Meridian. Meridian
has grown and changed. There has been a wide variety of change in this area and I'm
very familiar with this property. So, as we finally acquired the Windsong project in 2019,
right at the beginning of COVID, this is another piece of property that we looked at and
identified and wanted to continue building that out, so we could make a project and a
whole area integrate better with our vision for the neighborhood. What we did along with
that also is as we worked with the neighbors and we built the homes in Windsong, they
knew that we had acquired this property on the corner and we informed them at that time
also what our plans were to do with this property and so we didn't want to come in and
surprise any of our neighbors that we -- obviously we just built the home with and we
wanted to make sure that this project built out in a form that we thought was beneficial
and would be cohesive for the neighborhood. As we purchased the project and we
purchased this in 2019 also, this property, we knew we could come in and do some things
that were already an allowed use within the community, the C-C zone. It's zoned C-C.
We looked at some of the different options that were available to us. We looked at the
vertically integrated option that is an allowed use within the C-C zone, so as we place that
there that's why we are not asking for a rezone on the -- the portion that has the vertically
integrated or the retail space, but we did want to also provide additional options for home
ownership and that's why we wanted to include the townhouse -- the townhouse project
and portion. Again, we could -- we could go and do all this property as a vertically
integrated property, but we didn't feel like that would be the best use of the property, but
I also didn't feel like it would be the best representation of what is in the neighborhood.
There are many neighbors, obviously, that own their homes in that -- in that area. It's
near schools. It's near parks. We will be -- we will be adding the pathway to connect that
pathway. I know parks and rec, we have worked with them on other properties in Linder.
They are trying to get that pathway integration all up and down Linder and, then, down
Ustick and -- and we see this as a continuation of that. There are a few things that the
project itself-- again, we could increase density by simply doing more vertically integrated
product that is an allowed use in the zone. We wanted to create more of an open space
feel on an area -- that has limited access currently to Linder and Ustick. There are two
access points currently on the property. One is on Linder. One is on Ustick. However,
neither one of those would be allowed by ACHD standards for a subdivision development.
For commercial. For retail. For multi-family. Both of them are too close to the intersection
of Linder and Ustick. So, we have worked with ACHD. We are bringing Crosswinds out
and connecting that to Linder Road and eliminating the other two access points currently.
In our -- we have had a number of neighborhood meetings with the existing neighbors in
Windsong. One of their concerns was traffic and access. We had told them we would try
to get a three-way stop at Crosswinds and near the entrance of their neighborhood. That
is something that ACHD would not allow. However, we were able to work with ACHD and
get a bulb out at that location to provide some traffic calming and that was approved by
ACHD. So, although we could not get a three-way stop there, we feel like a compromise
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F13
Page 9 of 88
with ACHD was reached and that we could at least provide additional traffic calming at
that intersection and help the neighbors with some of their concerns with traffic. As we
-- as we speak to some of the other questions and ideas of what came about with this
neighborhood and I will address why we feel like the location of the vertically integrated
product is best where we have located it and I will also speak to how we will ensure that
that is a vertically integrated unit in the -- in the project itself. We centered the park in the
middle as a gathering place for this neighborhood. So, it's called Pavilion at Windsong
because that area will have a gathering area, a pavilion in it. People can go gather and
recreate. It's a MEW, so many of the homes will open right onto the park-like setting. We
have done this in other locations and it's been very well received by those people that live
there. The kids can go outside and play and enjoy that area right -- it's -- their front yard
is huge. We could -- we have put -- there is 17 percent of qualified open space within the
project, but we also foresee the retail space being a corner coffee shop and we are
currently talking to a few people. It's not a drive-through specific coffee shop, although
there is a drive-through there. We foresee also a -- and we will build it, so I guess we get
a dictate what it's going to be -- a place you can go in and sit down and grab a -- you
know, a -- maybe it's a breakfast sandwich or a place to go and just gather with your
neighbors in that area. So, it becomes much more of a community centered retail space,
rather than just a -- nothing against Dutch Brothers or the Starbucks drive-throughs, but
that's not what we want or we want to put there. This needs to be more of a community
type of center. With respect to the vertically integrated units -- and we have spoken with
-- we have had a couple of application meetings with staff. We understand the need for
the vertically integrated units. In some of those pre-application meetings with staff they
were -- staff members were attending that from their home office, which looks like a
bedroom, which I'm sure a lot of us have home offices that are a bedroom. As we see
what clients are wanting, as what people are moving into the area need, it has changed
drastically over the last few years. There was a time years ago that people really didn't
want a home office, because everybody went to the office. They drove down the road
and they went to the office. COVID changed all that and so many people are really looking
for a place to be able to get away from the home, but still have their office and so we have
built these projects -- we have built buildings like this in Boise and we incorporated it in a
fashion that it wasn't going to detract from the neighborhood setting in that area. If you
go and look at the type of architecture that is built in -- in and around this area, this is very
cohesive with that type of architecture. So, as we designed the live-work units -- and if
we could go to -- I don't know which slide it is, but I can -- oh, very good. Thank you. So,
if we look at these live-work units, if you look on the bottom floor -- and I don't know here
if -- well, here we go. So, there is a door on the right up to the stairs. That unit is the
main house entrance for the door and so -- or for -- that is the main door for the house.
That door will go directly upstairs into the second floor, which is the main living area and
the third floor, which are the bedrooms. What we have also incorporated is a -- a main
front floor entrance and that area goes directly into the office and so it works as that
vertically integrated unit, because people don't -- if you have clients or customers coming
over to meet with you, they don't have to go into your house, walk through your house
and get into an office in your back bedroom. They can walk directly into your office and
it's completely separate from your living space. What we also find with clients and what
they want is they want that separation, because although their family may be upstairs and
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F14
Page 10 of 88
the kids are playing or wife is working or they are living in their home otherwise, they can
go down, shut that door and be totally independent in their workspace from the area in a
quiet area. We understand that that needs to be built out to a commercial space at that
time. We are fully in agreement with that, because we --we feel like this is a high demand
type product and we know that the other units that we have built like this in Boise, they --
they are used for a vertically integrated space and so although they don't visually look
separated, that was by design. We wanted it to look like a -- like the area and what is
built in that area and -- but we feel like with the addition of that door and that other
entryway, the covered entryway, it will provide an area that people can come and go
without getting into the home. So, I don't know if we didn't explain that to staff well enough,
but that's -- that is what that -- that's why there is two doors on the main level. It's not a
patio door, there is a step door that you go up to the main house entrance and, then, as
those sidewalks come out those go to the office entrance, the commercial type entrance
of the property. We do know that parks has a concern about the number of sidewalks
entering to the pathways. We can adjust those. We will work with parks on how many
they will allow. I would like two, just so there is one at either end of the building, but we
will work with the Parks Department on -- on what will be allowed in that area. With
respect to the pathway, we will also adjust the pathway on the Ustick side to just include
a single pathway, so we are not being redundant with a pathway, as well as a -- as a
sidewalk. So, if we look through the balance of the project there was -- and I don't know
how many of you are familiar with the area, but this is a rapidly growing area. This was
vacant for a long time, especially with Windsong being vacant. It was developed in 2004
and, finally, built out last year and no homes were built in there. So, with the high schools,
the middle schools, we have Settlers Landing just down this -- sorry. Settlers Park just
down the street. This whole corner is developing and growing and changing. There is all
the addition of the commercial and Orchard Park and the public library just within a couple
miles of here. This is -- this is an exciting time for this area and it's finally a in-fill piece
that is going to be developed for something other than, you know, storage units or
apartments or office buildings and mostly the office buildings --we do build office buildings
also. The limited access makes it very difficult to have an office building type product
here because of our access off of Linder and off of Ustick. I want to make sure I had all
the questions answered from Alan. On the -- on the roadways we will make sure all the
private roads are 24 feet wide. It looks like we missed one area that's 23 feet. But there
is room to revise that we have discussed the location of the vertically integrated area.
Those buildings are three stories tall. One other thing I wanted to bring up is we wanted
those larger three-story buildings to be big enough that you can still have a family or
people that live there. They are three-bedroom units, which -- with an office space in the
bottom, requires a three-story type building. We wanted to keep that three-story -- the
larger taller buildings away from the existing neighborhood and out on the corner where
you would traditionally see a commercial type product or a commercial type building and,
then, we used all the Linder and Ustick frontage, along with the vertically integrated and
the retail space will -- will follow that commercial frontage, minimizing the impact from the
-- from the neighbors. The landscape tree requirements -- we will meet the landscape --
landscape tree requirements. Pathway versus sidewalk. I can't read my notes. So,
appreciate your -- your time. Again, this is a -- this is an exciting project for us. I think by
the testament of the neighbors not being here it speaks to our work with the neighborhood
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F151
Page 11 of 88
and what we have told them and what we directed them that would be here from the
beginning. We would still like a three-way stop at that intersection. I guess that's up to
you and ACHD and not up to me and what I get. We -- Bill earlier told me that everybody
has opinions and not everybody's right. So, I -- I took some wisdom from Bill and I
understand that we can all have opinions, but we don't get to make the rules. So, we
appreciate your time this evening and we -- I would stand for any question.
Seal: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant or staff? Okay. Thank you.
Amar: Thank you very much.
Seal: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. Madam Clerk, has anybody signed
up?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do have people signed in. Before we get started on that, I did
want to note for the record Commissioner Grace joined us at 6:15. He's having a couple
technical difficulties, so he's going to try to hang in there, but I did want it to be on the
record that he is present --
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Weatherly: -- online. The first person I have signed up is Kristen Schiller. Kristen, you
should be able to talk.
Schiller: Can you hear me?
Seal: Yes, we can. Go ahead. Please state your name and address for the record.
Schiller: Sure. Kristen Schiller. 3441 North Tradewind Avenue, Meridian. I'm a current
resident of the Windsong Subdivision and I would like to tell you how this proposed
Pavilion at Windsong is going to negatively impact the existing community. First, the
builder is planning on jamming in 33 townhomes, 12 residential units and one commercial
lot on, truthfully, a very small piece of land. In order to get all these buildings jammed in
there the builder is planning to put in far narrower streets than normally allowed for a
neighborhood. So, I ask you where are all the guests and patrons of the commercial lot
and the live-work unit supposed to park, since they, obviously, will not be able to park on
narrow streets without blocking traffic. I will tell you they are going to park in the
residential streets of the existing Windsong community on the streets where our children
play every single day. We are a small subdivision with no current outlet to a main road
and our streets are quiet and not heavily trafficked, so we allow our children to play out
front. Second, the builder has mentioned that the commercial lot will likely be made into
a drive-through coffee shop. Again, where are you planning on all the cars that traffic a
drive through supposed to line up? There is no space for them to line up within the
Pavilion neighborhood, so is the plan to have them back up on Linder Road or will they
simply back up into the Windsong Subdivision? You do realize that this particular
intersection at Linder and Ustick is already a very busy intersection and directly across
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F16
Page 12 of 88
the street on the northeast corner of the intersection they are currently building tens of
thousands of square feet of office space, which will only drive even more traffic through
the area. Third, the builder is only given this Pavilion with 46 proposed buildings, a single
outlet onto a main road on Linder, which is extremely close to the intersection of Linder
and Ustick. So, people leaving the Pavilion will only have the option of turning right and
heading south down Linder Road, they won't have the time or the space to get over to the
left-hand turning lane on Linder to have the option of turning left on Ustick or making a U-
turn to head north on Linder. So, where are these folks going to go if they need to head
in any other direction but south on Linder? They are going to drive through the current
Windsong community to exit out of the subdivision to the north. The northern outlet onto
Linder Road also happens to be a highly dangerous crossing with no light at the
intersection. Directly across the street is the Sawtooth Middle School, which causes
major traffic twice a day during school pick-ups and drop-offs. I'm asking this committee
to not allow the builder to create the Pavilion which will cause a huge traffic issue on the
streets of Linder Road and within the current Windsong community. At the very least I
beg you not to allow the continuation of Crosswind Street from the Pavilion into the
Windsong community. Please leave us closed off from Linder Road and leave that single
outlet onto Linder Road to the residents of the Pavilion and if the residents of the Pavilion
need an additional way in and out of their community, then, give them one on Ustick Road,
since we don't seem to care how close to an intersection we are putting in our outlet
roads. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Melinda Akhbari.
Akhbari: Hi.
Seal: Melinda, go ahead and state your name and address for the record, please.
Akhbari: Yeah. It's Melinda Akhbari. 3441 North Tradewinds Avenue, Meridian. I have
basically the same concerns that she has, especially with the coffee shop and especially
with the street going through -- Crosswinds going through into the community and also,
too, once that other piece of property north of that is bought and turned into houses, then,
that's going to -- or condos. That's going to create an even bigger problem, because
everybody's going to use the Tradewinds as a -- basically it's going to be a u-shape, a
drive-through, and also, too, like they need to -- you know, if it's a coffee shop, then, the
trucks are going to drive down Tradewinds and, then, go out the other exit. So, I just think
that's a real problem. These houses were very expensive and I think you need to take
more consideration of the people that purchased these houses and how it's going to affect
them, so -- and, then, also, too, I'm concerned about the -- the fact that there is no nice
restaurants in the area. There is no -- there is no shopping and also, too, the streets are
just already overloaded with cars and a lot of these streets can't be widened to
accommodate anymore cars. It seems like it's just all about the houses and no
consideration to how people actually live and what they need, especially when you go
onto McMillan, that can't be widened, and from Walmart all the way out it's just -- there is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F17
Page 13 of 88
nothing. There is absolutely nothing but house after house after house and I just am
concerned after all the farms are built -- sold and built up, that it's just going to end up
being a few strip malls here and there, but it's going to be -- overall the whole community
is going to be like a concrete jungle in the end and I just thought that this was a much
nicer community. I expected it to stay -- to be a nicer community. I just feel like the
houses are -- should be secondary to the -- to the roads being widened first if you are
going to allow houses and I feel like you should -- if you are going to allow houses you
shouldn't let them all be so crammed together. Give it a little bit more space. Beautify
the area more. Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Kevin Amar.
Seal: Kevin, go ahead. Oh.
Amar: I know I'm going to talk about, but I will do it at rebuttal.
Seal: That's -- that's what we will have. We will call you back up when we are all done
with public testimony. Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's the only -- or the last of who has signed in.
Seal: Okay. If anybody in Chambers would like to come up. Please raise your hand or
if you are online please hit the raise your hand button and we will get you up here. Okay.
Oh. Do we have somebody? No. Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Amar: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. I -- a couple of things that I heard from
some of the --the neighbors that were there and they are specifically related to traffic and
commercial. With respect to Crosswinds, again, that's a -- that's a requirement and has
been a requirement for connection. That's not something that we want to do. That will
connect whether -- no matter what this project is developed as. I think the addition of the
bulb out will definitely help and deter some of the traffic through there. Our access point
onto Crosswinds is an unrestricted access, meaning it's not a right-in, right-out. We can
turn left, we can turn right and people can get there in both directions. It is far enough
away from the stoplight that it will also allow people to have time to turn left because of
that stoplight and stop control intersection. With respect to the coffee shop and the
stacking of that coffee shop, we have designed that specifically so the stacking does have
room around the coffee shop. The drive-through would be on the side. But people can
stack and park to get -- to go through the drive-through without being on Crosswinds.
They are certainly not going to get onto Linder Road. It's at the entrance in that main
area of a less traffic area for the residents of the Pavilion of Windsong and so that was
designed with thought and care to make sure that we would have less stacking for that
commercial type building. We, obviously, don't want people stacking out onto Linder
Road. With respect to parking, each of these units meet the required parking, not only
the garage parking for the property itself and the -- and the homes that we will be building
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F18
Page 14 of 88
in there, all of them are a minimum of a two-car garage or all of them are a two-car garage.
But the majority of them, other than just the two bedroom units, also have room to park
two additional guests in front of -- on the driveway of that townhouse. In addition to that,
we provided an additional 21 guest parking spaces. Most of those are centered around
the vertically integrated units, because we know they are going to -- they are going to be
the ones that need people to come over and meet with them at their office, unless they
are meeting virtually. In addition to the 21 spaces there is another 17 spaces that are
designated just for the commercial property. So, we looked at the parking. We know the
parking is going to be a question and a concern. We don't want it to be a problem for the
neighbors that are living in Pavilion of Windsong and we feel like we have addressed
those with this -- with this project. One of the questions that came up has to do with
shopping and restaurants and amenities in the area. Again, we have Settlers Park that's
not far from here, but a lot of the other commercial type amenities that are growing very
rapidly are at the corner of Linder and Chinden. We have got -- here we have a -- just
spreading rumors, but there is Olive Garden going in. That's there. There is the tavern.
There is a number of eateries in that area that aren't just fast food type eateries and it's
developing in a fashion that that major intersection should develop. We have got Costco
not far from here. Walmart not far from here. So, there is shopping and other retail type
components that are -- that are near this project. In addition, it's -- this is an in-fill type
property. If we -- our sole goal was just to maximize the number of units on a property
we would -- we would build those vertically integrated units that we could actually
maximize the number of units on the property. That is in the current development
agreement and as allowed within the current zoning. We feel like this will be more
cohesive with the area. We did make a number of changes as requested by staff, just to
make sure that we meet what their vision is for the property also and I think the only
question has to do with where that vertically integrated product should be and my opinion
is -- you are right. Bill's opinion is something else. But -- but I think overall we have
worked really hard with staff to make sure that this project will develop out in a way that
is good for the community and good for the neighborhood. I would ask for your
recommendation for approval this evening and I would stand for any questions.
Seal: Anybody have questions here they would like to field before we close the public
hearing process?
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: You mentioned that you built a couple of these same concepts in Boise. Was it
the same -- about acre size, about three and a half acres?
Amar: No. They -- they -- Mr. President, Commissioner Lorcher, Boise asked for more
density. So, we built 27 units on 1.2 acres on that project.
Lorcher: And -- and you said that that was kind of like the vertically integrated work living?
How long ago did you build it?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 Fig]
Page 15 of 88
Amar: We completed that last year.
Lorcher: And what's your occupancy rate for the businesses?
Amar: Occupant -- they are a hundred percent.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: With the sidewalk and landscaping on the east side of the project, would you be
open to helping widen that sidewalk from the seven foot sidewalk to a ten foot sidewalk
along the Linder side of the project to be able to tie in with the pathway that is to the north
of this property?
Amar: Mr. President, Commissioner Grove, yes, we would and I believe -- and Bill maybe
help me. We had initially talked about ten feet, but-- but, then, parks asked to be reduced
down to seven feet. So, I think what we were trying to do is make sure this project aligns
with the requests of parks and rec.
Grove: I think my question here would be if -- if it was ten feet, but not having the direct
access to the pathway, so that those -- I can't count, but six -- instead of having those six
go in directly, but having those six go in as one pathway, but leaving the ten foot versus
the seven foot. Does that --
Amar: Yes.
Grove: Does that make sense?
Amar: Yes. I believe so.
Grove: Tying -- tying those six together before they get to the --
Amar: Yeah. We are in agreement with that. We will tie those six together. With the two
locations, one at either end, but, again, it will be a -- maybe a conversation with parks,
unless the Commission has a recommendation for it, then, we will follow that
recommendation.
Seal: And I will weigh in on that, too. I -- I ride these paths a lot, so -- especially the one
there off Ustick. I have no issues with the redundant ten foot path personally. So, we
use it that way right now. So, if parks and rec is looking for any feedback on that, that's
my feedback on it is that it's -- well -- and to add to that, the -- the parcel that we
recommended approval on that is on the southeast corner, they also did a ten foot
pathway that is, you know, somewhat redundant in that, but that's the reasoning behind
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F20
Page 16 of 88
it, is so that there is ample bike riding space -- lanes available for people to get around,
because there is several parks that are in the area and there is some really nice pathways
that are just north of this as well. So, question that I had on this specifically is how large
exactly is the office space?
Amar: The office space is -- it's about 550 square feet on the main floor.
Seal: Okay.
Amar: That includes a restroom area as well.
Seal: And, then, it has direct access into the house; correct?
Amar: It does through a -- there is a door that separates it. But, yes, it does have direct
access.
Seal: Okay. And it's probably mentioned in here, but are these for sale or for rent
product?
Amar: They are so the vertically integrated --we would have to put a condo in just based
on the zoning. So, we may come back and do that. The other ones are a for sale product
and that's why we are asking for the rezone, so we can have a townhouse -- individual lot
for sale units.
Seal: Okay. So, for the vertically integrated those are currently for rent, but you are
looking at making them for sale?
Amar: Correct.
Seal: Okay. Anybody else? Mr. Yearsley? No? All right. Is Commissioner Grace still
online? I was going to say if you have anything to add let us know.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, unfortunately, Mr. Grace had to leave the meeting at 6:00 -- excuse
me -- 6.45.
Seal: Okay.
Weatherly: He couldn't establish a secure connection.
Seal: Understood. Thank you. Okay. If nobody else has any questions, thanks for your
time.
Amar: Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-0102
with Pavilion at Windsong?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F21
Page 17 of 88
Grove: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Item No. H-2021-
0102. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I will just jump in with a few quick thoughts. I -- I disagree with the
recommendation to move the vertically integrated to the north side, simply because I -- I
believe just looking at the --the height and the --the use, I would much rather see it where
the applicant has -- has it situated with on the -- within the site. I think some small
revisions to the pathway sidewalk pieces could easily be done to meet both the applicant's
desire and the park's recommendations. The traffic calming looks about as good as we
are going to be able to get with ACHD and, you know, the -- the public testimony tonight
with the access, essentially, to Linder, there -- I mean that's always -- that's a master
street map plan for streets to connect, so that -- as soon as a project goes in, no matter
what the project is, it's going to connect and there is going to be that access. That's in
the ACHD master street map. So, there is nothing that we could do if -- whenever
something does come in for that. I don't see anything major with this. I think the
delineation between commercial and residential would be nice, but considering how these
are being designed to be more office -- home office type use versus a true commercial
space, I am not -- I don't have super strong opinions with the strong delineation from
outside appearance sake.
Seal: Thank you. Comments from anybody else?
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: I think it's always hard to do in-fill as the -- as the gentleman said and when
people live in an area you don't know what you are going to get. Like it would be nice to
see less density in that area, but if the picture matches what's going to be there I think --
I like the fact that the items are going to be for sale and not for rent. So, I think people
will take better care of their properties and living community that will enhance the
subdivision that's right there.
Seal: I will jump -- jump in on it. I already said my piece about the pathway. Yeah.
mean the density is a little concerning on this. I mean for the folks that testified tonight
as far as the roads and everything. Unfortunately, most folks get to this hearing and they
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F22
Page 18 of 88
think the roads are controlled by the city. They are not. They belong to ACHD. They will
let us know whether or not they can handle it and we generally have to live with that, so
-- whether we agree with it or not in some -- in some instances. So, unfortunately, that's
where it's at. Like Commissioner-- Commissioner Grove has said is they -- that's in their
plan and this was the plan for this lot, so it doesn't really matter what goes in here, that
connection will --will be made. So the traffic calming that's in there is all that the applicant
could get. I mean they tried for a three-way stop. ACHD wouldn't allow it, so their hands
are tied as well. It's unfortunate, but it is what it is. On the project itself, I do like -- the
one thing I don't like about it is the elimination of commercial space. I will just say that
first and foremost, that some commercial space goes away as a result of this.
Considering that it's a hard corner and there is limited access, I understand why that is. I
mean it's pretty hard to find businesses that are going to want to go in there with that
really limited -- the really limited ability to -- to, you know, get traffic in and out of there.
So, the vertically integrated generally I'm a pretty big fan of that. When it's connected to
the inside of the house I'm less of a fan. I have got to say -- I mean we already had an
applicant come through where we went back and forth several times on that and it ended
up to where they closed that off from the rest of the house to me. That's --that is vertically
integrated. Your business is your business. Your home is your home. Period. End of
story. So, when you connect it to the rest of the house, even if it's commercially viable,
there is nothing to prevent somebody from turning that into a bedroom. Absolutely
nothing. Or renting it out, you know, as a matter of purpose. So, I have concerns about
that, to be perfectly honest, so -- I mean there is some vertically integrated structures that
are in Meridian that I think are -- are very nice. I mean when you look at the bottom level
of them it has a business name hanging over the door, it's obviously a professional
building, there is, obviously, people living upstairs in it, but at the same time it's a business
at the -- on the ground floor, so -- you know, I understand that there is a lot of people that
are probably maybe going into the retirement side of their career, maybe an attorney,
maybe a physician, you know, something along those lines that wants just a small space
in order to live out the rest of their days, get to retirement, you know, move on type of
thing or there is somebody out there that's trying to make their side hustle their hustle,
their job, and that's, you know, obviously, where some of these come into play. So, I
would like to see it, you know, closed off. I would like to see it more presented as a
commercial space, instead of a residential space, especially the way that the -- it's facing
the two major roads. To me that needs to look like commercial property. So, we are
giving up some commercial property to have this, you know, possibly go in there. So, to
me it needs to look more commercial and, then, have people live in it, instead of the other
way around. I would also like to see that-- those be for sale personally. So, again, I think
if they are rented -- you know, if you are trying to turn your side hustle into your job and it
doesn't work out, well, then, you are just renting some place and there is no reason to
have that as a business, so -- trying to satisfy everything with this is pretty tough, so the
-- basically, the code for live-work in Meridian is a little vague and allows for a lot of latitude
for what can be presented as live-work. So, we are just trying to make sure that it doesn't
just end up being live for a space we are already giving up commercial space in. Sorry,
that was very long. Anybody else?
Grove: Mr. Chair, can I get like two seconds real quick?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F23]
Page 19 of 88
Seal: Two seconds, Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I will say the loss of commercial, if it means that we are losing storage units on a
hard corner, I am happy about that, so --
Seal: I -- I will concur with the. Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: I -- I agree. I -- it just feels like we are just trying to cram something in there
just to get a lot of homes in there. The only positive part in my opinion is it's for sale
instead of for rent. That's mine. I -- I am not a big fan of private roads. You are putting
a huge expense on the homeowners association down the road to have to maintain that
road. I live in a subdivision that we have several private roads and it is a fairly significant
expense to maintain those roads, you know, ten, 15 years down the road. So, I think they
are sacrificing roads, access, parking for more space and -- and -- and I just -- I struggle
with that, so --
Seal: Okay. Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Yes. My -- my bigger concern is I'm trying to picture here on this corner where
the commercial part is -- is set apart, I'm -- I'm imagining coming in, going around, looping
back out and around and to me it looks like there is just a -- that's just going to be a traffic
issue moving forward, figure-eighting into a residential multi-family complex here. If there
was a way to put that on the corner on the opposite end, that would make a lot of sense,
because, then, you got a right-in or even a left end, but, then, you got a right turn out and
you don't have to cross lanes of traffic to get into the commercial spot there where it's
abundant next to the residential development on it. The other thought I had is I do like
the idea of the live-work space getting closer to that corner than not. But I know that you
spent a lot of time, you're -- you're problem solving on this corner here and -- and trying
to figure out a way to make this work here and also be a benefit to the community on it
and I'm a fan of these live-work places. I like these kind of unique solutions a lot, because
it is where things are going and it is where things are. It's just going to get more and more
like that. But that -- that -- that -- that corner there is -- the commercial side is what's
concerning to me is how that might move forward on something. So, with that being said,
I can see the applicant would like to make some comments on this. Is there a way to
open back up public testimony and have some comments back on that? Would he be
willing to work with staff on that kind of thing to have those kind of questions?
Seal: We can go that direction, but that would -- I mean I would want to do that for a
continuance.
Wheeler: Okay.
Seal: If that's where you are heading with it. Sure.
Wheeler: Okay.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F24
Page 20 of 88
Seal: If that's not where we are heading with it --
Wheeler: Okay.
Seal: -- I think we live with what we got.
Wheeler: Okay. We will -- so we can bring him up here and ask him if you would be
willing for a continuance to rework on that, is that what you are saying, chairman?
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: So, it depends on what -- what I think we would be asking or telling, because we
can make recommendations that -- because this does go to Council, so those
recommendations could be addressed at Council level as well.
Seal: Okay.
Grover: Depending on -- depending on what direction you are thinking.
Seal: Yeah. And real quick, Bill, the -- I mean the CUP portion of this really speaks to
the vertically integrated piece of it or is that more on the commercial property piece?
Parsons: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, it speaks to the townhome piece.
Seal: It is the townhome --
Parsons: The CU --
Seal: Okay.
Parsons: Yes. Vertically integrated is principally permitted in the C-C zone.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. I'm amenable to bringing them back up and talking about a
continuance, but we -- there has got to be some good -- we have had good feedback I
think at this point in time, so if we want to move in that direction we can.
Grove: Mr. Chair? What -- I guess, Commissioner Wheeler, what is it that in particular
-- I guess like specifics would we be looking at, because I -- I don't know that I'm on the
same page, but I would like to understand where you are kind of thinking.
Wheeler: Yeah. I understand, Commissioner Grove. I'm thinking of more or less moving
that commercial piece over to the north, to see if he could work with that. Obviously, there
is a 23-foot access aisle has to be added on, which he's already said that he would do;
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F25
Page 21 of 88
right? Enlarging that area toward the drive aisle would be 24 feet and, then, I'm interested
in putting that live-work space closer to that corner on that side.
Grove: Mr. Chair? The -- I understand what you are saying, Mr. Wheeler. I think, though,
that would exacerbate the concerns of the neighbors, because if you moved something
like that up there you will immediately have stacking that would go into the existing
neighborhoods versus where it's at now. The stacking with where an entrance to the
commercial space would be in the subdivision that is being proposed tonight versus out
into anything that is already there or that would be coming with the stub street to the north.
So, I think that some of the concerns that you would have might get flipped, but it would
-- it would actually -- I think we would end up in a worse situation because of it. That
would be --that would be how I would kind of view some of that. I think also keeping, you
know, the vertically integrated further away from the traditional neighborhood areas allows
it to have that three-story without it being an imposing structure close to. So, that would
be my other concern with moving it anywhere from where it currently is situated and so I
-- I don't disagree with some of the points, but I think that we really need to be cognizant
of what the ripple effect would be if we were to make those suggestions.
Seal: And I'm -- I'm on the same page as Commissioner Grove on the -- moving the
commercial piece of it,just because of what they want to do and how they want to provide
the stacking that will occur in there. I mean if this is a highly successful -- you know, a lot
of coffee shops when they first open there is, you know, a billion people want to go there.
So, I -- I go to coffee shops and I mean I can tell you the one that's over there by Walmart
that thing stacks clear back out onto the -- onto the road when you go through it
sometimes, so --those are the times that I just drive by and I don't bother getting a coffee,
but other people will wait in lines for a long time, so -- I mean, if anything, to maybe the
drive-through window can be brought even further around the building, instead of
presenting right by the -- the street there. Maybe could bring it over to even to the east
side -- or, sorry, the west side of the building, just so there is just further -- you know, a
few more cars can fit around that building, so -- as you can tell we are hoping that the
coffee shop is wildly successful here, so -- I mean that's -- and I mean, honestly, it always
amazes me -- it can be 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon and there is a couple coffee shops
that are, you know, right in the area there that are -- they have lines that -- they have
stacking, so it is -- it is an issue. But I do agree that moving that north is going to, number
one, cause issues with the neighbor to the north. Number two, I don't think the stacking
would be any better and I think it would actually be worse and it would come out onto the
-- the road there personally.
Grove: Mr. Chair? Bill, could you pull the -- the colored map up from the concept plan,
please.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, just a couple -- as Joe's helping me
out here this evening assisting with that, I just wanted to at least go on the record and
clarify a couple things. As Commissioner Grove mentioned, it does get complicated when
you start shifting the uses around and that's why it was noted in the staff report that if
those vertically integrated were -- were moved to the north boundary it would require the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F26
Page 22 of 88
rezone boundary to change, because vertically integrated uses are a conditional use in
the R-40 zone, so now we are changing zoning boundaries and we are having a
completely different site plan, which would facilitate a different continuation, like you said,
and bring back a plan that you guys could look at. The other reason why staff was
recommending that change or potentially suggesting that change -- I don't think we
conditioned it, we just suggested that it might be an option, was the fact that the applicant
wasn't meeting the dimensional standards up in that section of -- per city code. So, we
are like, well, it looked like the footprint of the vertically integrated projects were smaller
than the townhome footprint, so it looked like it could fit there very nicely and still integrate
with that commercial pad on the corner. The other reason for that was the fact that that's
a lesser classified street. Typically when you have vertically integrated you want to
activate the streetscape; right? You want people walking to the business, too, not only
driving to a business, so when you have local streets you can allow on-street parking, you
can get buildings closer to the street, you can have patios, you can have all those types
of things occurring and that's why we had recommended that change as well. But as far
as where it goes and how it situates, that's really up to you tonight as part of your review.
But, certainly, with the applicant addressing staff's concerns, we are fine with the
townhomes remaining the way they are. Now, as far as the widening that north-south
private street in between the two units on the north side, that could be simply addressed
by just making it 20 feet wide and bollards --and placing a bollard and calling it emergency
access. I mean there is many ways that we could probably address this and work with
the applicant as we head to City Council and make a lot of these changes, but there is --
in my mind I think they want to move forward with what you are seeing tonight. The other
thing that I wanted to point out on the record is that the conditional use permit for that
drive-through will come back to this body, so this is really just -- just -- right now it's all
conceptual, they are showing you that they are wanting to have a commercial component
and it may have a drive -- may or may not have a drive-through, we just don't know. But
if one is proposed if it's within 300 feet of a residential district, then, I can guarantee it's
going to be back in front of this body and having another neighborhood meeting, so the
residents have a say and input in that design. So, with that I will -- I will let you go ahead
and continue with your deliberations. Thank you.
Seal: Thanks, Bill.
Grove: With that I won't belabor the point too much, but just looking at where the drive
aisle is and how it was presented, the -- the pick-up window I believe would be on the
north side closest to that northeast corner. That means this -- beginning of the drive-
through would be on that south side of the parking to the commercial, which means that
if there is stacking it would go south first before it went north and west. So, just looking
at how people would pull in, you know, if it was really packed they are going to go down
and around all the town homes and stack up in around. I don't think it will get to that point,
but I'm just -- just kind of pointing out the directional flow of things. Like I don't see how
it would back up out of the subdivision entrance off of Crosswind and down west of
Crosswind. So, I think the concerns would be slightly overblown in terms of coffee shop
stacking for the drive-thru.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F27
Page 23 of 88
Seal: Other comments? Motion? I'm open to whatever. I mean we have -- one of the
reservations is just there is -- there is a lot in here, so -- I mean I share that concern as
well. The -- even though we have the MEWs in the middle and I -- I do like that approach
to the townhomes in there, I -- I think that's a -- a good design, it's a very smart design.
agree it makes everybody's front yard really big. It makes for a community setting where,
you know -- especially, if you have kids and things like that, everybody can be out there.
There is eyes on everybody. I personally like that. That said, it would be nice if there
were a few less in there. You know, I especially see where the vertically integrated is,
you know, to provide a little bit more parking for that if needed. I do like that the parking
is concentrated around that, but at the same time it would be nice to see more. So, that
said, this is -- you know, I will be honest, this is the third time I have seen this piece of
property come in front of me, so -- personally, in this capacity, so -- it's a tough corner.
It's -- it's going to be tough to put something in there that's going to make everybody
happy, so -- not sure -- I'm glad I don't have to make the motion tonight. How is that?
Commissioner Wheeler, do you have something to add?
Wheeler: The only thing I was going to say is I really would like to bring the --the applicant
back up here just to have a --just to see what his plans are for the next move on this. We
have done this with other ones in the past -- on other ones. Just to kind of see what he
would prefer and also, Commissioner Grove, just to kind of see would he prefer to -- if we
can -- if we just denied it or would he prefer a continuance on it, too, just to see if you
could do some rework on it, too, so -- we have done that in the past, but I would like to
see if the Commission at least would like to be able to do that.
Grove: Mr. Chair? Before we do that I just want to kind of clarify what we would be
wanting to have continued, so that we kind of had some direction with the -- what types
of questions that we would ask the applicant. I'm of the mindset of -- of approving and
moving it forward. That's where my head space is with this. But I'm open to opening it
up and, then, you know, entertaining a continuance. But I don't know that I have a full
grasp of still why we would want -- or need to do that. Like what we would be asking to
have changed.
Wheeler: Okay. Well, I will -- I will back off on that and I will let you make the motion
then.
Seal: Well, I mean one thing I would definitely like to see in here, I -- and -- and I don't
know -- and, Bill, maybe you can help out on this one is the -- I mean the ability to offer
those vertically integrated as a for sale product instead of a for rent. Is that something
that we can condition in this or is that something that's just -- I mean I know that's just --
it's a road I would like to see us go down. I just think that a vertically integrated product,
if you are -- it's something you are having to purchase, then, it is something you are going
to definitely want to purchase for a specific reason and you are going to care for it in that
manner. So, it's going to -- it's going to be your business with, you know, obviously, the
ability to live above it, so your cost is down overall.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F28]
Page 24 of 88
Parsons: Yeah. Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, certainly this is a re-zone and
a new development agreement. In the past I have worked on projects where we have
required people to short plat their buildings, so that they, essentially, turn them into
condos and have that done prior to getting occupancy or even any building permit. Well,
they have to have a building permit in order to construct the building, so that's one of the
criterias to condo -- condominiumize the building is you have to have a valid building
permit. So, it's something that you can add as -- or a recommended DA provision and,
then, the applicant can take that up with Council if they don't agree with it. Or they may
agree with it and sign the DA and do it, so -- again, if you want to have that conversation
with the applicant, you are more than happy to open up the public hearing. But, again,
there is an avenue to do that.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair, didn't the applicant say they were for sale? They weren't going to be
for rent?
Seal: The vertically integrated are for rent. They are not for sale. Everything else is for
sale. Maybe -- maybe I misunderstood that. I was going to say, it's -- okay. At this point
let's get a motion to bring the applicant back up.
Wheeler: Yeah. I would like to make a motion to open back up the public testimony --
Seal: Of H-2020 --
Wheeler: H-2020 -- sorry. H-2021-0102
Seal: Do I have a second? No one else? Okay. Then I will look for a motion so we can
move on.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: All right. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2021-0102 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2022, with the following modifications: That
the vertically integrated units be condoed with the recommendation that they not have
access to the residential from the commercial space.
Seal: Did you also want to -- there was a recommendation in the -- or I think there was a
stipulation in the staff report about moving the vertically integrated north.
Grove: Oh. Oh. And to remove the condition to move the vertically integrated from the
south to the north.
Seal: Okay. Do you have a second?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F29
Page 25 of 88
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Can I get clarification, Commissioner Grove?
Grove: Yes.
Lorcher: So, the vertically integrated condoed. Access to the residential to commercial
space eliminated. Is that what you said?
Grove: The internal access.
Lorcher: We really didn't talk about that.
Yearsley: I didn't think they said they weren't -- there was no access between the houses
and the business.
Seal: Unless I heard that wrong, too.
Lorcher: And, then, what was the third one? Remove what?
Grove: To remove the condition in the staff report of the recommendation in the staff
report to move the vertically integrated unit from the south position to the --to swap spots,
basically, with the townhomes in the north.
Lorcher: Oh. Okay.
Seal: Do I have a second?
Lorcher: I have another question.
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: We really didn't talk about the elimination of the internal door with the applicant
at all. So, is he being blindsided whether we go through this motion or not?
Yearsley: The applicant testified that there was no internal access for the -- from the
residential to the office space.
Lorcher: It's the opposite. He said there is.
Yearsley: Oh. I thought he said no.
Grove: Again this is a recommendation to go to Council.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F30
Page 26 of 88
Yearsley: No, I -- like I said I -- I misheard. So, I apologize for that comment.
Lorcher: All right. Well, then, I will give a second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2021-0102, Pavilion
at Windsong, with the aforementioned recommendations. All in favor say aye.
Grove: Aye.
Seal: All those opposed?
Wheeler: Nay.
Yearsley: Nay.
Lorcher: I didn't vote.
Seal: Madam Clerk, can we -- can we -- can we get a roll call on that?
Roll call: Wheeler, nay; Grove, yea; Lorcher, nay; Grace, absent; Yearsley, nay.
Weatherly: Commissioner Seal.
Seal: Well, the nays have it at that point, so --
MOTION FAILED: ONE AYE. THREE NAY.
Seal: I'm not sure what that means, to be perfectly honest, so -- so, the motion failed, so
we are in the same spot.
Starman: Mr. Chairman, I recommend that -- the motion fails. I would recommend that
those that voted against the motion that you invite one of those commissioners to offer
an alternative motion.
Seal: That's a -- perfect.
Yearsley: So, I guess for me -- I guess my reason for denial is not associated with most,
is mine's more concerned about the density and the private roads and I don't know if
anybody else has that same concern or not or -- or what -- what their thought is or if I
made that motion if it would be I guess seen as what everyone else is thinking. I would
be interested to hear.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Personally I'm -- I'm good with the density. It's a
-- at the corner. It doesn't go into a subdivision in and of itself. It's relatively isolated.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F31
Page 27 of 88
This corner in general on all sides, except for the southwest corner, have some type of
intensification planned or are in progress. I -- I see this as a good way forward. Again,
it's not storage units, so I'm happy.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: The reason I said deny is because we really didn't talk about the elimination of
the residential door to the commercial space, so for me if we remove that portion of it, the
rest of what Commissioner Grove said was fine. Only because we didn't --we really didn't
even address it, except the fact that it was mentioned.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Mr. Wheeler.
Wheeler: I'm -- I'm going to tell you I just have a -- I do have a big problem with where
that commercial space is at. I'm just seeing -- you are crossing one exit in, you are taking
another left, you are getting whatever needs to be done and, then, you are backing back
out in this figure eight and if -- are we assuming that that's where the drive-through is
supposed to be at is on that -- is on that corner right there that's vacant? So, now we
have a drive-through access that someone is going to either have to go back through
where the parking area is at to come back up around, back through, and, then, out again
and I -- I find that not beneficial to the -- to the community that's there and I do think that
the best part for that would be on that northern portion, whether it has to be on the hard
corner, which is where most of them are going to want it, which means that your queuing
line you can actually bring it down to where that westerly access is at and bring them
around and have them queue out different and, then, have them pick up their drive
through and, then, come back down and around. But that -- you know, one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, eight turns to get in and out is just -- doesn't seem beneficial and
that's -- that's going to be a hang up on -- on my side of things. So, whether that -- that
commercial -- and the commercial requirement needs to be here in some way, but -- but
where? And I don't know if we can just, you know, recommend that there could -- either
that commercial requirement there or some more live-work space. Could we go there?
Maybe that's just a better use on that or some -- some L-O, some light office, something
along those lines. But I'm -- I'm just not seeing that as a -- as a really good commercial
space just for access.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove.
Grove: I guess two points for -- to that. Is -- it will have -- since it will have to come in
front of us again for a CUP to address the driveway -- drive-through specifically, I'm not
too concerned with the absolute specifics. I think in general, yes, we can -- you know, if
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F32
Page 28 of 88
long term, you know, we don't think we will be able to find a solution, but my -- my guess,
based on -- on this is -- you know, you are getting ten to 15 vehicles that can queue in in
the parking lot of that commercial space in and of itself, so -- I mean that's a pretty big
queue just in general. But, again, we don't have to get into the specifics of that, since it
will -- you know, any drive-through like this would have to come back again, because we
don't have that CUP in front of us tonight. So, I think if-- you know, we don't think we can
get to a working spot with it and, then, yes, but if we think that there is ways that it can be
addressed in a future CUP where it is and, then, I don't think that we need to get caught
up in the specifics. But what you are saying would be to move it, which is something that
would need to be addressed tonight, so just kind of throwing out a couple different thinking
points I guess.
Yearsley: And -- and -- Mr. Chair? And given that I'm against the overall project, but as
the commercial side I -- I agree, because we don't even know if there is going to be --
expecting to be a drive through. You could actually have a commercial piece there that
has no drive through and trying to design it now without even knowing what's going to be
there I think is putting the -- it's -- it's under -- you know, it's hard to -- to -- to make those
decisions now. If there is a drive-through it has to come back before us and we can
address those concerns there and so that -- that would be my -- my recommendation.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: I just know that that's what's been talked about all night and so I was just
addressing that concern, since it was public up front. But if it's something that we can
punt on, I just want to be able to manage expectations to the developer, because these
aren't cheap undertakings.
Seal: Understood. So, I -- I mean personally I -- the live-work part of it is -- is the part
that I'm kind of struggling with, so -- and I mean we have -- we are at an impasse here
with -- we don't want to blindside them with closing off the internal. Personally I think it
needs to look more like commercial. So, to me it just looks like a bunch of townhomes. I
think they need to be for sale, not for rent, in order to kind of cement that in. So, I mean
to me if we are going to give up a lot of commercial space in order to provide for this to
come in, I think that it needs to have more done in order to make sure that that is a
commercially viable space, it's something that looks like commercial property, it is street
front property, so I think it should have that look and appeal. I one hundred percent agree
with that in the staff report, that it's -- it's a little lackluster in that. So, I don't agree with
having, you know, work-live that, you know, is connected. So, again, with this, especially
if it's a for rent product, I mean we can provision it to where it's not going to be a for rent
product by having them condo would, but at the same time I just, you know, live-work is
-- you have a business, not a home office. You know, live-work is you have a business.
So, that's kind of where I'm at with it personally. I -- I'm -- I'm open to having the applicant
come back up, throw some of that stuff at them, see what we can do, see if they are okay
with it. See if they want to continue to come back, possibly redesign, do something
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F33
Page 29 of 88
different with the corner, do something different with the density. You know, I mean --
think that there is probably enough on the -- you know, I would rather give them that
opportunity than just deny it at this point. But I would like to move it along. So, if -- if we
think that bringing the applicant back in is going to help do that, then, I'm all for it and I
would stand for that motion.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler.
Wheeler: Give it another go. I would like to open up public testimony for H-2021-0102.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the public hearing for Pavilion at
Windsong, H-2021-0102. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Would the applicant like to come back forward, please. Go ahead and state your
name and address for the record one more time. Thank you.
Amar: Kevin Amar. 1580 West Cayuse Creek Drive in Meridian. I'm the developer. I'm
here to answer questions. Let -- let me start just by -- I think addressing some of the
concerns I have -- I have heard. If I miss any just start shooting questions my way. With
respect to the design, that was purely done in an effort on our side to -- to make a project
look the way we thought a project should look. So, we could -- we could easily redesign
the bottom floor with a different material type of a brick or a rock or a some other facade,
so it would be a different type of -- obviously a different type of unit down below versus
the live space up above. We already have fenestrations and areas that move in and out
to differentiate that area, but we can use a different material on the bottom floor on the
commercial space from the upper floor and it would -- that would easily change the look
of the units. So, I would be happy with that condition and we can move forward with that.
With respect to the closing off the access, again, it's -- it's -- as I think of how I -- if I'm
going to use this space as an office, I would rather be able to go in and out from inside
my office building than have to go outside my front door to go back inside my office door,
especially when there is a -- there is already an easy hallway there that is there. So,
again, it's -- maybe it's more opinion and I understand the concern of what it's going to be
used for, but that is why we agreed to staff's condition that that will be built out as a
commercial space. Again, these live-work units are an allowed use in this zone. So, I
understand we are focusing on that, but we are happy to make concessions and changes
to -- to get through this with the Commission, because we would like to move forward and
we would like to get to City Council. So, I think with those concessions, hopefully, that
answers some questions. As far as the actual retail corner, whatever it may be, we
envision a coffee shop. We understand it's going to have to come back for its own CUP.
So, we believe that we have provided enough stacking if and when we get a coffee shop
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F34
Page 30 of 88
there, but we can illustrate that stacking at that time and show how that works. We have
felt -- because we did look at the other corner to the north for that. It -- it really put more
traffic right at an intersection that's already we feel like it's going to be a little bit busier
anyway, just due to the fact that that's where these residents, plus all the residents from
Windsong -- you know, they are worried about people driving through Windsong. The
reality is most likely all the Windsong residents or the majority of them are going to drive
back out, because it's easy to get out to Linder at that location. So, having another
commercial stacking potential problem there we felt like was just not as good of a location
as we designed these items. With respect to some of the private streets, private streets
are pretty normal in a commercial type development. If it's office buildings, if it's condos,
if it's -- if it's whatever, you are going to have private streets and we set up the HOA with
a budget in -- in such a fashion -- I know in my current office building and in our current
setup we have an escrow account within that to take care of the private streets as -- as
time goes on. So, I think that's something that we can set up as we -- as we set up the
HOA and we -- we already would do that, because we don't want to burden those --
whether it's a retail user, an office user, whoever, a homeowner, they need to have the
funds to spend that money when the time is -- when the time comes to spend the money.
And, finally, with respect to the sale of those units, there are steps that we have to take
in order to get to a condo plan. So, we have to -- as Bill said, we have to have an approved
project, we have to pull a building permit and, then, we can come back and ask for a
condo portion of that. We are happy to put that in that we come back and ask for a condo,
but we can't ask for that tonight, if I understood that correctly, Bill. That is just -- it's out
of order and so we can put it in the development agreement that we will come back prior
to, you know, certificate of occupancy that we will ask for a condo plat. That was already
our intention. Currently in the existing zoning the way those are under the allowed use
for the vertically integrated, we just--we just can't do it that way. You can't have individual
for sale vertically integrated units. I wish we could. It would make it so much easier. But
that zone with the -- again, that's an allowed use within that zone, so we are just trying to
play within the rules of that zone. I don't know what other questions you have, but I'm
happy to answer them.
Seal: We just had a question on density. Would you be willing to reduce the density of
the -- the homes that are in there?
Amar: We would rather not. Again, in the allowed zone we can actually increase the
density. So, we feel like we have already reduced the density just in the fact that we are
-- we are proposing what we have proposed, because we could come in with a vertically
integrated unit on the entire project and get a number of more units and it's -- and it's
allowed and so it's not a -- it's not a question of if we can do it, it's -- we just don't feel like
it's the right use for that area. So, we feel like we have already reduced the density to get
to the -- get to what we have now with a better -- with a better product. As we look at
what we have designed and when we built the homes in Windsong, those homes that we
were bordering are all two-story homes and we did that intentionally, because we knew
these -- these homes are going to be two-story homes and we didn't want to run into that
question of we have got a single-story home and we have a two-story home next to us,
so we have been planning this for a while. Again, if we go back and do a vertically
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F35]
Page 31 of 88
integrated product most likely that's going to be a three-story unit and, then, we do run
into some of those questions. So, we feel like we have already reduced density, although
you have not seen that. But that's based on the allowed use we can increase the density
from what currently is proposed.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Kevin, had a question -- also the staff report talked about moving the -- the
vertically integrated units over to the north side. What's your feelings on that?
Amar: Again, that's -- that's where Bill and I had our conversation of everybody has
opinions and we find out who is right or wrong. Again, it was done in an effort to keep the
traffic off of Crosswind, as people are coming to those offices and those businesses in
the vertically integrated units, they are not parking right on Crosswind's road. They are
coming into the project where we have provided additional parking and they are coming
into an area where the people that live there already know that that is happening. As we
-- as we have CC&Rs, those CC&Rs have to address that not only these are townhomes,
but there is also offices and vertically integrated units in that project. So, we can address
those questions of neighbors that are moving into the Pavilion at Windsong much easier
than we can tell the neighbors that already live in other areas, well, now you have parking
on -- on a road that -- that is there and could potentially impact them more. So, that was
-- that was largely the reason that we -- between that and the height of those buildings
why we didn't want to push that further into the neighborhood. That's our thoughts.
Wheeler: Thank you.
Seal: Other questions? Everybody's got all their questions out?
Amar: And if you have other questions -- I mean one of the -- I'm back there twitching,
because there is things that come up. I'm happy to ask -- answer questions. It's just hard
to answer questions after the hearing is closed.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much.
Amar: Thank you.
Seal: Can I get a motion to go ahead -- oh, does -- would anybody else like to testify?
So, please, raise your hand on Zoom or come forward in chambers. All right. Seeing
none, get a motion to close the public hearing for H-2021-0102.
Wheeler: So moved.
Grove: Second.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F36
Page 32 of 88
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for Pavilion at Windsong,
H-2021-0102. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: I will take a motion. Sorry to be abrupt, but we have got a lot of stuff on tonight.
Wheeler: I will make a -- I will make a motion then. After considering all staff, applicant,
and public testimony, I move to recommend approval for the City Council of file number
H-2021-0102 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 17th, 2022,
with the following modifications --
Grove: Sorry. That -- it's printed wrong. Wrong date.
Wheeler: I got to remember what month I'm in, man. Thank you for catching me, man.
Appreciate it. April 7th. Thank you. All day. Thank you. All right. Let me start that
motion over. After considering all staff and applicant and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of the City Council file -- to the City Council of file number H-2021-
0102 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2022, with the
following modifications: That the facade on the live-work space be -- have some
integrated brick or stone on the bottom level and also that a condo plat be -- be done
when that time comes on this -- on the work -- on the work-live space --
Seal: In the DA --
Wheeler: In the DA agreement.
Seal: Thank you. Did you want to have the internal connection and there is also the --
we wanted to nix the -- moving the commercial space to the north or the live-work space
to the north.
Wheeler: And -- and not have the live-work space moved to the north as said in the staff
report.
Seal: Can I get a second?
Grove: Second.
Seal: All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2021-0102,
Pavilion at Windsong, with the aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Yearsley: Nay.
Seal: Got that?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F37
Page 33 of 88
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, for the record, Commissioner Yearsley, was that a nay?
Yearsley: That was a nay.
Weatherly: Thank you, sir.
Seal: Okay. The ayes have it. Motion passes.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: We can take a breath. Thanks, everyone. We will go ahead and take a five minute
bio break and we will be right back. Thank you.
(Recess: 7:44 p.m. to 7:51 p.m.)
5. Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll
Southwest, LLC, Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak
Way
A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8
zoning district for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a
future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision.
Seal: Okay. We will go ahead and call the meeting to order again. Everybody want to
take their seats. All right. So, we have Oaks North Rezone, H-2022-0010, and we will
begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. This, hopefully, will be
simpler, but mine never are, so we will go with that. The application before you is for a
rezone for a portion of Oaks North. The property, as you can see, is a little bit wonky,
because it hasn't been final platted yet or at least not all of it. The property consists of
37.5 acres, but the rezone area is actually only 12 acres. This area of Oaks North only
has the original rezoning and preliminary plat from 2013 on it and that existing DA from
2013 is still applicable to this area. Future land use out here is medium density residential,
as is the case for all of Oaks North. The request for a rezone of 12 acres of land from the
existing R-4 to the R-8 zoning district is for the purpose of including five additional building
lots that were lost over the course of the previous 11 final plat phases of the Oaks North
Subdivision. Staff has confirmed the addition of five building lots within this phase will
keep the project consistent with the approved preliminary plat from 2013. Because of this
there is no need for a new plat to be submitted. Code allows for later phases of a project
to include lost lots with previous phases, so long as the total number of lots approved with
the pre-plat is not increased. However, adding these additional lots within the existing R-
4 zoning district is not possible, as the minimum dimensional standards could not be met,
meaning street frontages and minimum lot sizes. Therefore, the applicant has requested
to upzone from the R-4 to the R-8 for this portion. These 12 acres. A better view would
be this. This would be the final phase of Oaks North. This is Oaks 10, 1 believe, which
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F38
Page 34 of 88
has already been -- the final plat's already been approved. It continues to the south as
well and this area is already zoned R-8. This is R-4. This is to remain R-4. So, this is
the -- what's applicable to this rezone before you tonight. The applicant is not proposing
any change to the previously approved road network. The proposed local streets and the
stub streets along the north boundary are shown in the same locations as is shown on
the approved preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing to increase the open space in
this phase of the development compared to the existing approvals in order to meet the
current open space standards, which would require a minimum of 15 percent. According
to the revised concept plan and narrative, the applicant is showing a little over 180,000
square feet of qualified open space, which accounts for approximately 15 percent. So,
they are right there. It does comply with the minimum required within the UDC. There
was four pieces of public testimony submitted. There -- there is -- within all four there
was a desire for the rezone area to include more open space and include an additional
pool for the subdivision. There is additional questions and concerns regarding the HOA
and issues there that the city doesn't have any purview over. There is also some very
specific discussion about Oak Winds, which is not associated with this site, and this would
not be the forum to voice concerns about those build-to-rent things, so I did want to make
that clear for both the public and the Commission, that that is going to be on the Council
agenda next week, I believe, but it is a final plat. So, that approval's already done. You
can voice your opinion to Council in the public forum that's prior to the meeting, but other
than that this would not be the avenue to do that, because it's already done and has
nothing to do with this rezone application. Staff does recommend approval of the rezone
of these 12 acres per the comments in the staff report and I will stand for any questions.
Seal: Thanks, Joe. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Bower: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. My name is Jeff Bower. My address is
601 West Bannock in Boise. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant Toll Brothers. Also
with me from Toll Brothers tonight is Adam Capell. He can answer any development-
related questions at the Oaks North site. Madam Clerk, thank you for pulling my
presentation up. Thank you, Joe. We have reviewed Mr. Dodson's staff report, as well
as the conditions of approval. We agree with his analysis, as well as all the conditions of
approval in the staff report. Real quick some background on Toll Brothers. I know we
have been here before you before, but just a quick reminder. Toll Brothers owns and
develops Oaks North. They are an award-winning Fortune 500 development company
and they have developed a strong connection here in Meridian. They have -- their Idaho
division of Toll Brothers is located in the city where they employ about 180 Idahoans
locally and they have been developing homes in Meridian since 2017. We are here
tonight hopefully on a very simple -- much simpler than item number one on your agenda
-- rezone. We are asking to rezone 12 acres of property in the Oaks North project from
R-4 to R-8 and on my slide here the red is phase 12 of Oaks North. It's the final phase in
the project and the green highlighted area are those 12 acres we are asking to rezone.
We are asking for this rezone for -- for two main reasons. The first primarily is to recoup
five lots that have been lost over the course of this project. So, obviously, Oaks North is
a very large project. For various reasons over the last five, six years we have lost five
lots due to open space and engineering issues. We are trying to recoup those now in the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F39
Page 35 of 88
final phase. The -- the second reason we are doing this, as Mr. Dodson mentioned, is to
improve -- improve open space, as well as do some density transition to a new project
that's been approved to our north. Just, again, to step back briefly. Oaks North as a --
as a whole was approved by the city in 2013. It approved the -- the preliminary plat
approved 653 single-family lots. We have gone through 11 phases to date and platted
570 lots. So, again, the final phase 12 plat would bring in 83 as we are proposing, which
would get us to the 653 total as originally approved. No increase in overall density. Again,
just trying to recoup those five lots. We have put together a concept plan for phase 12
final plat. This is not -- there is no plat application before you tonight, though, just to be
clear. This is solely a rezone. That final plat application will come to the Council only as
it's in conformity with the preliminary plat. We just need to final plat at this point. We are
hoping to file that application shortly. So, phase 12 concept plan, 83 single family lots on
23.5 acres. This is a little overlay map. It gets a little busy, but I wanted to provide this
to -- to the Commission to see the changes we are making. The greenish blue lines and
numbers are the underlying preliminary plat. The white lines and numbers are the
concept plan and the -- the purple is added open space and so you can see down there
in the table this area originally approved 78 lots at a density of 3.31 . With the rezone and
adding the five lots we get 83 units and 3.54 acres. So, only a minor -- modest increase
in density of two tenths. And just to put a pin on it, as Mr. Dodson mentioned, no -- no
material changes to the lot layout or street network. This is purely a lot size change and
-- and real quick, touching on the open space, this rezone and the smaller lot sizes we
can offer in the R-8 do allow us to provide the housing originally conceived that's needed
in the -- in the city, while still increasing the open space and in our -- our open space plan
for -- for phase 12 is the figure towards the bottom of the page and, then, the preliminary
plat towards the top of the page. We will match the open space from phase 12 up with
phase 10 to create one large approximately 1.78 -- 1.7 acre park there that you are
seeing. Lastly, this rezone makes sense. This land is designated in the FLUM as medium
density residential. So, the R-8 zoning we are asking for fits within the comp plan and the
open space as we mentioned fulfills the comp plan as well, with 15 percent. In addition
to the FLUM supporting the rezone here, you can see the -- the portion of phase 12 to
the west is already zoned R-8 and in the last couple years the city's annexed the area to
the north and zoned it at R-8 as well. So, we have contiguity with R-8 to the -- to the west
and north and, finally, the reason makes sense in this case because of that Prescott Ridge
project to the north, which is R-8. We are going to be transitioning densities really well
here with our R-8 project, with nearly identical lot sizes on that shared border. That's all
I have for the Commission. We are asking for your approval on this rezone from R-4 to
R-8 of 12 acres and I would stand for any questions.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Do you have questions for the applicant or our staff?
Commissioner Yearsley?
Yearsley: So, with the extra open space are you going to add any amenities in there or
is it just grass? I'm just curious to what -- because I have to tell you, R-4 is my holy grail.
So, it's going to take a lot for me to go to R -- R-8, so --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F40
Page 36 of 88
Bower: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, to answer the first question, we will
provide amenities in there. It will have a tot lot, seating area, and -- and pathways that
provide connectivity throughout the project. And R-4 is your holy grail. Our overall density
is below four. So, we are right there. Again, this is -- this is more of a design rezone, as
opposed to an overall density rezone.
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: Thanks, Mr. Chair. My question is kind of in line with the overall theme of the
public testimony. I don't know if you had a chance to read through those or not, but there
seems to be a lot of communication questions or concerns or failures that have led to the
public comments. Can you address like how -- you know, some of the -- the public
concerns and what we can expect with this project as -- as it continues through, I guess,
in terms of how -- how are we addressing the concerns that have been addressed and
will probably be readdressed tonight?
Bower: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Grove, that's a great question and -- and, of course,
we have read all the public comments and -- and take them very seriously. So, as Mr.
Dodson mentioned, I think a lot of those comments were generated from -- well, that's a
great slide, actually. We are generated from the Oak Winds project down here at the
northeast corner of McMillan and McDermott and if I were to flip back to the preliminary
plat for Oaks North approved in 2013, that area was zoned R-15 and designated as multi-
family, with a minimum density of R-8. The Council actually wanted R-8 to R-15. So, the
Oak Winds project is actually less dense than was originally approved. That piece of
property has always been part of The Oaks project and it's always been conceived that
the single family uses to the east would have mutually beneficial common area and open
space. So, we feel that it's been very clearly communicated since 2013 what areas were
in this project and we think our amenities are great and -- and often -- in most cases
oversized compared to the market.
Grove: Thank you. Just to make sure that you take the -- you know, to heart, I guess,
because their -- perception and reality might be not lining up there.
Bower: Absolutely. And I -- and I could just chime in on that real quick, Chairman and
Commissioner Grove. Phase 12 of a nearly 700 unit project -- of course, there is going
to be growing pains when you get to the end and I think that's what this is. Teamed with
COVID I think we all recognize had an impact on local amenities, whether they be
neighborhood pools or parks, people are using them more. So, I think that will -- that will
equilibrate as we move forward and we are offering more open space in this space as
well, so --
Seal: Okay. Commissioner Wheeler? Commissioner Lorcher? Thank you very much.
Bower: Thank you.
Seal: Madam Clerk?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F41
Page 37 of 88
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, for the public hearing we do have a few people signed up to --
indicating a wish to testify. The first of which is Miranda Kennebrew.
Seal: Good evening. Go ahead and state your name and address for the record and if
you could speak directly into the microphone there so everybody can hear well.
Kennebrew: Sure. Good evening. Thank you for letting me speak. My name is Miranda
Kennebrew. I live at 5916 West Daphne Drive in Meridian. So, I'm here tonight on behalf
of The Oaks homeowners. A little background I think will benefit in you understanding
our concerns. It's a very large subdivision. We have -- we have Oaks North. We have
Oaks South. We have Oaks West. And we have Oak Creek. And recently in our annual
HOA meeting we learned about Oakwind and although I'm not here to argue Oak Wind,
it needs to be noted that we just learned that they will be using our amenities and this is
on top of the new phase, of course, and also it's not taking into consideration closer to
McMillan and Black Cat we have Jump Creek and we have Hayden Homes that were put
in. Those -- those areas do not have pools. We have a pool in Oaks South and we have
a pool in Oaks North. So, that's kind of the background. Just to put some numbers here.
In total between the two pools there would be over 1 ,200 residences without them
expanding to R-8. So, as it stands there would be over 1 ,200 homes having access to
two pools. Then if they move that phase from R-8 to -- or from R-4 to R-8 it basically
doubles however many we are supposed to be in that phase of the subdivision. That's
residences, not people. So, if you were to average 2.5 persons per household that would
mean over 3,000 people would be using two pools and that's without expanding to R-8.
Furthermore, allowing the builder to double the number of homes that they add to our
community is a big concern for us. The builder has made it clear that they have no
intentions to scale the community amenities, such as adding a pool or park to
accommodate the additional homes and residents. Our community amenities that we,
the residents, pay to maintain are already too crowded and the community is only half
complete. While we understand that this meeting is not about the amenities, we can
speak up against allowing the builder to add more homes and residents to our community
causing further crowding and restrictions in usability of these amenities. There are
capacity limits and the community as a whole will absolutely force the HOA to impose
restrictions on homeowners ability to use the amenities. So, I think, to summarize, we
would like a redesign and we would like a third pool to be considered in this new phase.
Seal: Thank you.
Kennebrew: All right. Thank you.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, next is Daniel Kwok.
Seal: Good evening. Just state your name and address for the record.
Kwok: Yep. My name is Daniel Kwok. I live at 5100 North Trident Way, Meridian. She
said most of what I was planning on saying. I think a lot of it comes down to what we
heard in our most recent HOA meeting about the amenities, the lack of kind of ability to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F42
Page 38 of 88
scale it. The Toll Brothers, Coleman Homes, whoever it is at this point, is the -- kind of
drives the HOA and have made kind of unilateral decisions about amenities that were
planned and presented to us as buyers and over the time that it took for the community
to be built some of those were changed, so I am here with a lot of my neighbors to express
those concerns that as we kind of see these changes made there may or may not be
additional changes that are made that we can't foresee and may or may not have a
chance to address. So, having those amenities added here I think would be great, as
well as the -- some of the creep that has been happening with the HOA fees and the cost
of landscaping and -- and all of that understandably we want the green spaces to look
good, but if we are now not only zoning to R-8, adding green space that adds additional
cost there, while we also don't get a lot of the benefits from the amenities that we pay for
and, then, we run into capacity issues and things like that where if we do add, as we
discussed, you know, 1,200 homes, any number of folks to the -- the community, it just
adds that type of strain where eventually, you know, we end up with having to sign up to
use the pool and -- and things like that and no one wants that, so thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you very much. Madam Chair?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, online we have a Mr. Joe Bongiorno.
Seal: Go ahead, Joe. Go ahead give us your name and address and the floor is yours.
Bongiorno: Sure. Can you guys hear me?
Seal: Yes, sir.
Bongiorno: Awesome. Joe Bongiorno. 5144 North Cunard Way in Meridian, Idaho. And
for a little clarity, I am the fire marshal for the city, but at this point I am not acting in that
capacity, I'm -- I'm here as a resident of The Oaks to give my testimony on this application.
So, I believe one of the commissioners mentioned something -- sorry. Mr. Chair and
Commissioners, somebody mentioned the reality versus what's on paper and the reality
is is they -- Toll Brothers has created a successful subdivision. It's -- it's very popular. It
is -- it is booming here and we are getting to the point -- so, my house backs up to the
public open area with the fishing pond and the pool and the pickleball courts and
everything and during the summer the pool is packed and we are not even at full build
out. So, I just wanted to agree with -- with everything that -- that the two previous people
have brought up, that the reality is -- is, yes, this is a successful subdivision and we love
what we have here, but we need another pool. So, we would like to see the amenities
expand along with the subdivision as things are being built, because the pool is becoming
full to where it's concerning and having to kick people out of there, you know, at midnight
is not any fun. So, anyway, as it stands the -- the homeowners don't have any say,
because the builder is still running the HOA, so this is kind of our only chance to give our
two cents worth. So, talking with the people in the neighborhood we all are kind of in
agreement that we would like to see another pool added to the next phase if it would be
possible. So, that's -- that's all I had. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F43
Page 39 of 88
Seal: Thank you, Joe.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all I show signed up and online with their hands raised.
Seal: If anybody else in chambers would like to testify, please, raise your hand. Sir,
come on up. Good evening. Please state your name and address for the record.
Owens: Hi. My name is Brendon Owens. I live at 5800 West Milano Drive in the Oaks
North and the biggest thing is is we -- we understand that -- I mean it -- it is truly a great
subdivision that we live in. All of us love it and cherish it. But the problem is is when we
first moved in my wife and I, when we bought our house, it was originally called Coleman
at the time and found out -- and Coleman had a great reputation. It's like, oh, okay. Great.
Great. Then I found out that Coleman is being taken over by Toll Brothers, which is
wonderful. I worked with Toll Brothers before down in southern California in their great
thing they were building up -- forgive me, I'm not good at speaking in front of people. So,
I apologize.
Seal: No problem.
Owens: Porter Ranch. I work -- I actually worked side by side with them as an inspector
there and they do great work. So, it's just like, okay, yeah, well great. Great. Glad --
glad I'm buying a Coleman slash Toll Brothers and, then, it came to complete Toll Brothers
by the time we closed, which is beautiful. The problem with the whole rezoning thing is
when we were buying our house we were told -- the models were down in -- they were in
The Oaks, not -- the south side of McMillan and the salesman took us to -- and showed
us a couple houses being built, because they didn't have our model, so he -- he showed
us a couple and there was some construction going on. I said, oh, is that another phase
and he says, no, that's a Hayden and I said, oh, okay. So, Hayden is building here, too,
and -- and -- which I don't have a problem there either, but what I was told at that point is
that's Hayden, they are not even connected to you, you don't even need to worry about
any of that and come to find out that those Hayden Homes are part of our amenities, too.
So, the thing is -- is -- is every time it gets denser they are throwing more people to use
our amenities and that's where the issue is coming up. It's -- we know and understand
that, you know, a lot of the building -- and it's -- it's a great wonderful place to live. It really
and truly is and that's why we are all there. But every time it gets more dense and every
time this -- it's getting worse and worse. The -- the amenities are -- are getting worse and
we were told -- I think it was two weeks ago, maybe three, I forget the exact date, at our
yearly HOA meeting that had to be held online again this year, which was fine, but we
were specifically told by the Toll Brothers people that no more amenities are being built,
nothing extra is being done. Live with it, it's already all been passed. If you have a
problem with it you should have been at the -- at the meetings before. Guess what, we
found out there is a meeting here about the zoning and we found out there is a meeting
next week that we are all going to be attending, too, and there is going to be more of us
at actually next week's meeting. But the problem is is once again by being able to rezone
it they are -- you are going to get -- you are just compiling and compiling more people into
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F44
Page 40 of 88
-- more density into it and that's -- that's -- that's where our big problem is and that's what
all of us have an issue with.
Seal: Thank you, sir.
Owens: Thank you very much for listening and have a wonderful day. Or evening.
Seal: Okay. If anybody else in Chambers would like to testify, please, raise your hand.
Ma'am, go ahead and come up. All right. Go ahead, ma'am, and state your name and
address for the record.
Jones: My name is Elaira Jones. Address is 5989 West Avilla Drive in Meridian. I am
part of the Oaks North community. My -- my neighbors have all shared our concerns.
just -- the one thing I want to add to it is that there are already four communities here.
Like he said, it's only half built and -- and there is no space for those of us who are already
here. By the time they are done we are going to have to start taking turns for the pools
while paying full HOA -- HOA dues for it and we are going to have to start taking turns,
right, like odd houses get on Mondays and Wednesdays and so on and so forth and that
that doesn't seem fair. Not only are we paying for these amenities, we are going to have
restricted access to them. As it's been stated, Toll Brothers is completely in control of
what all is being added at this point and they continue to add and add and add. If this
final phase is not through final plat we request that it be redesigned to scale and
accommodate the final number of residents that will be part of our community. Thank
you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do have one person with their hand raised online. That's April.
Seal: April, go ahead and give us your name and address for the record.
Bishop: I'm here with Sabrina Johnson. I'm also --oh. 5261 North Cunard Way, Meridian.
In Oaks North. And I'm also here with another neighbor Sabrina Johnson, who will give
you hers and we speak together as two people. We are just logged in on her Zoom.
Johnson: So, hi there. I wish I could be there in person, but I had to host dinner at my
house tonight for my family and I wanted to mention something that Mr. Owens had said.
So, it's really important that big communities like this disclose information to their new
potential buyers and in 2020 1 became one of those people. I provided a deposit and -- I
forgot to mention my address. Sorry about that. 5215 North Cunard Way in Meridian.
83646. Sorry about that.
Seal: That's okay. Thank you.
Johnson: So sorry. Sabrina Johnson. Sorry about that. I couldn't hear from my Phone
and so I went over to my neighbor's house and it was quieter here, so -- just wanted to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F45
Page 41 of 88
mention that it's important that Toll Brothers lets us know about certain changes,
information. I remember asking my sales representative about, well, what's going to go
on behind over here and they basically, deer in headlights, we just don't know and it turns
out that in the purchasing world with that -- I mean sales does know some of that
information. Whether or not they purposely don't disclose it to us -- it's just how it is. But
I think that when the HOA had told us at our annual meeting, well, you guys need to speak
up and -- and go to those annual meetings with the city -- well, if you had disclosed it to
us, because we weren't homeowners yet in the community, so we didn't have anything
-- we had no idea that there were meetings of these -- so, if the -- if the community that
we were potentially moving into had hearings I think that they should have disclosed that
to us, so we could have come up in numbers and that builders with mega money just
doesn't come in and have an open floor and, you know, get their way in. So, our
community is huge. I did not know that prior to moving into it, that -- how big it was going
to, essentially, be and how even The Oaks across the street from us, the south, has
access to our pool. I was like what do you mean they get access to our pool. That's all
they are doing is living it up in the new pool and so we -- we will address our HOA when
we can finally get to that point and -- and divide and conquer in that area. But right now
I don't think that this rezoning is going to serve our community any justice right now.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Madam Clark, is there anybody else raising their hand?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I don't see anybody.
Seal: Anybody else in Chambers? All right. Oh, sir, go ahead. Come on up.
Dubois: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jess Dubois. I'm at 5231 North Cunard
Way, Meridian. I pretty much agree with everything that's been said already as far as the
-- the density of the housing and the -- the impacts on the -- the pools. I would like to
point out, though, that the pool -- it's not just a pool. It's actually a park. There is a
recreation area that's incorporated along with the pool. There is -- there is a fishing pond
on our side -- on the north side. There is also a basketball court, pickleball courts,
whatnot. So, if there is a consideration on placing another pool into the community, then,
it needs to be understood that it needs to be a recreation area, like the park that we have
-- we have already. That's all I had. Thank you.
Seal: Okay. Thank you, sir. Anybody else in Chambers like to testify?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, before the applicant comes up I would like to respond as well.
Seal: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: Thank you. And I apologize to the homeowners if I come off preachy. I do not
mean to be a jerk. I promise. I just want to be very clear about the purview of what's
before us tonight and I definitely sympathize with you, I really do. Somewhat of what you
have heard from Toll Brothers is true. However, the timing was way outside of what you
probably could have done. Meaning -- well, I will go ahead and show my screen just to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F46
Page 42 of 88
give you guys a -- what I'm talking about here. The -- what's on the screen here is the
approved preliminary plat, which includes all of the open space and amenities and
everything that you guys are discussing now. We cannot change any of that at this point.
You would have had to be here in 2013 to testify to get those comments into the record
to make those changes. We --with the rezone before you tonight it has absolutely nothing
to do with that. We can't require that as a city, because the preliminary plat's already
done. I apologize for that, but that is just how it is right now. What's before us tonight is
just for an addition of five lots. That would be the end purpose of the rezone of only 12
acres, not the rezone of all of it. That would be preposterous and would require a
development agreement modification, which is not part of this, because they are
compliant with their preliminary plat with the proposal. Now, again, I sympathize with
what you guys are talking about, but the city is handcuffed in this and that these approvals
are, you know, eight years old plus. So, with this rezone we can't do that. With the final
plat before Council next week they can't do anything about it. I hope Toll Brothers is
listening and understands and will take these things into consideration and that's going to
be your power there is to discuss it with Toll Brothers and get them to add other things
that you may want. But, unfortunately, the city -- we just -- we can't -- we don't have that
capacity with the existing approvals and I do want to say that we sympathize with you,
but the purview of this application is just for these five lots and I apologize for that, but it
is what it is at this point and I -- I hear you.
Seal: Thank you, Joe. Okay. Would the applicant like to come back up?
Bower: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jeff Bower, 601 West Bannock. Just a few things in
rebuttal. Appreciate Mr. Dodson's comments and we are listening. As we mentioned
earlier we take these concerns very seriously. I -- I do just want to make a couple things
clear. We are not adding density. The re-zone that we are requesting tonight gets us
exactly to the 653 lots that were originally proposed, so -- so, no additional density. The
comments with respect to the reciprocity of open space, it goes both ways; right?
Although the Oaks South folks can come up and use the Oaks North pool, it goes vice-
versa as well and we have been talking about Oak Winds down here in the south corner,
they have 20 percent open space and great amenities. Those are also available to the
Oaks North residents and the Oaks South residents. It's -- it's to create that
interconnected environment that I know Meridian likes with the pathways and the different
amenities. So, it is all reciprocal. It's not one way. Again, I know we are not here to talk
about amenities, but I just want to remind our residents, as well as the Commission, that
this amenity package was approved by the City Council in 2013. Toll Brothers always
builds its primary -- primary amenity first, so that it's there. That's that pool area. We are
going to continue to build more open space, more amenities as these phases build out.
As we mentioned tonight, this rezone gets us more open space. So, if we were just to go
under the original preliminary plat we would have about one -- I want to say 1 .7 acres of
open space. With the rezone and -- and getting the density that was approved, we
bumped that up to 3.2. So, this is a win-win. It's getting us to the original density number,
as well as providing more open space. I don't have anymore comments for the
Commission, unless there are questions.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F47
Page 43 of 88
Seal: Questions? Comments? Commissioner Lorcher.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair. So, with the rest of your -- this is the last space, so there is nothing
after this?
Owen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, that's correct. Phase 12.
Lorcher: And so there -- and there is -- your plans for amenities are tot lots, extended
pathways and sitting areas; correct?
Owen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, that's correct.
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: So, I'm hearing no pool; correct?
Owen: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's correct. This amenity package, as we
mentioned, met and exceeded the city's standards at the time. Toll has voluntarily added
more open space to -- to prior phases. I believe a basketball court. The other thing to
take into consideration -- and I think we heard it from the majority of -- of the residents
tonight are the costs. You know, it's not just the cost on Toll to build a pool, it's -- it's in a
-- a large cost as a -- as an ongoing concern -- you mentioned your HOA fees earlier.
Those type of amenities are what drive those -- those HOA fees up exponentially. So,
no, no additional pool.
Yearsley: So, I will -- I will just let you know my subdivision has four pools and less homes
So -- so, I actually have a tendency to side with the homeowners for that, because if you
lost --
Seal: Let's not have that anymore, please. Thank you.
Yearsley: -- you lost five lots just because of what happened and now you are asking for
more or to get back to what you want. You know, I guess for the homeowners they wanted
a fourth -- a third pool, which they are not going to get. I understand that. And I don't
know -- I have to think about if the more open space is -- is worth the rezone, so -- and
it's my understanding that a rezone is where we are up sizing, so it's -- it's more of a --we
have the option to decide if it's worth it or not, so -- thank you.
Seal: Anyone else? Commissioner Wheeler, do you have anything? Mr. Grove? All
right.
Owen: Mr. Chair, if I just could real quick.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F48]
Page 44 of 88
Seal: Sure.
Owen: Certainly a rezone -- we are here tonight -- we are, obviously, here asking you
something for Mr. -- Mr. Yearsley, but there are criteria to be applied. The staff report
applied those. You know, primarily do we comply with the comp plan. We do. And so,
you know, I think the reason is appropriate here and the alternative to not rezoning is,
yeah, maybe Toll Brothers doesn't get the five lots, but there is less open space and less
homes in Meridian, which I think we all agree is needed.
Seal: Thank you.
Owen: Thank you.
Dodson: Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair?
Seal: Joe, go ahead.
Dodson: Sorry. Thank you. I just want to clarify one additional thing with the rezone.
Staff cannot condition rezones. We cannot condition rezones. So, my conditions in the
staff report are actually just comments. The only way to condition a rezone is with a
development agreement and we can't do a DA mod, because they are compliant with the
existing DA and they are not changing the layout, they are just meeting the approved
density. So, I did want to make that very clear, that any motion or anything we -- that we
can't condition something.
Seal: Okay.
Dodson: Or could Council either. It would just be a yes or a no.
Seal: Got you. Okay. Thank you.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead.
Grove: I move to close the public testimony to file number H-2022-0010, Oaks North.
Wheeler: Second.
Lorcher: Second.
Seal: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for file number
H-2022-0010, Oaks North rezone. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F49
Page 45 of 88
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I will jump in. So, with the applicant -- I will start off by saying you are not wrong,
but it doesn't mean that you are right in terms of some of the -- the ways that you
positioned the things tonight. I -- under the code and under our preview I have a hard
time finding a way that we can say no, but that doesn't change the feedback that you are
hearing very loudly from the people in your subdivision. So, that's just kind of where I'm
starting. Don't want to sit up here and lecture, but I have a second to state my opinion, I
guess, and I -- I don't see how I can say no for what is in front of us, but that doesn't mean
that there shouldn't be some other things that can be addressed on your end that -- that
could address the concerns that are not directly related to what was in front of us tonight.
Seal: Anyone else? Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I -- I -- I'm in the similar boat of where
Commissioner Grove is at on it. I mean there is no density being added. They are doing
an adjustment here on the lots and they are adding more open space to it. So, there is
not an increase of-- of homes here than what they have said before. They are just a little
bit tighter together in this one phase and it's only just a few lots that that's happening with.
The other thing is I see this actually as a -- as a good problem. You have got people that
are living in your homes or in your subdivisions -- speaking directly here to the applicant
-- that want to enjoy their neighborhoods a lot and they want to have fun in there a lot and
they want to enjoy their neighbors a lot and I think that this is something to definitely take
forward as you continue to build more and more subdivisions in this area. There is a lot
of competing developers -- residential developers, more are coming to this area it seems
like a lot and I think one of the factors that will be a determining factor for where people
choose to live moving forward will be the amenities offered there and the breadth of those
and so that's just something to think in this highly competitive area here in the Treasure
Valley and specifically Meridian and at the same time it would be great to have another
pool, because the demand is that high and -- but that's --that's going to add exponentially
more cost to HOA fees, too, at the same time. But to me I kind of see it as a little bit of a
as a good problem that people are saying we would -- we would like to enjoy our
neighborhood more and that's a good thing.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: So, I -- I don't know, I -- I struggle -- you know, like I said, I -- I will admit R-4 is
-- we never see it anymore. The problem with this is where we are adding five more lots,
we are re -- reducing the number of square footage in the individual lot, which, then,
increases the demand for the open space and so, you know, I -- you know, that's -- that's
my concern is that the R-4 you have a bigger lot. You actually can put some amenities
in your lot to actually not utilize everything else. So, I -- I struggle with approving this just
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F50]
Page 46 of 88
because the homeowners are already feeling overwhelmed, even though this is only five
lots, I mean -- but -- you know. So, I -- I don't know. I -- I like the R-4. I like the bigger
lot that the -- the -- those people who are buying those may not use the open space as
much as -- as the rest. So, I -- I can't support this based on the homeowners' testimony.
Seal: I -- I mean I'm just looking at this, I mean I -- personally I see there can be some
win-win here. So, I mean there has been a lot of testimony that there needs to be more
space. I -- I think where the open space is being provided, honestly, isn't going to provide
much value compared to the cost. So, there is going to be a lot of, you know, greens that
are going to have to be maintained, shrubs, trees, you name it, all that stuff -- pathways
that are going to be put in or connectivity and it's not providing a lot of value. I mean I
could see eliminating -- on the map that's shown up here in the phase 12 rezone, getting
rid of one, two, three and four and opening that all up in five and making something more
grand there. There is a reason I hate pools. This is it. Because they cost a lot of money.
They break down over time and everybody argues over them. So, maybe a water park,
maybe something that doesn't cost a lot of money, maybe something like that could be a
great happy medium in there. It's not going to cost you a lot of money to put in there.
You regain the amount of homes that you want to put in there. You still get the five. You
still get the zoning. You just got to put a little extra money into that great big open space
and make it bigger, make it something that more people can go enjoy. Just don't make it
a pool. That -- that's -- I mean basically where I stand with it. I mean you -- you have the
-- I mean just looking at this and I -- you know, I'm not an -- I'm not a real engineer, I'm
an IT engineer, but -- I mean I can look at this and see a lot of opportunity for a win-win
here, so -- I mean take that for what you will. To me if you were willing to do something
along those lines, then, yeah, let's give you the five homes, have you spend a little
additional money in here to make that open space a little bit more usable for everybody.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: Based on everything that we have seen tonight and I guess, Joe, this goes back
to you, what -- what Commissioner Seal said, can they -- can they sort around the open
space and collectively put it in all one space or --
Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, again, we can't really condition a rezone, so --
Lorcher: Okay.
Dodson: -- it -- it -- unfortunately, it's either we recommend approval or you don't. The
applicant has the option to make those revisions if they want. I wanted to make some of
those revisions as well in my staff report, but I can't. So, I did make that comment in my
analysis about, you know, some of these areas I would prefer to be more consolidated.
With the final plat I can't condition it necessarily, but I -- I can work with the applicant on
that for sure, so -- Toll Brothers and I have done -- I don't know. This would be I think the
seventh phase that I have reviewed for Oaks North. So, I'm pretty consistent with them.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F51
Page 47 of 88
Seal: Okay.
Lorcher: Commissioner Seal?
Seal: Go ahead.
Lorcher: So, based on our restrictions of what we can and cannot do as far as a rezone
is concerned, I understand Commissioner Yearsley's concern about changing it from R-
4 to R-8, but based on what we see here, even with the five houses we do get more open
space at 3.2 versus 1.7. 1 mean if we don't do it they will find another way to -- to get the
five houses that they want to get back. So, if -- hopefully the applicant will work with the
city planners and, you know, re-design some of that space so that they can accommodate
their current homeowners and be good stewards to their neighborhood, but if we can't
condition it our hands are tied.
Seal: I would agree. So, hopefully, everybody that's listening -- this means make sure to
show up to the next meeting and, hopefully, there is more meetings to be held and there
is a willingness to work with staff in order to improve the -- basically the capacity of the
open space that's going to be provided, instead of just these little slices that are out there
that are just going to cost more money and not really provide a lot of what the community
is asking for. With that I will quit lecturing.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: I would like to make a motion here then.
Seal: Go ahead.
Wheeler: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move that we
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2022-0010 as presenting the
staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2022.
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2022-0010, Oaks North
rezone with no modifications. All in favor say aye Any opposed?
Yearsley: Nay.
Seal: Was Commissioner Yearsley.
Weatherly: Thank you.
Seal: Okay. The ayes have it. Motion passes.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F52
Page 48 of 88
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE NAY. TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing Continued from March 3, 2022 for Pinedale Subdivision
(H-2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue
(Parcel #S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request
for the R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots
on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district.
Seal: Okay. And so now we have a file number H-2022-0001, Pinedale Subdivision,
which was continued from March 3rd. We will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Stole my thunder with the March 3rd. Now I can't do it.
No. I'm just kidding. The applications before you tonight for this application are
annexation, zoning, and a preliminary plat. The site consists of 1.2 acres of land, currently
is on RUT. As you can tell on the map on the left it's essentially a county enclave with
zoned property all around it. It's located along the railroad corridor west of Ten Mile and
is directly at the terminus of West Newland Street at the southeast corner of the
Chesterfield No. 2 Subdivision. It does not have any application history with the city. It's
-- Comprehensive Plan is mixed-use community for some reason. However, in my
analysis I did analyze it against the medium density residential future land use designation
to the -- to the west, because that's where its access comes from. The request before
you tonight is annexation and zoning of the 1.2 acres, with a request for the R-15 zoning
district and a preliminary plat for nine detached single-family building lots and two
common lots. The applicant has revised the plat multiple times to address concerns noted
within the staff report. The staff report is -- contemplates ten units, because that's what
-- at the time prior to the March 3rd hearing that's what was proposed. Since publication
of that staff report the applicant and I have worked together to make some revisions and
you get the plat before you tonight. I did write a memo based on this new plat to the
Commission dated March 24th that has specific recommended revisions to the conditions
of approval based on this plat. The applicant is proposing to construct detached single-
family dwellings with a gross density of 7.4 units per acre and an average lot size of about
3,200 square feet, with a minimum lot size of about 2,250. The proposed use is a
permitted use within the requested R-15 zoning district and although the lots appear to
meet UDC dimensional standards. Access is proposed via extension of West Newland
Street as noted, which currently terminates on the west boundary of the site. It is required
to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac per ACHD. The existing access is from a
private access that crosses Ten Mile Creek right here and actually goes up to Pine, which
we are glad to get rid of that, hopefully. This access will be terminated upon development
of this site and with other approvals to the east it's only going to be a pedestrian access.
A multi-use pathway on the east side of the creek for -- if you can see my mouse -- ten
foot pathway here for Foxcroft and, then, it crosses where the bridge is and, then,
continues to be a ten foot pathway here, which is why the applicant proposed a five foot
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F53
Page 49 of 88
pathway here for added connectivity. The Ten Mile Creek as noted does run along the
entire east property line and requires a hundred foot easement from its centerline, with
50 feet of it being -- well, almost 50 feet of it being on this site, which further encumbers
the buildable area of the property. Some of the noted concerns in the staff report are
regarding analyzing the project against the MDR versus the mixed use community as
noted and staff decided to do that, because there is no connectivity to the east other than
pedestrian connectivity and when you talk about mixed use, you talk about a mixing of
uses and you can't do that -- I didn't see it was necessary to do that. So, I -- the comp
plan does allow us -- it's not parcel specific, so it allows staff to analyze projects against
adjacent designations when they are not separated by arterials. Staff discussed the
amount of buildable area once the required cul-de-sac is placed on the site. As you can
tell, it takes up a lot of land. So, overall it just -- it's a point of discussion. The difference
between the proposed lot sizes and those within Chesterfield -- obviously these are going
to be smaller than those lots to the west property. Chesterfield is R-8, so it's going to be
a minimum of 4,000 square feet for R-8. These have an average of 3,200, which is below
that. In addition, the number of driveways taking access from the cul-de-sac -- so, again,
the -- the idea of having multiple driveways just eats up a lot of area right there in the cul-
de-sac and you have driveway after driveway after driveway. The applicant is showing
shared driveways, which staff does appreciate. Not always -- when staff discussed this
in the staff report -- and we have discussed with the applicant sometimes that can be
difficult to get the required setbacks for the garages and everything when that occurs.
This would be preferred, but staff did not include a condition of approval to require it,
because it can be very complicated with getting a building on the lot and at a future date.
So, I don't want to mince words or make you guys think that that's what's going to be
required. Finally, in general staff just wants to ensure that the proposed elevations can
actually fit on the submitted lots. There were 13 pieces of testimony that all stated the
same issues that they had with the proposed project just too much density that -- which
will impact the traffic, safety, and that it doesn't match the existing development to the
west. So, that's pretty much all 13 said the same thing. Some of it seemed like a form
letter of kind, but, nonetheless, voiced their valid concerns. Staff does recommend
approval of the subject application with the conditions noted in the staff report and I will
stand for any questions.
Seal: Thanks, Joe. Would the applicant like come forward?
Hessing: My name is Bruce Hessing. 2338 West Boulder Bar Drive, Meridian. My family
moved here in 1886. So, we have been here a while. I have developed probably 2,700
houses. I tried counting them all over a month or so period of time. I was bored during
COVID and that's as many as I -- I could remember. So, I -- I enjoy the community. It is
my home and I'm thoroughly impressed with you. I usually have my engineer or -- or a
planner do this for me, but he's out of country, so I got the wonderful opportunity to -- to
be here tonight. I have semi-retired, so what I like to do is I like to find little pieces of
property like this one. These are difficult to develop. If you were to see pictures of this
little property now, there is -- there is an old structure there that the neighbor kids use as
their funhouse. My fun is taking that down and so I -- I have worked with -- Bill and Joe
are amazing. I -- I -- I deal with a lot of planners. You got two of the best. And our idea
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F54
Page 50 of 88
is to bat this around -- I think we designed it like six times. It's worth it to me to get -- get
it right before it gets to you and this is what I have presented. I wanted 12 lots. That was
the original application. We sell a lot of this product to retired people. We can get our
product out on the market forty, fifty thousand dollars less than -- if compatible to -- to
other projects. We like to do that. The -- these homes are narrow. The master bedroom
is on the main floor. We like that. And usually people my age like that, too. And that's
-- that's our concept. Any questions I'm -- I'm here for you.
Seal: Any questions? Maybe? No? All right. Thank you very much. Madam Clerk, do
we have anybody signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we did have one person sign up online. It's Daniel Kwok. I think
that might have been an error, because he came for the last one and I don't see him in
house anymore and that's all.
Seal: Anybody in Chamber want to come up and testify on this? All right. Would the
applicant like to come back up?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, I do believe the engineer of the project is online.
Hessing: Yes, he is. He is somewhere in Switzerland I think.
Seal: Would he like to speak or would you like to have him speak?
Hessing: He sent me a text that said, hey, only if you need and I -- I think we are going
to be okay. He is a lot more into it than I am, but -- but I think we have got the gist here
and --
Seal: Okay.
Hessing: -- he should enjoy his vacation.
Seal: Well, I was going to say is there -- if anybody has no questions --
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Oh.
Grove: I do.
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: So, I have a few questions that I will kind of try and summarize I guess. This
seems -- Commissioner Yearsley, you are going to like this. This seems incompatible
with what the cul-de-sac does to this weird piece of property. It seems incompatible with
the number of lots that we have here. I think that this is a much more suitable space for
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F55]
Page 51 of 88
two to five lots at most. I -- I -- I can't wrap my head around having this layout as
presented.
Hessing: Okay. I appreciate that. The -- the cul-de-sac does take a tremendous amount
of that property. It looks like to me like a third of it. We originally designed this with a
private drive and we were going with the zoning to our east and to our south. I -- I get the
fact that we would like to get less, because the neighbors to the west have less, but this
-- to provide that cul-de-sac for -- for ACHD this was the best use for that property. It -- it
doesn't make sense to have two or three lots there. It just doesn't. That's why it was
redesigned and redesigned and came up with -- now they have got -- the neighbors to
the west have got a cul-de-sac now that's ACHD standard. They could use it instead of
a dead end like it's been for I don't know how many years. But that's why it was designed
the way we did it.
Grove: Thank you. I appreciate that. I -- I just -- I -- I have some major concerns with
the general layout and the amount of lots that are there. I don't -- I don't see it with how
it's presented and so I have some general concerns with the number of lots and even the
placement of the cul-de-sac. So, I was just wondering, you know, at the R-8, was the R-
4 zoning considered for this instead?
Hessing: Because that's what it's zoned for.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: It's requested for R-15 because it's under 4,000 and it is R-8 to the west, which
would be a minimum of 4,000.
Hessing: Sorry. Wrong numbers, but --
Dodson: You got a four in there. It mattered.
Grove: So, I guess instead of R-15 did you look at a lower classification in general?
Hessing: No. We were just going with what was to the east of us and to the south of us.
I -- I -- when we get to that amount of lot reduction -- I mean we came from 12 down to
nine. Any lower than that it -- it just makes it inconceivable to do it.
Grove: I guess the reason I'm asking these questions is because you are not connected
to the lots to the east or to the lots to the south, but you are connected really with the lots
to the west. So, it's more congruent with the lots that you would be connected to and how
I'm looking at the map. So, I was just wondering why that wasn't considered.
Hessing: Well, if I was to do that what I would do, then, would be put in a private drive
and take -- and make it four lots and, then, ACHD had heartburn over that and all the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F56]
Page 52 of 88
neighbors do, because they want a cul-de-sac and so they come to us, asked us to --
to build this cul-de-sac, which --which really is the major part of that whole piece of ground
is the cul-de-sac. So, we felt we were putting back into the community by providing a
standard ACHD cul-de-sac that they really need and in -- in exchange for that we pick up
another three to -- you know, three or four more lots, give us our nine that we need to
make it pencil, so that it -- it works for the community and it works for us. That's why we
did that.
Grove: All right. Thank you.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: Mr. Hessing, if you were to be R-4 or R-8 would ACHD reconsider a cul-de-sac
to a street that just ended?
Hessing: Well, I -- no. Their -- their demand -- if I remember right --
Lorcher: Is that firm?
Dodson: Commissioner Lorcher, yeah, I have had discussions and reached out to ACHD
and they have been extremely firm on the cul-de-sac, unfortunately.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Dodson: Because I had specifically asked if we could do an alternative termination. I
was told no.
Hessing: But I think, to answer that, Commissioner, if -- if we were to go to the city
standard four lots, we could use a private drive to terminate. Right, Joe?
Dodson: I would need to clarify with ACHD. I still think they want it to terminate in a cul-
de-sac even if we use a common drive, which is what Mr. Hessing is referring to.
Hessing: Yeah.
Dodson: Which is the four lots --
Hessing: If we go to the neighbors -- I mean this works. This cul-de-sac works and --
and that's why we redesigned it five, six, seven times, got it to this point.
Lorcher: Thank you.
Hessing: You bet.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F57
Page 53 of 88
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, I do --
Seal: Go ahead.
Weatherly: -- show that Mr. Hessing's engineer is raising his hand.
Seal: Okay. Let's hear from him.
Conti: Good afternoon. Good evening. Afternoon. Evening. I hope you can hear me
well.
Seal: Yeah. Go ahead and give us your name and address for the record, please.
Conti: Yep. Antonio Conti at 7661 West Riverside Drive, Garden City. One comment
that came through was the design itself with the cul-de-sac and this is the only way we
can fit a cul-de-sac on that property. Otherwise, we will have to take right of way from the
neighboring parcel, which is not -- it won't be allowed. The overall point of the concerns
on the overall density, I think we can map on less than eight units per acre. As it is right
now we trim that down to about nine lots.
Seal: Okay. Does that answer the question kind of? No? Yeah?
Grove: Yeah. As good as it's going to be answered.
Seal: Okay. All right. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that.
Hessing: Just one comment.
Seal: Yes, sir.
Hessing: We are -- an R-8 is our neighbor; right? Well, this is 1.2 acres and so we would
be fitting within that all right.
Dodson: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Go ahead, Joe.
Dodson: So, the -- we don't tie our density to our zoning anymore. So, the eight, four,
40 doesn't matter for the zoning. I guess that's a little facetious. But it matters in the
sense of dimensional standards. But density, no. So, what would be the -- the key factor
if you did R-8 would be the minimum 4,000 square feet, which you are going to have to
lose lots to meet that.
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F58
Page 54 of 88
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: I -- I'm sorry, the -- the -- the concept homes that you have provided, I don't
know how you are going to fit those on those lots, to be honest with you. You -- you do
show one photo in the staff report that shows an existing home that I think would be more
realistic to it, because it doesn't have a front door or anything besides that. I mean there
is -- it's home to home to home. I mean it's -- it's going to look like an apartment building,
to be honest with you, in my opinion. And to me that just does not fit this --this community.
I mean, yes, I realize that it doesn't -- if we -- if we go smaller it doesn't pencil your -- your
financials, but, man, I -- I'm struggling to -- to -- to allow something like this, just because
we can make it fit. I mean -- so yeah.
Hessing: We can answer that. We -- we have the standard setbacks -- side -- side
setbacks that -- those units are 24 to 26 feet wide and they are deep and -- and we build
those and so, yes, they do -- they do fit. They -- they do have the standard size setbacks.
We are meeting -- we are meeting code, obviously, if -- if we can get to that and so, yes,
they are -- they are a unique product. You see them down in Boise. They are 22 to 26
feet wide. They are deeper. They are 1,500 square feet, 18, ten, a few of those and
some of them -- like that Lot 2 and Lot -- but some of them are pretty wide lots, so they
could almost take a standard size house.
Yearsley: Yeah. I -- I just don't see it. Sorry.
Seal: Any other comments? Okay. Thank you, sir. Okay. Can I get a motion to close
the public hearing for H-2022-0001?
Yearsley: So moved.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing for file number H-2022-0001,
Pinedale Subdivision. All in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: I will jump in here. I'm -- I'm kind of with everybody else. I just -- I mean there is
-- this being a little in-fill piece of property that I would love to see develop, I -- I just don't
see this happening. I can see a lot of issues happening in here as far as the -- when you
have the common drive -- I always go back to service vehicles and things like that to
where, you know, trash day comes along and you have -- you know, how many trash
cans out there, you can't have anybody parking on the street, I mean there is -- basically
is no parking. So, somebody decided they were going to have a birthday party, something
along those lines, there is just nowhere to do it. There is -- there is no parking in here,
other than for the residents, so -- and that's a small amount of parking that's going to be
there. So, I just -- you know, as much as I would like to see this happen, I don't see this
as the solution, so -- I mean to me the solution with the cul-de-sac needing to be there,
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F59
Page 55 of 88
you know -- and, again, I wish we had more control over what ACHD controls within the
city boundaries. We don't. So, if they are going to insist on this -- on this cul-de-sac going
in there, I mean it would have to be less dense in order for me to be enthused by it or to,
you know, want to approve it.
Grove: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I think if the cul-de-sac even like moved to more of the center of the project, you
know, wrapped down, you know, there might be some other options, but I would have to
kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Yearsley was saying with how the houses would
actually fit. I don't see what -- I guess I don't see how that works and without a
demonstration of what that looks like it -- it does not fit with this plat and it doesn't fit with
the neighborhood that's actually connected to it. This is not the right product for this space
in my opinion.
Seal: And I can see where -- I mean there is a few lots in here where I can see there is
several houses that would fit that are kind of the Barber Park area, different places in
Boise like that where those would fit pretty easily in here, so -- but the rest of the lots I
don't see how you are going to fit something like that in there, so -- you know, again, I just
-- I think it's too much for this little tiny piece of land and -- and I sympathize for ACHD
holding their ground on, you know, taking up so much property with this -- with the cul-
de-sac, but they control the roads, we don't, so if that's what they want in there, then,
that's okay, but I just don't think that this density is going to work in there personally.
Anyone else? I would love to hear a motion at this point.
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I will make a motion. Let me get to the page. After considering all staff,
applicant and public testimony I move to recommend denial of -- to City Council of File
No. H-2022-0001 as presented in the hearing report -- hearing on April 7th, 2022, for the
following reasons: The -- the --just the site is too dense for the -- the community that it's
abutting up against and it just doesn't fit the -- that subdivision and it's -- it's just overall
just too dense.
Wheeler: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to recommend denial of File No. H-2022-0001,
Pinedale Subdivision, for the reasons mentioned. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay.
Motion carries, which was a motion to deny, so --
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F60
Page 56 of 88
7. Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by
Summertown, LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast
Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9
singlefamily lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on
approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district
(Traditional Neighborhood Residential).
Seal: Okay. All right. We will move on to Summertown Subdivision, H-2022-0005 and
we will begin with the staff report.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Got me for one more. Again, this is for Summertown
Subdivision. The application for this project is a -- yeah. That makes sense. This is a
preliminary plat and a private street. Private streets are administrative approval only.
Just to let the Commission know and the director did approve those. The site consists of
13.8 acres of land already zoned TN-R, which is the traditional neighborhood residential
zoning district, located at 3104 North Venable, which is the southeast corner of Venable
and Ustick. Has quite a bit of history with the site. Again it was annexed and zoned in
2017. Has an existing development agreement. Received administrative approvals in
2019 and, then, in 2021 to make sure they don't expire and it is a mixed-use community
designation on the property. It's kind of a bubble in this area. The request before you
tonight is for a preliminary plat consisting of 23 residential building lots, which are nine
single-family lots along the south boundary and 14 multi-family lots, with three common
lots on -- on this 13.8 acres. Within the existing TN-R zoning district. The request for
private streets through the multi-family portion of the project was requested and approved.
It was made for -- sorry. The private street request was made for addressing purposes
and was actually requested by the city fire and addressing departments. So, we do
appreciate the applicant doing that to help with addressing for life safety. The minimum
lot size is 5,100 square feet for the single family lots and nearly 19,000 for the multi-family
lots. The subject site was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2019 as noted with the
Summertown annexation. It allows multi-family residential projects as a principally
permitted use. So, again, they -- no CUP or anything like that, they only -- they got their
zoning and they were allowed to do a certificate of zoning compliance and design review
to establish that use and, then, submit for building permits, which have already been done
and approved and they are building on the site already. Therefore, the applicant was -- I
just said all that. The applicant did include a small single family component to the project
along the south boundary as noted. This complies with the requirement of TN-R, which
requires two different housing types within a project. Because of the inclusion of the
single-family lots and the applicant's desire to place each multi-family building on their
own lot, the applicant is required to subdivide the property prior to the release of the first
occupant -- first certificate of occupancy. That is an existing development agreement
provision, so to be very short, largely this preliminary plat is very administerial in that it's
complying with the existing approvals. The expected development of the site, therefore
-- it's already been outlined and conditioned via these previous approvals and so many of
those requirements will actually be checked at the future final plat application. All of the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F61
Page 57 of 88
proposed lots do comply with the TN-R zoning district and the proposed road
improvements comply with previous approvals, except one piece, which would be the
Venable Lane street section and I will get into that. Access to the site is proposed via
Venable from Ustick and West Wrangler Street here. The access to the multi-family is
via the drive aisle connection in the northwest corner and, then, two off of West Wrangler
Street and those are through the two private street connections. So, these are all private
streets here. Hence why they are named -- we cannot name multi-family drive aisles,
which is, again, why fire and addressing requested private streets. West Wrangler Street
is also shown to be the access for the proposed nine single-family lots along the south
boundary. The proposed street sections for both Wrangler and Venable do comply with
all standards. However, in the original approvals Venable Lane was supposed to be a 36
foot wide street section, I believe, from Ustick down to this location and, then, a 29 foot
street section here. However, as all of this has progressed over the years, ACHD has
approved the 29 foot -- 29 feet wide street section all the way for the whole section of
Venable. I did receive confirmation of that today as well. So, there is no qualms with that
and staff would strike that condition moving forward. I don't know what that is though.
will tell you just -- you can broadly say strike that condition in any motion. The proposed
master pathways plan, which, again, just the proposed master pathway plan, not what is
adopted, does depict a pathway along the east side of North Venable. The submitted plat
does not depict this pathway and instead depicts a five foot wide sidewalk. Staff has
presented this issue during pre-application meetings and -- which it's unfortunate it's not
shown, but staff is requiring that revision with this plat to be on the east side of Venable.
Again, with the reduced street section and other requirements of ACHD for storm
drainage, this buffer along Venable is larger than what it should be per the TN-R
standards, so there is room. The applicant and I have discussed this quite a bit in the
past couple days and we should be okay with that. Staff does have an existing condition
to continue the pathway, not just on the east side of Venable here, but also down this
pump lot-- pump house lot here. The applicant has told me there is no room to do it here,
so I will let you and the applicant discuss that. If that cannot be accommodated I will go
on the record and say we minimally need it here, so that we can have a connection here
to continue this at a future date, to have a nice safe logical crossing for the multi-use
pathway. This area is owned by somebody else and a county parcel that's not yet
redeveloped. There was no written testimony for this, again, because this is largely
administerial at this point. Staff does recommend approval of the plat and, again, the
director has approved the private streets. I will stand for any questions.
Seal: Thank you, Joe. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. I like Bill's comments more
than my other client liked. He said you should have been number two out of number
seven. Anyway, I think there is just a couple of you that were here before when this came
through with annexation. There were numerous redesigns and to my knowledge this is
the first TN-R neighborhood that was zoned in the city and it was trying to understand
what that traditional neighborhood encompassed and what -- what needed to take place
and it was kind of unique in that it was the mixed-use community and yet it was a bubble
that was on both sides of the road and there were, you know, commercial posed on the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F62
Page 58 of 88
other side of the street, there is the park that's over there, so you have those elements
that are taking place and -- and we were looking at doing apartments and there is
apartments to the west of us for a portion of the site. I have some slides that I gave, but
what's taken place is that as they started in the plan approval process, which has already
taken place, both for the vertical buildings through -- we have got building permits going
and there are buildings that are going up currently and all the underground has been
completed for this site and there hasn't been any concrete poured yet, so many of these
conditions kind of end up being kind of a challenge. Condition number 3-A-E is the one
that -- that Joe was looking for providing him evidence that ACHD is happy with the 29
foot street section. What happened there is it was initially thought by both ACHD and us
that storm drainage would go from the crown of the street and go each direction, like we
traditionally do, but the apartments that went into the west of us did not have any of that
requirement or did -- they didn't have an easement and so the highway district made us
make a super, which, then, flows all the drainage over onto the east side and so we have
all that storm drainage coming on our side and fitting that in with where our buildings and
so forth are, required us to reduce the street section. There is a sidewalk that is in their
common area on the west side of Venable. The road has always been planned to curve
as it goes onto Wrangler. This drawing that's here on the screen is what was in the
original DA showing how the vacant properties adjacent to us might develop and with the
stub streets that we were proposing at the time. Venable -- Mr. Simunich owns that piece
that's down here and he didn't want any roads stubbed to him and that's why our -- our
internal road angles. He has a driveway that goes to his home back there. I know that
he's passed away, but I know that his family still own that property today. So, that's an
access to his house back there. Venable Lane -- ACHD has right-of-way that's adjacent
to our pump house, so I have put in approximately where the south line of -- of -- are you
moving that, Joe? Okay. So, this is the pump house lot and the properties to the south
and the vehicle parked on the access that goes back to the Simunich's house is on ACHD
right of way for the most part, but it is not a street, it is just a driveway access for that --
that one home back there. Joe was looking for us to be further to the east or to the left
on this drawing. That manhole that's up next to the vinyl fence is where that sidewalk
would be. There is a pressure irrigation line and if you think about it the neighbors to the
south of us have pressure irrigation running in their backyard and, then, it comes to the
north up to our property and so it does the same thing and this concrete vault and so forth
that is sticking out of the ground is the pump station. So, putting that on our property
becomes kind of difficult. I spoke to ACHD and they said we could enter into a license
agreement and we could pave a ten foot path that probably is in a better location than
what staff is talking about. It's outside the bounds of our plat, but it's in ACHD right of
way. So, I don't know -- I have been told before you can't -- can't make me do things
outside the plat. ACHD's staff report is very clear that there is not to be improvements,
but this is a pathway improvement. So, I don't -- realistically my -- my client wants to be
approved with the plat. I need to turn around and get the final plat, because he's got
buildings that are already framed in and they can't get occupancy on those buildings until
the plat's recorded. So, I need to get the preliminary approved and, then, turn around
and submit the final. I didn't -- didn't include the drawing to the north, but they have not
poured any of the concrete. We can put a ten foot sidewalk. It does make that really
close. It's kind of interesting, after listening to the Pavilion at Ten Mile or -- Pavilion at
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F63
Page 59 of 88
Windsong is all of those sidewalks come out of the units -- if you could go back to the
overall site, Joe. Not my drawings, but your staff report. We will have all those sidewalks
coming out onto that pathway, that -- because they are 13 feet. So, I have all these units
that are here along this west side of our site and on the east side of Venable. If we put
this ten foot sidewalk realistically from the east side of that pathway is 13 feet to the -- 14
feet maybe to the front of the unit. So, it--they are going to be close and you want people
accessing and coming out there. There is no parking, but it allows those to come out and
I talked to Kim -- Joe and I were in discussions. This pathway isn't on any adopted plan,
but parks wants it to go in. The purpose of it is is to connect to the south. They will have
to get the Simunich's and any future development that goes to the south to be a part of
that, but today-- I mean I know what you try to do is you try to get what you can get today.
I guess we are not opposed to that. I would prefer not putting it on the ACHD right of way
adjacent to -- that would cause people to think that they can walk south to the Simunich's
property, because as soon as you get to that vinyl fence the ACHD right of way ends and
it's their property. I don't think that -- they weren't real excited about having people go
that way before and now it -- right now what's there is a driveway access to that house. I
will just leave it at that. Do you have any questions for me?
Seal: Questions for the applicant?
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: So, right now Verna -- is it -- how do you say it? Venerable?
Brown: Venable.
Lorcher: Venable is just a driveway to the family home and you are going to extend it --
Brown: Venable south of our proposed street is a driveway to their home. It's under
construction right now. The road base has been hauled in. They have got string line up.
They are getting ready to start pouring sidewalk and curb and gutter and so I need to get
to them the plan to put a ten foot pathway at least in that northern portion north of
Wrangler.
Lorcher: Okay. And that's how the family gets to their house, because right now --
Brown: Yeah. Currently. Yes.
Lorcher: Okay. And, then, the subdivision to the south of you where it says Ridgeberry
and there is no access to Ustick from there; correct?
Brown: Currently. But they will be able to use Venable -- go north to a T intersection
where they will be on Wrangler, then, they will turn left and go up to Venable.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F64
Page 60 of 88
Lorcher: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Grove?
Grove: Question about the -- and maybe this is staff first -- is with the pathway section
that goes south of Wrangler, in lieu of having that built out, is there anything we could do
in terms of requiring an escrow account or whatever the -- like something that would build
later to build -- to pay for that 25 foot section or whatever that is when it -- it's ready to be
developed or do we have any wiggle room I guess would be the question.
Dodson: Right. Yeah. Great question, Commissioner Grove. So, if -- if it's going to be
in the ACHD right of way we can't require that. The applicant can go into a road trust with
them. It might not be a road trust necessarily, but -- and do that. But as Kent described,
it's very difficult for us to require something that's not on their property. I think the best
we could do is condition -- add a condition that, basically, requests the applicant to work
with ACHD to try to construct that short segment of ten foot pathway south of Venable. I
don't want that to be a deal killer for all of this, because we really mostly need the segment
on the east side of Venable and then -- because that property is owned by others we
would be able to get it later. My point was they have the lot at this section, so at least you
would have a clear connection across this curve and stub it to the west boundary. But I
can see when you have pressure irrigation and everything under there already it's not
going to happen, so thank you, applicant, for giving us that picture. That helps a lot. But
I think a broad condition would probably best and Kent and I will continue to work with
ACHD as we move forward through the final plat phases.
Brown: And I have already spoke to ACHD, the person that approved the plans and he's
told me I can build it. I guess my concern is -- I build it, they will come and as soon as
they step off of the end of where I pave they are on somebody else's property. They are
on ACHD's property, which isn't the full width of that opening and so we are -- we are
funneling people to an area that maybe isn't ready for visitors. That's -- to be honest,
that's the only reason I don't want to build it. I mean can I build it? Does the government
ask me to do the smartest thing all the time? No. So, I could put that in that box and say
you asked me to do it and you guys deal with -- we will -- we will put Joe's phone number
there and call Joe when they step off. Or Parks. We will put Parks.
Grove: Well, I think that's kind of my -- to the point of my question, though, is -- is there
something -- a mechanism that you would be, you know, able to help fund your -- like if it
was -- in half your portion of, you know, going forward, so that it's not built now, but there
is a mechanism for it to be built late -- later.
Brown: It would have to be a trust with the Parks Department, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be
something -- it is not something that the highway district -- the highway doesn't build
pathways and that's truly what we are building there is a pathway.
Dodson: Mr. Chair? Yeah. Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grove, so, yeah, the best we would
do is have him post a surety for it, but, then, we are just holding onto the surety for who
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F65]
Page 61 of 88
knows how long. I -- after seeing the pictures I think I would rather strike that portion of
that condition and just keep the pathway on Venable and, then, as -- I assume that
property will redevelop at some point and, then, we won't have the issue that the applicant
proposed. You know, we don't want to promote people walking onto somebody's private
property when there is no pathway down there for them to get to anyways at this point.
There will be eventually, sooner rather than later, but, again, I would rather not create
more of an issue than we need to.
Seal: Okay. And I mean just a quick question. You understand that they do want that
pathway to go all the way to the end of that block row on Venable, just so it's more than
obvious that that -- that should continue in the future. And I'm the bike rider of the bunch,
so I use these paths all the time. Anywhere I can get on a bike I go on a bike, so --
Brown: So, explain that again, because I'm -- I'm --
Seal: What -- what Joe had said in the picture that's here -- it comes all the way down to
Venable. Just extend that down to the end of the block, so that -- not -- not to the pump
house, but down to the end of Venable where you are going to cross Wrangler, but you
don't have to cross Wrangler. Just make sure it comes all the way down, so it's obvious
that that -- that's meant to continue on.
Brown: Exactly. Yes.
Seal: Okay. I think -- I mean at that point I'm -- I'm comfortable with just striking that. Do
we know what item number that is?
Dodson: Mr. Chair, I do not, no. I know it's a portion of a condition, so if you just were to
say strike the requirement of the pathway being on the pump lot, I will know exactly what
you are talking about.
Brown: 11-C.
Dodson: Oh. Okay. The applicant came more prepared than staff.
Brown: And it's only the -- it's only the last -- last half of that sentence.
Seal: Okay. So, 11-C dealing with the pathway on Venable. Okay. Thank you very
much. Anybody else?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: So, I -- I might be a little slow today. So, this came through before and you
actually are already building the -- the townhomes and the apartments, is that my
understanding? Is that --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F66
Page 62 of 88
Brown: That's correct. And then -- and that's -- that's always been the plan.
Yearsley: Okay.
Brown: So, as a part of the development agreement it was specific to that and the concern
was that -- as us doing that that we would build that street and that they would get that.
There was some concern that the nine detached homes might not ever happen and that
we would only do the apartments and so -- sorry, I thought I was speaking loud enough.
So, that -- that's the way that it was done. The zoning certificate, which has all the fine
details, a bunch of this staff report is talking about the parking, you know, the number of
units, well, that's all been looked at and addressed as a part of doing that and, basically,
my job as I was looking at this is going what are you asking me to do that -- you are going
to make me pull pipes out of the ground and move a building, what -- what is it that you
are trying to -- and what can I still do that I haven't -- I mean I wouldn't be able to put in
the ten foot pathway if I had the sidewalk in and they were -- I mean they are -- they are
getting really close to getting there, so I -- I need to pass that on and make sure that that
is a part of it. I have already talked to the highway district, they are okay with us entering
into a license agreement, because we are going to go across a couple of feet of their
property and, then, the rest is going to be on the lots that are adjacent to that. Does that
help?
Yearsley: It does. Like I said, I'm --yeah. I -- I -- it was -- once you said you were building
I'm like -- I was a little confused, so I apologize for that confusion.
Brown: Realistically hard knocks of what I'm here for is I'm asking you to approve the
lines that I have put on the drawing. Basically everything else has already been approved.
Yearsley: Okay.
Brown: And the only one that is kind of different is the pathway. Everything else has
already been addressed. I mean we had Mr. Hessing, which I know very well, talks about
five designs. I would say we had five designs before P&Z before we got to City Council
and, then, it got changed again and so we have -- we have gone back and forth and
think -- I think it's going to be a nice neighborhood. They got a really nice clubhouse.
They have one of those pools that everybody wants. I'm betting that your subdivision is
Tuscany?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Brown: And I did Tuscany years ago and there is not a drawing for Tuscany that has a
pool shown on it. It is what we put in the open spaces. Messina that's to the south where
those private streets are at that we talked about, they were shown there, but --
Yearsley: Right.
Brown: -- the northern portion was --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F67
Page 63 of 88
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: Thanks.
Seal: Madam Clerk, do we have anybody signed up to testify?
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do not.
Seal: Oh, sir, come on up. All right. If you can give us your name and address for the
record and the floor is yours.
Simunich: Hello, sir. Commissioner, Mr. Brown, my name is Mike Simunich. My parents
are the Simuniches that own the property at the south end of Venable Lane.
Seal: And your address was --
Simunich: 2715 North Venable Lane, Meridian. 83646.
Seal: Thank you.
Simunich: I'm here tonight to primarily make sure that we still have access through
Venable Lane. I have had discussions a year ago with Shannon Robnett, which I believe
is the developer of Summerwind. I have also had meetings with ACHD and maybe Mr.
Brown could help me understand some of the plat map that's -- that's up here, but
primarily I wanted to discuss that -- that photo with that vehicle in it if I could. Now, I did
enter into negotiations with ACHD and Shannon Robnett and explained to them that --
the history of Venable Lane. My dad owned all of it. He did transfer -- I'm not exactly
sure how-- half of it-- roughly half of it to ACHD and in negotiations with Shannon Robnett
-- keep in mind that my parents have a trustee through a bank and they made negotiations
with Shannon Robnett. Shannon Robnett has purchased part of Venable Lane that was
privately owned by the Simuniches to be able to make that curve -- I believe it's called
Wrangler to do what they need to do with the buffer houses between the apartments and
the existing subdivision to the south. There was I think originally kind of an S curve
planned there that stayed off the Simunich property, but to put that buffer row of houses
in there they needed to buy just a smaller portion of Venable Lane from the Simuniches
through the bank and I'm to understand that they have done that. So, A, I'm concerned
about that we still have access and we will have access when this is finished, as this is
our only access at this point in time. The second thing is we are very concerned about
having people come through, being the only agricultural place, we are still in the county
surrounded by city. I hate to use the word attractive nuisance, but we get a lot of visitors.
We rent to a person with livestock. We don't want to see gates open. We don't want to
see cattle ran, you know, so -- so, we have some -- some protections that we want to do
to our property. So, Shannon Robnett purchased a small part of Venable Lane from the
Simuniches to be able to make that Wrangler curve. We have a couple of agreements in
-- in place and if -- if there is any way we could see that photo -- and I will try to -- try to
keep up with what's going on here. I'm sorry if I'm overextending my time.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F68
Page 64 of 88
Seal: Okay. Yeah. If you could wrap it up real quick we would appreciate that.
Simunich: Okay. So, this is the south part of Venable Lane. Oops. Where this vehicle
is parked and, essentially, from right here about this rough corner there is a 40 foot wide
Venable Lane owned by the Simuniches and there is a little bit of grass right here, you
can't hardly see it, right past the -- the vehicle, that's a common area for the subdivision
to the west. From this point here that 40 feet is split 20 feet on the east to ACHD and 20
feet to the Simuniches as far as -- I can't remember the name of the road right now that
comes in from the west, but it's just 150, 200 feet, I believe. That 20 feet grants us our
access. Shannon Robnett needed to buy part of that to be able to meet the Meridian city
requirements and from what I understand through the bank we have sold it to them. A
couple of provisions. I'm to understand that this fence is going to be continued
northbound approaching Wrangler -- that curve in Wrangler and at some point in time
given just a little bit of access, so we can park a vehicle without being on the street, there
is going to be a 40 foot wide fence and gate placed there to help keep people off the
private property. Shannon Robnett has agreed to that and that 20 feet of what was ACHD,
I'm to understand Shannon Robnett has given to us to square off that flag lot piece of
property. I'm going to have to do a little bit of research through ACHD to make sure that's
the case that he hasn't promised something that he can't give, but I really don't want to
see any kind of a sidewalk leading past this pump lot or low spot that -- that incorporates
all of this right here, because we really don't want to invite people in and right -- right now
we have had people there at 5:30 in the morning and -- and as late as 10:30 and 11 :00
o'clock at night. Dogs bark. Why are strangers on our property. We have had private
property signs. They have been vandalized and removed.
Seal: Okay. And I -- I think we discussed that earlier. We are going to strike that condition
and I think as far as the access to the road, there is nothing that would prevent access.
So, I think that -- and -- and -- I mean I think the applicant would agree as well, as well as
our staff from the City of Meridian that there is nothing in there that would prevent access.
Simunich: I don't have any negative comments to what's going on here at all, except I'm
hoping that that east side of Venable Lane with that ten foot walkway or whatever
walkway, you know, approaches Wrangler, yes, but really doesn't go any farther than
Wrangler; right? And I have to verify whether Shannon Robnett was able to give that to
us or if ACHD still has that 20 foot section. But I'm to understand we have access and
that's primarily why I'm here tonight.
Seal: Okay. Thank you, sir.
Simunich: Thank you very much. Unless you have any questions.
Seal: Thank you. Okay. If anybody else would like to testify? Seeing none, anybody
online? I don't think so, but --
Weatherly: No, Mr. Chair.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F69
Page 65 of 88
Seal: Okay. All right. If the applicant would like to come back up.
Brown: For the record Kent Brown. 3161 East Springwood. And, yes, I understood that
to get our plans approved we had to purchase a piece of right-of-way from the Simuniches
to finalize that. I am unaware from Mr. Robinette that -- about anything that would vacate
that right of way is what it would have to be. He would have to purchase that to -- from
the highway district, even though the Simuniches are the ones that gave it to the highway
district, you would have to purchase it. So, that makes that kind of a challenge. But it --
it -- the right-of-way stops at the location that he was talking about where that final fence
is, where I was saying that that's where staff was asking us to run that pathway and we
should be able to put a gate at that location. I don't think ACHD wants that unimproved
right of way, because it's not wide enough for them to put a street going south and that
map that -- that I showed earlier there is a -- to the Simunich property, there is a stub
street to the south and there is a stub street to the north that allows that property to have
access in the future and be developed without the improvement or the extension of
Venable. I know that the Parks Department, what their hope is is that this pathway
eventually will continue south in the alignment of that and go all the way down to the
Creason Lateral where they do have a pathway and hoping that, then, that provides a
connection to the park that's on the north side of Ustick. That all makes sense, but it's
whether the Simuniches and that out-parcel, that house, ever have to be subdivided and
whether that ever comes into the jurisdiction in the city to make that happen or not. So,
that could be some time. You want to look for properties around, Simuniches have some
of these pieces all over. I think that answers the questions that he had and I -- I will talk
to him outside after.
Seal: Okay. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.
Could I get a motion to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022-0005, Summertown
Subdivision?
Lorcher: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: I have a motion to close the public hearing for File No. H-2022-0005. All in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: I think this one is pretty straightforward, so if anybody has anything to add, let's do
it quickly and, if not, then, we know we need to strike Condition A-3 and -- oh, yep. A-3
and, then, 11-C as it relates to the pathway on Venable. A-3. Alpha three.
Grove: Okay. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend -- recommend approval to the City Council of File No. H-2022-0005 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7th, 2022, with the following
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F70
Page 66 of 88
modifications: That we strike Condition A-3 and we modify Condition 11-C to not include
any portion of the pathway south of Wrangler Street.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-2022-0005 with the
aforementioned modifications. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Would you like a quick bio break or do we want to go ahead and trudge through?
Okay. We will take A five minute bio break and we will be right back.
(Recess: 9:46 p.m. to 9:54 p.m.)
8. Public Hearing for Records Apartments (H-2022-0008) by Brighton
Development, Inc., Located at on the Northeast Corner of N. Records
Way and E. Fairview Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development
consisting of 472 dwelling units in two (2) 5-story buildings on 10-
acres of land in the CG zoning district.
Seal: Okay. We will go ahead and re-adjourn and we have got Records Apartment, File
No. H-2022-0008 and if Bill's ready we will start with the staff report. Sorry about that.
Parsons: Always ready. I hope the Commission's ready to finish the night strong. We
are on the last one.
Seal: We are ready.
Parsons: All right. Let's get to it. And no more quotes from Bill tonight. Let me stay
silent here. All right. Next application before you tonight is the Records Apartment. It's
a conditional use and concurrently submitted with the conditional use was an alternative
compliance request by the applicant to, essentially, change the comp -- the private open
space requirements. So, basically, allowing the units to either have no balcony space or
a diminished balcony space from what the code currently requires of that 80 square feet.
Director has approved that as part of this application submittal. So, tonight all you are
looking at is a conditional use for a multi-family development on approximately 9.95 acres
of land in the C-G zoning district. You can see here in the graphics before you this
property is a mixed-use regional. In that specific designation we anticipate residential
densities between six and 40 dwelling units to the acre. Back in 2007 this property was
annexed in as part of The Village at Meridian project. As part of that project there was a
development agreement and it had a concept plan on this particular property. However,
the terms of that DA did not tie the concept plan to this particular property and the -- the
DA was very flexible in allowing the applicant or the developer at that time or any
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F71
Page 67 of 88
subsequent developer to relocate residential anywhere within that project, which this
parcel is part of. You can see here that it is vacant ground and it's bound -- it has Kleiner
Park to the north and, then, CarMax to the east as well, which was also part of that
development agreement. So, the applicant is here tonight to discuss with you, again, a
conditional use permit to develop 472 multi-family units in two phases. The -- the unit
count includes 84 studios, 208 one bedroom, 168 two bedroom units and three -- or,
excuse me, 12 three bedroom units. Gross density for this project in front of you tonight
is 47.4 dwelling units to the acre. So, we will round it down to 47. As I mentioned to you,
it is slightly above the target density in the Comprehensive Plan. However, based on its
proximity and that it's located in a mixed use regional area and proximity to a park and to
a lifestyle center, an entertainment--entertainment district, so to speak, staff is supportive
of the bump in density as presented to you this evening. Access to this development is
from a couple different locations. The -- the main -- or one access is from North Records
Way, which is along the west boundary here. The applicant is working with ACHD to
obtain -- or I believe they have obtained approval of that access point and one of the
requirements is to install a right-hand turn lane as part of those improvements. I think this
Commission is well aware that the UDC requires the applicant to get a waiver from the
Council for that -- for that access, because they do have access from a lesser classified
street along the north boundary, which is a shared access with the CarMax. So, you can
see here kind of in the upper north -- northeast corner here there is another access point
into this development. So, they will -- they will need -- the other caveat to this is they
really need two points of access per the fire code as well, so it's -- that's what's kind of
driving the need for this additional access point. So, again, the applicant is working with
the Fire Department, of course, working with ACHD and, then, ultimately, once you guys
make your decision tonight they will recommend City Council action on the access point
and any other conditions that they see fit as part of your -- your approval this evening.
Off-street park-- if you had a chance to look at the staff report you know there are specific
standards that go along with multi-family developments. Amenities. Open space.
Parking. Staff did raise a couple concerns in the staff report regarding parking, the
amount of open space. We were able to meet with the applicant at the beginning of the
week to talk about some of those issues, so the site plan tonight does show additional
parking along the east boundary and that's the graphic on the right here. They propose
to add some additional parallel stalls here to mitigate the parking concerns. The other
item that we talked about was open space and specifically common open space. In this
particular case I think this body is aware back a year or so ago we did change our multi-
family open space standards and what has happened is we have required a base line
open space, which is basically any project over five acres has to provide a minimum of
ten percent open space, plus a 5,000 square foot central open space in addition to a
certain amount of open space based on the square footage of the residential units. In
this particular case that has resulted in the applicant having to provide almost 37 percent
of the site in open space and that -- again, the reason for that change was we wanted to
make sure the denser you went the more open space and the more amenities you
provided to go along with the number of units and density. So, we were trying to create
a code that would correlate density with open space. We did do a good job, in my opinion.
This is one of those cases where -- but what we also did as part of that revamp is we
allowed the applicant to go through the alternative compliance in certain circumstances
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F72
Page 68 of 88
and -- and, then, in staff's opinion this is one of those circumstances. Unfortunately, we
do not have an alternative compliance tonight to discuss with you to -- to tell you whether
or not it -- it warrants -- or if we would approve that application or not. So, essentially,
what you see here tonight -- the applicant provided an open space exhibit. They had
approximately 2.7 acres of open space as part of this exhibit that's in front of you. Based
on the current code the applicant's required to provide 3.74 acres. So, they are almost
an acre short on this particular site based on the current code. But as -- as I mentioned
to you and in discussions with the applicant they do plan on pursuing alternative
compliance with their certificate of zoning compliance application. But certainly it's
typically not something that's part of your purview, but since this is a conditional use
permit and you guys are the decision-making body on this application, you have the ability
to weigh in on whether or not the density is appropriate as far as the number of units. Is
the open space adequate. Is there adequate parking for the site and so on. Just like you
always have on any other CUP that's come before you. So, I wanted to mention to you
the --the site needed a minimum parking of 822 stalls and it looks like, again, the applicant
is meeting that. As far as amenities, I won't go into that, because you have had a long
evening, but I can tell you the amenity package that the applicant is proposing is in excess
of UDC standards. So, they need four or more based on the number of units. They are
well in excess of that. And not to mention they have a regional park right across the
street. I would mention to you that during the pre-application meeting with the applicant
we were concerned with just pedestrian access in this area, because of the amount of
vehicles coming into The Village and going to the park and that roundabout. Usually
those aren't pedestrian friendly. However, we did reach out to ACHD to try to get input
from them on that topic and they said that nothing really warranted any additional
pedestrian enhancements. But as part of this project the applicant was nice enough to
indulge the city and actually construct a multi-use pathway along the west boundary to
help facilitate not only bicyclists, but also pedestrians and guide them closer to the park.
So, we didn't get exactly what we had hoped from ACHD, but the applicant was willing to
work with us on a safer pedestrian connection if you will, a wider sidewalk along that
roadway to try to address someone of staff's concerns. One other item as far as the open
space that -- that we have gone back and forth with the applicant is whether or not the
landscape buffers along the collector roads and the arterial street should count towards
the required open space. There is a provision of code in the multi-family standards that
when open space is adjacent to a collector or an arterial you have the ability to allow that,
make a recommendation of whether that's appropriate. In this particular case typically
when we analyze a project staff will look at a project and say, okay, what's required as far
as -- as part of development. Usually a street buffer along a collector. an arterial is a
dimensional standard in the UDC. It's not an open space requirement. However, in the
residential section of the code buffers -- residential buffers are allowed to count towards
the open space. But in multi-family it's -- it's not explicitly spelled out to allow those, but
it gives you the authority to determine whether or not it's appropriate. So, in this particular
case we did work with the applicant. You can see on their exhibit here they are short of
their buffer requirements in some of the areas and they know that and they are going to
address that with -- with their site plan as they go through that CZC process, but they
would like you to take that under consideration to include those buffers as part of their
open space tonight. Again, I know it's kind of a moot point, because they are so deficient
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F73
Page 69 of 88
from what the code requires and we don't have alternative compliance at this point, but
it's something that needs to get analyzed and part of your purview this evening and, again,
as I mentioned to the applicant, they could take up this conversation with City Council,
too, as they take -- have them take -- take action on their access point to North Records
Way. The applicant did submit alternative -- or, excuse me, conceptual elevations that
you see here. So, anything that goes forward you can see it's a five story structure. It's
really one structure kind of connected with a breezeway and, then, ties into the clubhouse
here and the central amenities. I think the one thing unique about this project is just the
-- the pockets of open space spread out between the units. I think it's a good way to --
because Fairview is such a modern -- or a busy arterial, it's a good way to kind of screen
and quiet down that open space as people try to recreate on the site. So, I will go back
to the elevations. Again, as you all know, it will come back through certificate of zoning
compliance and administrative design review and anything that they propose to construct
on the site would need to comply with our architectural standards manual. Looking at the
public record this afternoon we did receive public testimony from Tom and Liz Anthony.
Their primary concerns was with the amount of traffic that would be generated from the
development and, then, staff also received written testimony from the applicant and they
would like you to act on their-- on a couple of conditions of approval. I think that's in front
of you now, but I will just-- in summary I will tell you what they are asking. Delete condition
number two, which I think is in correlation with the density and staff is amenable with that
being waived. They did acknowledge that they plan on seeking Council waiver on the
access to Records Way and, then, we would have to modify a condition that all area --
that they are going to seek alternative compliance to the baseline open space standards
that are currently in code. With that staff is recommending approval and I will stand for
any questions you may have.
Seal: Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wardle: Commissioners, good evening. For the record my name is Jon Wardle. My
address is 2929 West Navigator, Suite 400, in Meridian, Idaho. Pull this up really quick.
I appreciate the opportunity to -- to be in front of you tonight. I know it's a long night and
I will provide some input here and stand for any questions you have at the end of the
discussion this evening. As mentioned, the project that we are proposing is within the
master plan that's already been approved, which is The Village. As Bill mentioned that
was approved back in 2007. Came in with a master plan with associated densities and
uses and it's become really kind of the crown jewel of this part of Meridian, where you
have a lifestyle center with a lot of entertainment, shopping and restaurants, but also
probably the thing that I -- is -- is most iconic here is Kleiner Park, which is a 60 acre -- I
don't know if we call it an urban park, a suburban park, but it is a well-designed, well-used
facility, which is a key part of this part of Meridian. You know, when The Village was
proposed there were a variety of uses for The Village. Shopping. Restaurants.
Entertainment. Employment. City parks. And also this little element called living; right?
If you go back and look at the master plan none of the living was identified, but it was part
of the approval. Of note we actually brought in the very first living opportunity to The
Village, which was Bri. A hundred and sixty-six residences on 2.44 acres and for those
keeping score at home that's a density of 68.5 units per acre. Part of that is -- it's right
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F74
Page 70 of 88
across from the city park and all the lifestyle elements and that's a CUP that we went
through before here in the city. It is a mixed-use regional designation for the comp plan,
which has some benchmarks. One of the benchmarks is 50 percent of that as a
commercial benchmark, but also the benchmark in the mixed use regional is at least ten
percent of it be residential in a desired range of anywhere from six to forty units per acre.
The total acreage was 255 -- 258 acres with 60 of those being the Kleiner Park.
Specifically we are -- we have 9.95 acres. Just to show you where we are, it's this little
red area and we will zoom in here a little bit more. We are north of Fairview, east of
Records, South of Elden Gray and west of the CarMax. The project does have 27 percent
open space with a variety of different type of residences throughout the project of both
studios, one bedroom, two bedroom and three bedroom. Access to -- go back here really
quick. This is showing kind of a bird's-eye view -- if you were up above the intersection
looking to the northeast, we are planning two residential buildings, as Bill mentioned,
connected together by the community center clubhouse between the two. They are five
story buildings. Something to note that the first level of each of these buildings is a
parking garage and so you will come in underneath the structures off of the drive aisle,
which I will show you in just a second. We have over 57 percent of the entire parking is
within the parking structure and the rest of the parking is surface around the sides and
internal between the two buildings. Both of the parking garages in or off of Elden Gray
-- you could get there off of Records, but the --the main access is where there are existing
curb cuts into the CarMax. We have aligned the parking garages into those, so they both
come in underneath and to the north on this one and to the south on this one. The
northern building has 206 units and that's our phase one. We will also have a 9,500
square foot clubhouse. I will get into amenities here in a minute with a pool. That would
be phase one. Then phase two would be the building that would be south adjacent to
Fairview. I will note maybe -- I show you on a different slide. What is unique here about
the parking that's outside of the parking structures is with the exception of that which is
interior, it is just a single parking stall on each side of a drive aisle. So, we don't have the
sea of parking that you would have in other uses and even when you look at The Village
across the street where you can see right here where there is a huge parking field, sea
of parking and, then, the building's interior we have actually been able to distribute the
parking in a way around the building so it does not dominate the site and that's part of the
--the beauty of being able to do parking structures. In terms of open space and amenities,
like Bill mentioned we have a lot here. If you were to look at the buildings from above,
which we are doing here in this exhibit, there are some areas which are in the middle.
Those would be on the second level. So, the parking structures below and these green
areas in the middle, these buildings are on the second level deck, just like we did at Bri.
So, if you go and you see Bri, the amenities are up above street level. We have a 9,500
square foot clubhouse with workout spaces, Zoom rooms, gaming rooms, entertainment
lounge areas. There is a -- kind of a warming kitchen and an area where if you had a
larger gathering you could do that. A pet spa. A place for kids. The entire complex will
be wi-fi connected. The pool will be resort style, meaning there is lots of area to the
outside in that pool area. Barbecue areas as well. In the courtyards -- and I can show
you some examples if you want to know what these are, but snook ball, which is, basically,
a billiards with your feet. Cornhole seating areas. Fire pits. Shade areas. And the south
ping pong, some of the same with seating areas. Fire table. One of the things that -- to
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F75]
Page 71 of 88
note is we will be completing almost a quarter mile of regional pathway. Now, Fairview
has a piece of that already, but there is a gap -- CarMax built a five foot sidewalk. We
are building a ten foot sidewalk along our frontage on Fairview and, then, we will wrap the
corner and come north to connect into Kleiner Park. If you read the ACHD staff report a
five foot is required. If you look at the city's plans there actually is no pathway planned
for this. It was a recommendation and we -- we thought that it made a lot of sense to
make that connection where we have that area to come to the north. So, that's what the
red represents here is that regional pathway that we are connecting. Here is just a quick
picture if you were on Records looking into the site, this is the pool area with the clubhouse
on the right, as well as clubhouse behind. It's a two-story clubhouse with some meeting
rooms and things on the first floor and recreation fitness areas up on the second floor.
You get access into the clubhouse both from the ground floor garages, as well as the
second floor. So, you can get to the clubhouse without going outside if you don't want to.
It doesn't show here very well, but there is corridors going into each of these buildings.
One of the things that we -- we have done and it's noted in the ordinance for open space
for multi-family is how do you treat these required landscape buffers. The city has always
-- and required this and we have always tried to look at them as a way to give something
back to the community and not just do the minimum and we have seen that. You know,
you could just do grass and a few trees here and there. We are actually going above and
beyond what that would be. Along Fairview we have a combination of a thick hedge, as
well as what we are showing here, these decorative barriers. So, you really won't be
seeing cars parked along Fairview, they will be screened behind. We also have that same
combination coming north up Records. We have a little wider area to the north, but in
areas along here. Bill did note that we were perhaps a little deficient on some buffers and
I will show that to you here in just a second. But that -- the barrier will be a minimum of
four and a half feet and, then, there will also be alternating hedges that will be evergreens,
which will provide year around screening along those two roadways. There are really
three items that we wanted to address with you quickly tonight. The first one is density.
You know, this is a mixed use regional area. We have Fairview, which is a -- a principal
arterial. You have Eagle, which is a principal arterial, as well as a state highway. These
corridors were designed -- intended to carry a significant amount of traffic, but there is a
lot of traffic that comes in and through the area, but as you know in these mixed use
regional areas the desire for density allows that daytime population to actually stay a little
bit longer. If you read some of the information that the developer of The Village has put
out, there are 200,000 plus daytime visitors within this area. Meaning there is lots of
people coming in and through using the area, but there aren't a lot that are staying later
at night in the evening and so here is a housing opportunity, again, showing you -- this is
Bri up to the north, which was approved. It's nearly 67 units to the acre and, then, this is
Records here to the south and we are at about 47 units to the acre. It's also important to
bring that density into projects like this, because they do support the commercial. In all
of the -- The Village there is currently almost 900,000 square feet of commercial uses
there today. If you look south -- just south on this side, there is another 700,000 square
feet of commercial uses there today and here is an opportunity where we have the
commercial uses and services, we have grocery, we have city park, we have
transportation -- hopefully soon a Valley-Ride implements that bus system for this area.
I know it's long programmed. It got a little delayed with COVID, but I think they are still
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F76
Page 72 of 88
on track to do that at some point. This is the right area for projects like this, because the
services are there, the amenities are there, it's also part of the transportation system. We
are asking, as Bill noted, that we -- that the Commission delete condition number two.
Access is pretty straightforward. This one we -- we are going to go to Council. It's a
requirement based on the UDC and we also see these little nuances with UDC that
sometimes there are conflicts with other important things, such as life safety. This
connection to Records is important. It will be a right-in, right-out as you may know already.
Records is divided. You cannot go back and forth across Records. If you want to go
south on Records you will go to the roundabout and come back down. Same thing if you
come out of The Village, you can't go north on that unless you want to go back and work
through the site. So, this is really a right-in, right-out for us off of Records. It does provide
access into the site for some of the parking, but it also provides that key corridor that we
are showing here for life safety. This will go to Council. It's just-- it's a waiver requirement
and any recommendations or approvals you have as well. I mean the Council is going to
see this project, so I just wanted to let you know that. Then the last item is amenities and
open space. Commissioner Seal, myself, and -- and Bill all participated in the open space
discussion and it was a lengthy discussion. If you look at the prior open space
requirements for multi-family in some cases they were deficient. There was a lot of
discussion back and forth about what the right number or what right percentage, but
ultimately when it came down to it was, you know, we do need to have a baseline. I think
in this case that baseline shows that given the location here that baseline probably doesn't
make sense. In our opinion doesn't make sense when you are across the street from a
60 acre park, but you are also providing residential uses in an area that can support the
existing commercial uses that are there. We are providing currently 27 percent open
space and our amenity package is fairly robust. We recognize the -- our residents that
will live here and the services that they want, but I will tell you that they will be spending
a lot of time in an asset that the city has prepared for the city residents as a whole, which
is Kleiner Park. They will be able to walk across the street. Have dinner over at The
Village and participate in entertainment, whether it be movies or a Big Al's bowling,
whatever it might be. So, we are asking that condition 4-M be modified and I will bring
that up here right now in just one second. Sorry. There is one little area right here that
we showed that our buffer on record is less than ideal. The reason for that is anybody
who has traveled here you do know that there -- there can be some traffic and so working
with ACHD and providing a -- a turning pocket into the project, instead of backing that up
into Records, it does cut into that to a little bit and so that's why we are a little bit less than
the standard requirement there, but we also have that ten foot pathway coming up along
Records that will tie into the city park. So, our request tonight before you is that we -- is
that condition two be deleted, which is related to the density. Condition 4-K we are taking
-- we will take to City Council and Condition 4-M we are asking that it be modified and
that given the project's proximity to Kleiner Park the applicant shall submit alternative
compliance application for the baseline open space requirement. We did have a lot of
conversation with staff this week. We -- where it really landed was the staff felt like this
conversation was going to go to Council anyways and so we didn't hurry -- we didn't get
the alternate compliance in before the meeting tonight, but we are committing to do the
alternative compliance, so that issue can be addressed and, again, I know that Council
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F77
Page 73 of 88
will be looking at this as well. So, with that we just ask for your approval with our
modifications on Records and stand for any questions you might have. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Do you have any questions for the applicant or staff?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: So, I'm assuming you did a traffic study with this facility. What -- what came
out of that with ACHD?
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it's a great question. Yes, we did do -- let
me back up. When this project was reviewed and the traffic was analyzed and there were
improvements that were both the Fairview and Eagle Road, there was a target density or
use on this already. So, there was 200,000 square feet of office space and another
hundred units of residential. ACHD looked at these and said they are, basically, the same,
there is no difference. The -- the main difference is there is probably a little bit more
overall traffic with our residential piece, but the peak hours drop and so overall there might
be a little bit more. I think it was within, you know, five percent of the overall traffic, but
that was not -- ACHD determined that a traffic study was not needed because it was
already captured in the original approval.
Yearsley: Okay. Because I -- I would assume that you would have a lot of trip capture
with being so close to the other amenities that they would not need to travel, so that's why
-- I was just kind of curious, because it was brought up in some of the other comments
earlier, so --
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, you are correct. The -- short of doing a -- a
specific study for residents who live here, they just base it off of, you know, what the
trends say. I -- I believe that the trips will be less for that very point, because of all the
services that are out here already. It's super unique to have a park, to have three grocery
stores -- actually, four grocery stores within a mile of this and have all the entertainment
as well. We don't have many of these opportunities in Meridian currently and so I believe
that the trips will actually be less, but based on ITD -- or ITE numbers that's what it would
be.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Seal: Anyone else? All right. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
Seal: Madam Clerk, do we have people signed up?
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F78
Page 74 of 88
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, we do. First up is Scott Dykstra.
Seal: Good evening.
Dykstra: Good evening, everyone. It's so nice to see you all. Mr. Chair, Commissioners.
Seal: We will need your name and address for the record, please, and the floor is yours.
Dykstra: Scott Dykstra. My address is 4260 East Venture Circle, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
Seal: Thank you, sir.
Dykstra: I'm, first of all, happy to say good evening and not good morning. We will be
out of here before midnight. So, thank you for your service and your time. I live right next
to Kleiner Park. We purchased our home there 18 years ago and at the time this was all
a sod farm and -- and many of you remember those days and when The Village was
developed, just an interesting timeline, this 24 acres that includes CarMax and -- and the
project site we are looking at tonight, was not part of the original Village, it was actually a
separate parcel that was owned by one of the Kleiner brothers, instead of both of the
Kleiner brothers, and so that -- that piece got developed later and so when they came in
and sold to the first half of this piece, they did notify the 14 neighbors that live in this little
subdivision called Venture Sub and so we are all on a one acre lot. We are on Venture,
which ties into Elden Gray, which is on the north side of this property. So, this property,
when it gets developed, is going to feed on to Elden Gray, then, Elden Gray goes to the
east and hits Venture and Venture comes out right there at Bright Bank -- between Bright
Bank and CarMax and so we are a little tiny country road with 14 houses that have seen
all of this growth and all of this development and when they sold the piece for CarMax we
all showed up at the City Council meeting and the City Council told us, oh, don't worry,
Ada County Highway District says you won't have any traffic on your road. Ada County
Highway District -- and Bill remembers this, because we talked about it the other day --
Ada County Highway District said we will put up a sign on Venture that says don't come
this way to go to CarMax, go down the road and go around the corner. That worked really
well, because we all know people stop and read signs and say, oh, we are not going to
turn there. They told CarMax you will put up a gate, so that people can't -- when they test
drive their car, pull out of your lot and go onto Venture, which is the street next to CarMax,
and drive down Venture and drive into our cul-de-sac and turn around and -- and test
drive the car and sit in front of my house and turn on the radio and the headlights and
figure out how everything works. Of course that didn't work either. But we were told as
homeowners it's okay, you know, that's not what that lot was supposed to be. It was
supposed to be professional office space five days a week, 9.00 to 5.00, doctor's offices,
dentists offices. Don't worry, it's now a car lot, but -- but it's okay, you are not going to
get any traffic and, then, we were told the next piece that they sold was just going to be
office spaces. It wasn't going to be anything more than that. And now here we are and
they are talking about putting 400 and some odd houses -- apartments there. So, I
understand growth is coming. I totally appreciate that. But my concern is Ada County
Highway District, when they did their review, said here is the traffic on Fairview, here is
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F79
Page 75 of 88
the traffic on Records. They used numbers on Fairview back off of 2017. They used
numbers on -- on Records based off of 2020 before Brighton even built Bri with that 166
residences and they actually gave no data on Elden Gray and didn't give us any traffic
numbers for Elder Gray at all. So, I challenge you to go back to Ada County Highway
District and say can we at least get some updated numbers and, then, my next request
would be that you take Venture, our street, and you give us a dead end. So, right behind
Bright Bank and the entrance to CarMax you put a fire truck access and you just close us
off from anything that they want to do, which is fine with us, because we know the growth
is coming, we know the traffic is going to be there, just don't put it on our street and, then,
you can take that private lane between CarMax and this new development and if it's not
a problem to have all that traffic, bring that lane out to Fairview and make that a right-in,
right-out on Fairview. It meets Ada County Highway District guidelines and Ada County
Highway District can go and approve that and say, yeah, that looks good to us. Does this
go back to Ada County Highway District, just out of curiosity?
Seal: My understanding is, no, it does not. That time has past.
Dykstra: Also just know that we were never notified. So, when you look at your little
notes there and it says, yeah, we had a neighborhood meeting and nobody showed up,
that's because nobody told us, because we are just outside of that 300 foot requirement.
So, there is 14 homeowners and there is a few more here tonight, they are all sitting there
going, gosh, that would have been good to know about.
Seal: Okay.
Dykstra: Thank you for your time.
Seal: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, Michelle Loechel? Sorry.
Seal: Fancy meeting you here. Go ahead and give us your name and address, Michelle.
Loechel: My name is Michelle Loechel. I live at 1405 East Venture Circle. Can you hear
me now? Okay. Do I need to restate? Okay. I am one of the neighbors of Scott. As he
mentioned, one of the concerns that we do have is while we do appreciate the beauty
and the amount of work and effort and design that went into that, the question is is this
the appropriate location for it for 472 housing units, as well as an additional thousand
cars. If you guys have ever been through that area it is incredibly hard during those
congestion times. I think the gentleman also mentioned, you know, 800,000 people go
through that area during the day. The traffic congestion is just crazy. So, maybe one of
the questions would be can we limit that down to 200. The concern would -- is also on
Elden Gray. Elden Gray is barely a two lane road. We often have CarMax unloading
their trucks on Elden Gray and if anybody is parked on the opposite side of the street that
street is often down to less than one lane and you have to piggyback and get cars -- you
have to zigzag through to get cars in and out of there. So, the concern is cars leaving
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F80]
Page 76 of 88
and taking that right to go out, there is just simply no space to do that. The other concern
is as cars come out of Walmart that comes there, the other traffic concern is -- is that you
can only take a right out of Walmart and so what often happens is that people do U-turns
right there in front of that exact same area. So, this area is very heavily congested. As
Scott mentioned, we also didn't receive any of the notifications. So, thank you very much
for your beautifully designed website and all your resources that are there, because,
otherwise, we would not have known about any of this. So, thank you. And, then, I think
the last thing that we also had concerns is we would like an updated traffic study as he
mentioned and, then, we would also like to understand a little bit more about how that's
going to impact the wells in the area. Several of these older homes were in
unincorporated Meridian, so we are all on wells and water and irrigation water there and
several of us are running into issues where the wells are running dry in that area, so we
would like to understand a little bit more about how that is going to be affected.
Seal: All right.
Loechel: Thank you.
Seal: Thank you very much.
Weatherly: Mr. Chair, that's all I have that signed up.
Seal: Okay. Anybody else in Chambers would like to come up and testify? Come right
up. Good evening. Just give us your name and address for the record, please.
Allison: Toni Allison at 1108 Northwest 4th Street in Meridian. 83642. 1 am here to
represent the Meridian Senior Center. I am president of the board and our concern, of
course, is the traffic and the safety for our seniors. I would like to -- I don't need to point
out, but I will that this beautiful new development -- it is gorgeous as Bri -- or Brighton
always does, is as exhibited by their complex -- the Bri complex by the park, but what I
would like to point out is that this is less than half a mile from the busiest intersection in
the state of Idaho. The amenities that Jon mentioned that surround the development,
The Village, the shopping across Fairview, would greatly be affected by traffic. I know
that it's within walking distance, but the pedestrians would have a great deal of trouble
getting across Fairview, getting across Records Way, because of all the traffic. So, I
would think -- or make an assumption that they would choose to get in their cars to drive
across this road and, of course, if you are shopping you need something to carry all those
groceries in. So, I would still anticipate that there would be a lot of vehicle traffic, as
opposed to pedestrian traffic, unless they were to put a walkway over Records Way into
The Village. But the other thing that I would like to point out is that if you visited Kleiner
Park it is a very popular park and it is very much used and this would greatly add to that
population in the park, which would cause -- I don't know how to put it --wear and tear on
the park and in an exorbitant way, but, you know, I have nothing bad to say about
Brighton, they do a beautiful job and -- and that facility is remarkable. But, again, at some
point we have to say something about the traffic. I live in downtown Meridian in the old
section of Meridian and travel to that area, because I do frequent the center and it's --
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F81
Page 77 of 88
what used to take ten minutes now takes 30 minutes to just go down Fairview Avenue
three miles. So, I can't imagine how much more traffic there would be with a facility such
as is being considered tonight. So, thank you very much for your time.
Seal: Perfect timing. Look at that. Okay. Do we have anybody else in Chambers that
would like to come up? Oh. Sir, if you want to come on up. Let's get you up to the
microphone, please.
Koehmstedt: I'm Gary Koehmstedt. I'm with the Meridian Senior Center also.
Seal: Okay. And your address, please?
Koehmstedt: 1653 East Daulby Street in Meridian.
Seal: Thank you.
Koehmstedt: That's where I live.
Seal: Okay.
Koehmstedt: Okay. The -- I visit the senior center a lot and it's getting busier and busier
and busier, which is good for the senior center. We like that. However, Records is the
problem. We have one lane going in and, basically, two lanes going out. One that can
turn right and one that can go straight, but it's -- it's basically one lane that splits at the
end and you are waiting all the time with a single circle go around and, then, when you
come to the end of Records or where it splits to go to the center or to the park or where
ever and the traffic on that, if this goes in, I would suggest a traffic count go on Records
to find out whether that traffic is that much or not. But it's -- it's very busy. You wait at
the light a long time to go down Records and there is a lot of people when you go down
Records to go to the shopping center you got to go around the go around to go into the
shopping center, so they got to go all the way down Records and if they have a place to
turn in or people trying to come out they are going to have problems from -- from their
building that they plan on putting an entrance into Records. Yeah. My objection is
basically the traffic on Records. Either expand it or deny it. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you, sir. Ma'am, if you want to come up. Do you still want to come up?
Come on up.
Johnson: Good evening.
Seal: Good evening.
Johnson: My name is Karen Johnson. I live at 4091 East Spearfish Drive in Meridian. It
is two streets away from the proposed project and I would just like to point out what I'm
hearing tonight is a project that is short on buffers, short on open space and over in units
and I'm very charged about this. I have been there four years at our house. We bought
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F82]
Page 78 of 88
our house four years ago. We moved from California to get out of the high density, crazy
traffic, crime riddled area and I feel like this is all playing out again here. In the four years
that we have been here we have witnessed -- this will be the sixth project, if approved,
that is a high density or multi-density project. Most of them are on Records. So, we have
the Veraso, we have Bri, we have The Lofts at The Village. In the last month we have
witnessed ourselves, my husband and I, a smash and grab at the Walmart. We have
witnessed car accidents on Records. We have gotten caught in the middle of a standoff
at The Lofts Apartments with the SWAT team there and, you know, this was a really great,
nice cohesive neighborhood with amenities when we moved in and it's rapidly changing
and all of these projects are less than a mile apart from each other. Probably closer to a
half mile. When -- when is there enough high density housing? When is it -- when is
there enough? When does it stop? There is one more open lot on Records. My guess
is somebody's going to come in and ask for that space to -- to be -- to have 600 to 800
units. It's a big lot. Every street that would be impacted by this project is a two lane street.
There is two lanes that go where Big Al's and Marshall's is. I can't remember the name
of it. There is also one where the Boise Co-Op is. Records is a two-lane. The -- what is
it called? East Eden Gray or whatever it is -- is a two lane. And the street that goes out
to Fairview by CarMax is a two lane. So, if you have 472 units, that's got to be at least a
thousand additional cars. There are times that you come toward Eagle on Fairview and
I try to turn right and come down Records and because of the roundabout you can't even
get off of Fairview as it stands. So, I can't imagine an entrance into this place on Records
prior to the roundabout. It makes no sense. I was a city planner in California. Never
have I ever seen anything like that. So, I really hope that you will either deny this project
altogether or modify it. Thank you.
Seal: Thank you. Have anybody else in Chambers that would like come up and testify?
I take it there is nobody online?
Weatherly: Not with their hand raised, sir.
Seal: All right. If the applicant would like to come back up.
Wardle: Can I -- yeah, can I share again? Commissioners, for the record Jon Wardle.
2929 West Navigator, Meridian, Idaho. 83642. Appreciate the comments that were
brought tonight. We do spend a lot of time in public outreach and meetings and things
like that. I -- all I can say is we sent notices out to the list that we were provided and I --
it was not our intention to exclude anyone. So, I don't want you to get the wrong
impression like we tried to minimize the radius on this. We -- we spend a lot of time in
these discussions and I --you know, the --we appreciate the neighbors coming out tonight
and also respectful of-- of the things that they have said. With respect to -- to this project,
as I, you know, mentioned before, you know, there is -- there is a lot of growth here.
can't -- I can't neglect that or -- or -- or push it off, but at the same time this growth was
anticipated. There were decisions made many years ago and also improvements
promised and that have been made based on the uses that are here. There continue to
be improvements made and there will be other improvements made by ACHD in the
future. I want to be clear that the traffic -- there was a traffic study that anticipated what
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F83]
Page 79 of 88
all the uses here would be and as I mentioned before, the use at this location was CarMax
as well. It was all intended to be something other than what is there, but they had
calculated what that traffic would be. ACHD has reviewed that. They -- we -- we sat
down and we talked with them. We met with them on the use here and they -- they
compared what was previously approved and what this was and was viewed as, basically,
the same in terms of traffic. Whether it is this project or office uses or something else,
there are already imputed uses -- implied uses in this area that will happen. I think one
of the benefits here, you know, if it was an office type project, again, that's a daytime user.
They come here during the day and they leave, whereas with this it's kind of reverse with
the residential. It would be great and likely to be many of our residents who actually work
nearby, but there will be some that will be driving out, but their commute will be a little bit
different than that of those coming into The Village during the day. So, we -- we believe
that this does complement the -- the uses that are at The Village currently, that are south
in Crossroads in Meridian and that will continue to be out in this area. Yes, Eagle Road
and Fairview are busy. But they -- those corridors were anticipated for that and there are
traffic -- there is traffic and peak hour traffic and this -- this project -- the Records project
is built into that model. Related to the other items that were mentioned or there was a
question about water and things like that, we do have a water right in turn -- both surface,
as well as groundwater right. We anticipate that the surface water right is sufficient, but
we will also -- the area that will be irrigated will be much less and we will use the surface
water rights to begin with for this project, just like we do with all the other projects. There
-- there is a little history related to the open space and I'm at least one of three of us who
have been part of that history and as I -- as discussed with staff and, you know, there
were conversations this week and acknowledgments, as well as sometimes when you
start actually looking or applying what the ordinance is or inferring what it might be, you
know, there are going to be questions that come up. I do know with all the projects we
have ever done, including multi-family projects, the landscape buffers on arterials and
collector roads have always counted and there is an interpretation here by staff that
maybe they don't count. We don't agree with that and at the same time there are -- I think
you will be hard-pressed to find any other multi-family project that is -- with this amount
of open space that we are showing even with the deficiency. We feel that this is the right
place for multi-family. Will it change the -- the nature of the community? It will. It will be
different. But we feel like the design, the way that the -- the project is, the way that it will
reflect upon a growing part of Meridian and The Village is representative and appropriate
for this location. We are excited to be able to bring some additional living opportunities
to The Village and also support the commercial uses there already and not just a daytime
use. We -- we are also respectful of the -- the Kleiner Park and the things that are going
on there. In fact, we have made a commitment that we are building and will give to the
city it's unrelated to this, but I think it's important to note, especially for those that have a
certain interest is we are building pickleball courts at Kleiner Park and that should happen
this summer and those will be available for the city and the residents here. So, we are
not just trying to do something without being thoughtful. We have been thoughtful in the
design, architecturally in the way that we have also been able to bring all the parking
underneath these buildings, instead of having a sea of parking, which is pretty standard
in multi-family projects. I mean this is a perfect example of what you would end up with
with an office building or retail user with a big sea of parking and in this case we have
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F84]
Page 80 of 88
hidden the majority of the parking below the buildings. I think there is only probably one
other project in Meridian right now that provides --well, two other projects. One's finished
and we built the first one, which is Bri, and there is one in downtown Meridian across the
road where they are building structure parking as well. But it hasn't happened anywhere
else and they aren't -- they aren't inexpensive, but it actually provides for a great design
when it's all said and done, well, you are not seeing that parking, but you are able just to
view a very nice building. Again, we are asking that condition to be deleted, noting that
we will be taking this to the City Council and also noting that we will be working with staff
on alternative compliance to address that baseline open space calculation and I stand for
any questions you might have tonight.
Seal: All right. Thank you very much. Do you have questions?
Grove: I do have questions.
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go -- Commissioner Grove, go ahead. Commissioner
Lorcher, you will be next.
Grove: Jon, couple of questions. First is safety fire related. Is -- with the size and scope
of this project would it be using the -- I don't remember the name of the life safety thing
that the Galena project is putting in with the -- where the water goes up, but also air. Is
-- does the -- does this project have something like that or is it relying on sprinklers --
general question there I guess.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grove, it's -- the Galena project is kind of that spot
where you get over five stories and some of those change. This is a fully sprinklered
project. It -- okay. I stand corrected. Yes, we are. So, I do know as well that some of
our projects, depending on the water, there is a pump that could be used. So, yes, John
just confirmed that we are doing that element.
Grove: Appreciate it. Second question is related to a big part of the conversation in terms
of the open space and things like that. I'm just curious if the -- go back.
Wardle: Which one do you want?
Grove: One more. There you go. Just in between the yellow and the blue, the parking
in the central section, if that was looked at for a second or third story open space covering
in between the two buildings to increase that open space component and tie it in with
some of the other pieces. I know that might not have been looked at, but I'm -- I'm just
kind of curious.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Grove, we didn't look at adding a third parking structure
on the project, which that --that would be your requirement for that. The parking structure
makes sense if we could add more density above it and, obviously, that's not a great
conversation, but with the two podium structures we have already we didn't add a third
one. So, no, we did not consider that.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F85]
Page 81 of 88
Grove: Okay. Thank you.
Seal: Commissioner Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: Are there -- are these all rentals or are there any home ownership?
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Lorcher, these are all rentals. There is -- this is not a
condominium -- condominium project. So, there will not be any ownership here.
Lorcher: Okay.
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Jon, I have a couple questions here. One is if you can go to the screen where
it shows like the -- where the pool area is at there. That's fine right there. That one's fine.
So, we have got the pool area there. We got the small little parking area here.
Wardle: Let me just go back to different ones. We can --
Wheeler: Yeah. You bet. You bet. Yeah. There we go. Or one of those. That's perfect.
So, I'm seeing that -- are those parking spaces there -- I'm just seeing them -- those are
going to be used by non-residents. They are going to pull in and just park and, you know,
walk across the Records to go to The Village.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, I mean it's a good question in terms of how
those are monitored. In reality it's a very limited number of parking stalls. The leasing
office is also here right in front and so if somebody is leasing they would come in here
and they would park. Given that we have on-site management there, I mean those are
going to be monitored as well, so I -- I don't envision that it will be a park here to walk
across and the reason I say that is if you want to get to The Village you have to go up to
the north, you got to cross -- cross the roundabout and come back down to get into The
Village and that's a long ways to walk if you are just trying to find a place to park, whereas
you have a lot of parking at The Village already. So, could we have a resident who parks
here? Yeah. Very likely and walk across. It would be all -- the best scenario. But I don't
see that too many people would come in here, park, get out of the car, walk across the
street and, then, walk back when there is available parking much closer to those uses.
Wheeler: I think -- I think on -- on normal days that might be the case, but when you got
something pretty exciting going on there I think you got some overflow parking that that
might turn into, so I'm just -- I'm just suggesting to think about enforcement --
Wardle: Yeah.
Wheeler: -- or, hey, this is for our community members, hey, this is for people that are
leasing, something along those lines. That's all.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F86]
Page 82 of 88
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, great point. I mean we -- enforcement and
we do -- we do that in our communities currently. There are notices that go up and I can't
anticipate every event like those hundred year party events, whether it be, you know, who
knows, some debut at The Village where we get a celebrity to come out and everybody
who wants to be there. Those things are going to happen. But we will continue to monitor
the parking.
Wheeler: Another question here is I'm -- I'm -- it's interesting that ACHD said that the
same traffic for having 472 units -- or not -- yeah. Vehicular traffic is the same as if they
had it for, you know, office spaces and buildings and things of that nature. I'm more
concerned about the pedestrian traffic going across Records, as I'm sure you are, too. I
mean you want your tenants and the patrons to enjoy themselves there, too. What about
-- is there any thought about a lighted crossway -- walk there? Is there something about
-- because people are going to come from that side and just walk straight over. They are
going to go to the roundabout and go over. That's going to add extra congestion. What
are some thoughts of to mitigate that?
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, I mean it's a great point. I mean we all know
that people will take the path of least resistance. What the highway district doesn't want,
however, is once you open up this concrete divider, then, you have cars as well and so
the safe place for crossing are these two designated. The one that is down here at
Fairview and, then, the other one that is up here just on the clear side of the roundabout.
That's where the highway district wants that to be. I don't think they would ever approve
a crossing down here in this location, even if it was lit, just given the roundabout and the
traffic coming in and out. They want the pedestrians to cross in this safe pocket and down
at the light.
Wheeler: So, on that note is my -- I'm a hundred in agreement on that. So, how do you
guys mitigate that, then, so that doesn't happen? Is there ways where I'm assuming like
the entrances and exits are both at the north and the south side and so that's just going
to be a natural way for them as they exit that site or what?
Wardle: Part of it is the way directionally that the sidewalk points people. Sometimes --
and we spent a lot of time looking at this, just because we do lots of neighborhoods, but
ACHD is very methodical in the way that they want to direct people on those sidewalks.
There absolutely will be somebody who wants to cross Records and they are just going
to run across. That's going to happen. But the way that these pedestrian ramps will be
-- ACHD won't be encouraging them to do that. The motion will be going north and south
and coming out of here we won't make a pedestrian connection over to Records. We are
just going to try to keep people pointed north and south on there. But, Commissioner
Wheeler, I can't -- you can't stop people from making poor decisions.
Wheeler: Right.
Wardle: So, it's going to happen, but we aren't of the mind that that makes sense to try
to facilitate that, because it just will -- it will be problematic.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F87
Page 83 of 88
Wheeler: Okay. Yeah. I'm confident it's going to happen and I'm -- and that's just to
what degree to what angle. And you can only do so much with it; right? With -- with
people that have their own choices to make, you know, on that.
Wardle: I mean it's possible where we have some sidewalks internal here and it doesn't
-- where we have some sidewalks here and a sidewalk coming out, that maybe we even
put, you know, some signage there that just says pedestrians --
Wheeler: Yeah.
Wardle: -- and point them each way. A little bit of wayfinding to maybe encourage
somebody to make a good choice, instead of playing frogger.
Wheeler: Yes. Yes. Exactly. You are seeing where that's going on it. Also one of the
other concerns that was brought up from some of the other -- other people during the
public testimony was blocking off some of the roads for access, because you know that
these are going to be used for shortcuts; right? You know the people are going to try to
swing over to -- I think it was Ventura and also the -- the road that's going to go between
your proposed project and CarMax and try to try -- try to help mitigate, so that these
people that are on these larger estate size properties can still enjoy them the way that
they were hoping to.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Commissioner Wheeler, you know, as we have been involved in one
project and now another project here and have spent quite a bit of time looking at the
analysis and one -- a comment was made as well regarding, well, why don't you just do
a right-in, right-out. So, there actually was a negotiation with ACHD and the way that
these roads laid out that the only points of access to Fairview would be Records and
Venture. There is a reason why CarMax does not have an access onto Fairview. It's just
not allowed. And so the way that that was to address how these two parcels would be
accessed in the future was on Records, Elden Way, and, obviously, CarMax goes over
to Venture. Whether this could be true -- I don't know how this would work in terms of
shutting this down. They are all public roads. It's a question for ACHD on how they would
do it, but as -- the way that they have reviewed it and looked at it, these public roads do
provide access in and through. There is not -- I mean were -- I think it was mentioned
there is 14 residents here and so there is not--there is not many here and I can appreciate
the impact that they would have from -- from CarMax and from other things like that, but
shutting this down as well would push all this traffic as well, which is not much, but it would
push it all down to Fairview anyways and not be able to come on Elden Gray into The
Village.
Wheeler: Okay. And -- yeah. I think that's it. I do like the five -- the four over one project
in its -- in its aesthetics and look and you are right, it's very expensive to -- to do a parking
garage on a project like this. So, it's good use of the -- of the space in order to maximize
your -- your residencies on there. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F88
Page 84 of 88
Seal: I have got a quick question on the -- the unit count, because we -- that was part of
the staff report that we are over on unit count. Is that something that's going to be
addressed? There is -- or was that addressed I guess I should say.
Wardle: So, Mr. Chair, it might have been the question in the staff report and the prior --
there was a question about parking stalls as related to the unit counts. We have since
addressed -- addressed that, so the requirement for parking has been met on site. I don't
think -- I mean I think the question on staff had made or the comment was, you know, if
-- if there was a modification in unit counts that would modify or change the way the
parking was or open space as well. But I don't think that they were saying that there was
a -- a hard number there that they needed to be changed. It was a recommendation.
Seal: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. It's getting late, so I just want to make sure I
have got it straight in my head. Question for staff real quick. The -- my question is more
on the -- the little private road that's going to join this property with CarMax, as well as
Elden Gray. Is there parking allowed on those streets?
Parsons: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, absolutely. It's private property. It's
-- it's not really a -- it's on there -- the parking's on their property. They just have cross-
access with that. So, as long -- as long as they maintain 25 feet for two-way traffic per
code, the applicant should be fine with that.
Seal: Okay. And that's the same with the Elden Gray, the one that runs above it? I'm
not sure of the parking -- if there is any parking allowed on that, I just was trying to verify
it.
Parsons: Mr. Chair, I'm not aware of any parking restrictions on the street either.
Seal: Okay.
Parsons: It's a local street, so -- and it's built to 50 foot right of way, so, typically, you
would be allowed to have parking. But, again, it depends on -- if that roundabout -- if
there is any signs that say don't park within a certain distance of that roundabout. I'm not
sure, though. I can't answer that for you.
Seal: Okay.
Lorcher: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commission Lorcher, go ahead.
Lorcher: Elden Gray gets a fair amount of towing and car hauling traffic to -- to load and
unload cars. But that's, you know, once or twice a week. So, it does create a visual,
because the car haulers are big, but they will unload and, then, they will leave and a
couple days later another one will come.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F89
Page 85 of 88
Seal: Okay. Thank you.
Wardle: Mr. Chair, Bill is correct that it is a local street and I do not believe that there are
restrictions on parking. I believe it is -- you know, meets ACHD standards for a local
street and could accommodate parking. So, just to be clear with the record.
Seal: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
Wardle: Again, we appreciate your time tonight and just request your approval for the
project. Thanks a lot.
Seal: Thank you. Can I get a motion to close the public hearing for Records Apartment,
H-2022-0008?
Lorcher: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to close public hearing for H-2022-0008, Records
Apartments. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Who wants to go first? Nobody?
Grove: I will go first. Mr. Chair, I think that this is the right place for a lot of the density
just in terms of what we look at when we look at the community as a whole and the criteria
that we have in place with the future land use map and just in general with what we look
at for major arterial access and the access to other amenities outside of a project. So,
everything that The Village and even across the street -- I have walked across that street
before. It's not that bad to go cross Fairview if you are taking your time to go across the
actual crosswalk. But I think that, you know, there is going to be some major traffic pattern
changes, but that is inherent with this general intersection. The -- the biggest thing that I
see, though, that will help this area -- and Mr. Wardle slightly addressed it, but is the
public transportation that will be coming on board for Meridian with the fixed line and that
fixed line will directly service this area and -- and it will go from the Ten Mile projects to
-- through downtown and over to The Village. So, I think that some of the traffic parts of
this can be offset through both the proximity of the other pieces that are around this and
also with the -- with that public transportation in place. So, I think some of the -- those
concerns can be alleviated. In general I -- I -- I'm in favor of this. I would normally have
a much more critical look at the open space piece. However, looking at the wide breadth
of options for the amenities and the close distance to, you know, the park system, the
senior center, shopping, like there is enough other things right here that the open space
piece is not as -- is not as pressing for me in terms of things that would stop me from
wanting to move forward with this.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F90
Page 86 of 88
Seal: Anybody else?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: You know, the whole time today I have been talking about density and --
Seal: It's a theme.
Yearsley: I -- this has been a thing. But I -- I think this is actually the spot to put the
density. You have got a lot of amenities close by that can support this density. I like the
product. I like the look. I like the fact that you are not seeing a sea of asphalt. My guess
is the only thing that I'm a little sad about it wasn't an In & Out Burger when I saw the
notice on the -- on the sign when I walked -- drove by the other day. I use Records a lot.
Most times when we come down and go eat downtown in this area we will go down Eagle,
but we will always come back through Records and I have never -- at this point have
never had an issue getting out on Records. So, I like how they laid this area out with
ACHD and I thought you couldn't top the -- your apartments to the north, but I think you
have -- you have done it on this one, so good job.
Seal: You know I, mean there is, you know, like any project, there is things I -- I don't
like, there is things I like, so I -- you know, this -- we do have a need for residences like
this and if you are lucky enough to live in one of these, the amenities are pretty nice for
sure, so -- I use Records a lot as well. I come in from the Ustick side of things, so that
used to be the secret way to get, you know, in there. The secret is out for sure. I have a
son that would argue that it's not just right-in, right-out, but he is wrong. So, there is
different parts of this that -- sharing the access there with CarMax, I -- that's probably
going to be problematic into the future, just because of the nature of it. I -- that's my
personal feeling on it. I mean when I first looked at this and saw how short the open
space was, you know, my first reaction, of course, was, well, there is no way that's going
to happen. But like Jon said being involved in the same meetings that determine the
criteria by which you meet that open space, I looked further into it and the open space is
27 percent. So, that's -- I mean if you look at a -- you know, anything else that's come
through here tonight, 15 percent is the -- is the minimum. So, they are at 27 percent
already and they are across the street from a park. Generally I'm not the person that's
going to give you credit for that, but it's a really big park. So, at least they are not trying
to take credit for being next to a school, which is my biggest pet peeve. You know, I mean
the --the density is -- is big, but the area can -- it's built for this kind of density. So, I mean
as far as the folks that are in, you know, the one acre plus estates over there, I sympathize
for that. My only comment is I wish that it was closer to this, because working with
Brighton and other places, especially south of the freeway there off of Eagle, I mean they
were actually able to go to ACHD and get bollards put in and, you know, help that -- help
that community that was there that has very similar issues. Unfortunately, ACHD is not
the best at, you know, putting these things together, but that's -- that's what we got at this
point in that community. So, hopefully, there is some resolution to some of that. But the
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F91
Page 87 of 88
project overall I think is a good project. I think it's well suited for the area and -- I mean it
will have an impact on it, as well as the rest of the growth that's happening throughout the
valley, but I mean Eagle Road and Fairview were built for this at this point, so I'm in favor.
Wheeler: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Wheeler, go ahead.
Wheeler: Yes, I -- I -- I think it's a sharp looking project. It will be almost like a flagship
project as is a lot of things around Fairview and Eagle; right? Everything from the
Mountain West Bank, to The Village, to -- to this project in and of itself and like most
developers they don't want to put their name on something unless it's going to be
something that's going to be a good benefit and give a good positive impact, so -- and
that shows everything from the design to like you are saying one or--four over one project
here with the parking and everything. My only -- my only concerns are just, once again,
just the pedestrian traffic and how to mitigate that. Everything else looks -- and also the
traffic that might happen to our -- to our friends over to the east side, would have the
larger acreages there, the estates, figuring out how to mitigate that, but that's more of an
ACHD thing saying, hey, this is what we have -- we have seen. That would be something
to -- to talk with them about vacating or to be able to do a widening or something along
those lines. This is outside of your guys' purview on it and I know that -- I know that this
area -- it's different; right? It's where people live. So, this is where they are at in the
evenings and they are gone usually in the morning, so to speak. So, you have different
traffic patterns on that side of things. But that would be -- that's -- I just know that the
Yard House and, you know, The Village in and of itself; right? Everything around there is
-- is a magnet for the evening activity. So, it's just going to compound on -- on a lot of the
activity there and around there, so -- and that's going to be night and that's just my only
concern is that there might -- that's just going to be more congestion around that site and
pedestrianwise at that. But beautiful project.
Seal: Anyone else? I will take a motion.
Grove: I got it. Mr. Chair?
Seal: Commissioner Grove, go ahead.
Grove: I guess before I make the motion, are the rest of Commissioners kind of on board
with the recommendations of the applicant in addition to the conditions provided by staff?
Seal: As far as deleting condition two and, then, modifying 4-M for alternative
compliance?
Grove: Correct.
Seal: Yep.
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. April 7,2022 F92
Page 88 of 88
Grove: Okay. All right. Mr. Chair, after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to approve file number H-2022-0008 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of April 7th, 2022, with the following modifications: That condition A-2
be stricken and that condition A-4-M is modified to allow alternative compliance to meet
the requirements.
Yearsley: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to approve File No. H-2022-0008 with the
aforementioned modifications. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed?
Yearsley: Mr. Chair?
Seal: Motion carries.
Yearsley: Oh, I thought you were --
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Seal: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we adjourn.
Seal: Is there a second?
Grove: Second.
Seal: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All in favor saying ayes. All right. We
are adjourned. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:18 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 1. 4
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Approve Minutes of the March 17, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission
Item 1. March 17,2022 F39
Page 35 of 35
Grace: I will second that.
Seal: It's been moved -- it's been motioned and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor
say aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you all.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:39 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
4 17 12022
ANDREW SEAL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Item 2. 40
E IDIAN
'aAHO
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Faissy's Child Care (H-2022-0002) by
Faissy Kwizera, Located at 1322 E. Grand Canyon St., Near the Southwest Corner of E. McMillan
Rd. and N. Locust Grove Rd.
Item 2. F41
CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ! ❑AHO
DECISION& ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to Allow Group Daycare,Located at 1322
E Grand Canyon St in the R-4 Zoning District,by Faissy Kwizera.
Case No(s).H-2022-0002
For the Planning& Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: March 17, 2022 (Findings on April 7,
2022)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 17, 2022, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 17, 2022, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts(see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 17, 2022,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code(see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of March 17,2022, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the"Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,"codified at Chapter 65,Title 67,Idaho Code(I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code,and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has,by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian,which was adopted April 19,2011,Resolution No. 11-7 84 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s)received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision,which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
upon the applicant,the Planning Department,the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). [file#H-2022-0002]
Page 1
Item 2. F
2
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of March 17,2022, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § I I-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant's request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of March 17, 2022, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two(2)Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit,when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two(2)years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time,the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting,the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two(2)year period in accord with UDC 11-513-617.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-513-6.F.1,the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one(1)two (2)year period.Additional time extensions up to two(2)years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions,the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Judicial Review
Pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-652 1(1)(d), if this final decision concerns a matter enumerated in Idaho
Code § 67-6521(1)(a), an affected person aggrieved by this final decision may,within twenty-eight
(28)days after all remedies have been exhausted, including requesting reconsideration of this final
decision as provided by Meridian City Code § 1-7-10, seek judicial review of this final decision as
provided by chapter 52,title 67, Idaho Code. This notice is provided as a courtesy; the City of
Meridian does not admit by this notice that this decision is subject to judicial review under LLUPA.
F. Notice of Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 67-6521(1)(d) and 67-8003, an owner of private property that is the
subject of a final decision may submit a written request with the Meridian City Clerk for a regulatory
takings analysis.
G. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 17,2022
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). [file#H-2022-0002]
Page 2
■
By action of the Planning&Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the 7th day
of April 12022
COMMISSIONER ANDREW SEAL, CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER NICK GROVE,VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER NATE WHEELER VOTED
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED
COMMISSIONER PATRICK GRACE VOTED
COMMISSIONER MARIA LORCHER VOTED
COMMISSIONER MANDI STODDARD VOTED
Andrew Seal, Chairman 4-7-2022
Attest:
Chris Johnson, City Clerk 4-7-2022
Copy served upon the Applicant,the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department,the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By: Dated: 4-7-2022
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT,CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION&ORDER
CASE NO(S). [file#H-2022-0002]
Page 3
'tem2. EXHIBIT A
STAFF REPORTC� fERID1AN,,,>-,COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 3/17/2022 Legend
DATE:
� Proje�'Lxa ar ,� h
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
--- E MCMILLAN RZ-D --- F
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 '
SUBJECT: H-2022-0002 7 Uri s
Faissy's Daycare I HALL
LOCATION: 1322 E Grand Canyon St,Meridian y i w- - -
E i
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional use permit for a group daycare for 7 to 12 children on 0.17 acres of land in the R-4
zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 0.17
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) SFR home
Proposed Land Use(s) SFR home with group daycare
Neighborhood meeting date;#of December,27 2021,no attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) AUP-2021-0002
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) No
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One access via E.Grand Canyon St.,local street
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed)
Pagel
Item 2. 45
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend
"
( g rtyrResidenfial feegend
IProjev' Lccafiar + I —L 1r. IP�aj�c}Lacaiian �fr. h
E=MCMILLAHIRD
4
ET R7Y '
} 25.
+
r"IR t:33
W� +slydiu
R{]C I{L►
Residential O L. ; -�oE_ �
V'1 -ft- . Ecr.4.a
E J �.''+ �eL �i"-
TAR.Lk
I L
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend I c{,— Legend
LLLUIF�ajec*Lcc❑nor RLIT I IWojec#Lflcaoar I Slr.,
C N u.S+.=.
L CWLLAhi,RD LLAH RD----
r — Planned Parcg's
RUT
I
R- I R-8
TT
f iL:iTTT
TR
RUTTM
SlAR — -- Z —R1
E I' --- R-8 �L I a w I 'E J
Z I ...
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Owner:
Faissy Kwizera— 1322 E Grand Canyon St..,Meridian,ID 83646
B. Representative:
Same as Applicant/Owner
Page 2
Item 2. 46
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper notification
02/25/2022
published
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 02/28/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
3/7/2022
on site
Nextdoor posting 02/28/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
MDR(Medium Density Residential)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
• "Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational
areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings."(2.01.01 C)
The existing and proposed daycare expansion is within walking distance of adjacent
residential homes. The owner is currently operating a daycare and watching up to six (6)
children.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing home and associated improvements on this property.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
A group daycare(for 7-12 children)is listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a conditional use in the R-
4 zoning district. The applicant states the daycare will operate from 7AM to 7PM on weekdays
with outdoor playtime limited to one hour after 9AM and one hour after 1PM.
E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
The specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9,Daycare Facility, applicable to the proposed
use are as follows:
A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of
daycare center; daycare,family; and daycare,group:
1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at
one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor.
The Applicant's narrative states the plan is to have up to 12 children. The applicant is
already operating a family daycare(6 children or less), but because they recently had a
baby this brings them from a family daycare to a group daycare. (A family daycare is
allowed as an accessory use in the R-4 zoning district)
2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe
discharge and pick up of clients.
Page 3
Item 2. ■
The applicant states they presently provide and will continue to provide the
transportation for the children. However, the subject house does have a parking pad
which is approximately 30 feet wide which could provide an additional parking space for
pick up or drop off. Parking spaces are also available along the curb in front of the
house if needed.
3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and
hours of operation as conditions of approval.
The Applicant proposes a group daycare for up to 12 children, with 7 children being the
anticipated number. The applicant proposes to operate between 7"to 7PM.
4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire
inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be
provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall
comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for
daycare facilities.
This has been listed as a condition of approval.
5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall
be between six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. This standard may be
modified through approval of a conditional use permit.
As mentioned above, the Applicant presently operates the family daycare 7AM and 7PM
on weekdays and this is not proposed to change.
6. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6)non-
scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting
properties.
The outdoor play area will be in the backyard, which is surrounded by a 6 ft. tall fence.
7. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6)high shall not be located in a front yard or
within any required yard.
All outdoor play activities will occur in a fenced backyard.
8. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be
used after dusk.
As mentioned, the daycare will operate from 7AM to 7PM. Outdoor play will occur one
hour after 9AM and one hour after IPM.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
Not Applicable
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access is provided via E. Grand Canyon St,a local road. The applicant has stated they presently
pick up and deliver all clients,and this will continue.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Parking exists on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a 4-
bedroom single-family dwelling.A total of 2 garage spaces and a 30 ft. wide parking pad outside
the garage can accommodate 5 spaces exists on the site. On-street parking is also available(see
exhibit in Section VII.A).
Page 4
Item 2. ■
I. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
A photo of the existing home on this property is included in Section VIII.C;no additions are
proposed with this application.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
VIII per the Findings in Section IX.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on March 17,2022.At the public
hearing.the Commission moved to approve the subject conditional use permit request.
1. Summary of the Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Eric avizuru
b. In opposition: Louis Pifher and Siegfried Sendig
c. Commenting: Eric ay zuru
d. Written testimony: Dedigamage Perera and Roger Letsom wrote letters in opposition.
e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach
f Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s)of public testimony:
a. Concerns were discussed including traffic,parking,a commercial use occurring in a
residential zone. safety and prohibitions on businesses per the CC&Rs.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. None
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
Page 5
Item 2. F49
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(dated: 3/7/2022)
Legend
a.
1 •� 1- " 4
- � a
• T
• • � Z �
t
}
e
T i
Page 6
• s,
� 1 -
'i•
t;
Page 7
Item 2. 51
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 Daycare
Facilities, including but not limited to the following:
a. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6')non-
scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting
properties.
b. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6')high shall not be located in a front yard or
within any required yard.
c. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be
used after dusk.
2. The maximum number of allowable clients at the facility at one time shall be limited to
twelve(12).
3. The daycare/pre-school shall not operate beyond the hours of 7:00 am to 7:00 pm on
weekdays.
4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire
inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and
Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities.
B. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=252183&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
C. NMID
https:llweblink.meridiancily.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=252435&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
IX. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit
The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Commission finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the R-4 zoning district.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
The Commission finds the proposed group daycare will be harmonious with the Comprehensive
Plan in that it will provide a much-needed service for area residents within walking distance of
homes within the neighborhood.
Page 8
Item 2. 52
3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
The Commission finds the operation of the proposed daycare/pre-school should be compatible
with the residential uses in the neighborhood and the existing and intended character of the
neighborhood and not adversely affect such.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
If the proposed daycare/pre-school complies with the condition of approval in Section VII as
required, The Commission finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in
the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,
water, and sewer.
Because the site is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary and has been annexed into the
City and these services are already being provided to the existing home, The Commission finds
the public facilities mentioned will be provided to the proposed use as well.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The Commission finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The present operation picks up and delivers children, and this will remain the same. There could
be occasional onsite pick up/drop off, but there is sufficient parking and the Commission finds it
would not be detrimental to the general welfare.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
The Commission is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features in this area; however,
finds the proposed use should not result in damage of any such features.
Page 9
E K IDIAN:---
iuAn
Planning and Zoning Presentations and outline
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting April 7, 2022
Item #4:PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONINGFLUM Pavilion at Windsong
History recorded and no construction has occurred on the property. on the site. The development agreement modification was never storage and commercial uses, and prohibited multifamily
-for the selfCouncil approved the development agreement modification only strongly recommended retail uses at the northeast corner of the site. storage use but -The Planning Commission
did approve the selfprovided in the area. schools, traffic, and desire for more neighborhood serving uses to be transition in density, height of buildings (3 stories), overcrowding
of family component in regard to -concerns discussed with the multiDuring the October 1, 2019 City Council meeting, there were service storage facility, office and retail uses.-family,
a self-multiModification and conditional use to allow a mix of uses including In 2019, the property was proposed for a Development Agreement
Item #5: Oaks North Rezone PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING Maps–
RezoneArea
Phase 12 Concept Plan
Item #6: Pinedale Subdivision PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING Maps–
Revised Preliminary Plat
Conceptual Elevations
Item #7: Summertown Subdivision AERIALZONING Maps–
Preliminary Plat
LandscapePlan
Approved Elevations
Item #8: Records Apartments Conditional Use Permit –
Site/Landscape PlanRevised Original
Qualified Open Space Exhibit OriginalRevised Not Approved–
Conceptual Building Elevations
Changes to Agenda: Amina’s Daycare (H-2022-0012) to be continued to April 21, 2022 Planning Commission due to
posting error.
Item #4: Pavilion at Windsong (H-2021-0102)
Application(s):
Development Agreement Modification (no action required from Commission)
Rezone
Preliminary Plat
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location:
The subject property is 4.77 acres and is presently zoned C-C. It is located at the northwest corner of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd.
The surrounding area is comprised of single family detached to the south, east and west, a commercial center directly across N. Linder
Rd to the east (Sawtooth Landing) and a newly developing mixed density residential development at the southeast corner of N. Linder
Rd and W. Ustick Rd (Lennon Pointe).
History:
In 2019, the property was proposed for a Development Agreement Modification and conditional use to allow a mix of uses including
multi-family, a self-service storage facility, office and retail uses. During the City Council meeting, there were concerns discussed with
the multi-family component in regard to transition in density, height of buildings (3 stories), overcrowding of schools, traffic, and desire
for more neighborhood serving uses to be provided in the area. The Planning Commission did approve the self-storage use but
strongly recommended retail uses at the northeast corner of the site. Council approved the development agreement modification only
for the self-storage and commercial uses, and prohibited multifamily on the site. The development agreement modification was never
recorded and no construction has occurred on the property.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation:
Mixed Use Community
Summary of Request:
This proposal is to rezone 3.42 acres of the subject property from CC to R-40, and a preliminary plat for 33 townhouse lots, 2 lots
for 2 vertically-integrated buildings with 6 residential units each (commercial and residential), and 1 commercial lot.
A conditional use is also required for townhouses in the R-40 zoning district.
As mentioned above, because specific details regarding development were not provided with the annexation, a development
agreement modification is required for any development of the site.
This proposal also included a request for private streets because some of the units front on a mew (approved by the Director).
Comp Plan and FLUM
The FLUM designates the property for Mixed Use Community.
The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into
the urban fabric.
Mixed Use is defined by elements such as three types of land uses, higher density near employment, being centered around
public spaces, and accessible.
Mixed Use Community additionally defines at least 20% residential, encouraging vertically integrated structures, and limitations to
a maximum 30,000 sq. ft. footprint.
Application reflects three types of uses, with the majority of the residential portion of the development clustered around a central
open space, and it is on a commercial arterial with a combination of office, commercial and residential.
Staff supports the vertically-integrated (VI) buildings, but is concerned about the loss of additional commercially-viable property if
the VI structures build out as townhouses, resulting in the development being only a residential development with a drive-through
establishment and not true mixed use.
As a condition of approval, staff recommends a requirement that at time of building permit, the ground floors of all vertically-
integrated buildings meet occupancy class requirements for commercial structures. Staff believes the applicant is amenable to
this requirement.
Also, staff believes the vertically-integrated structures would be more appropriate on the north side of W. Crosswind St. where
Buildings A and B are presently shown. This would better integrate with the commercial pad and reduce the impact of traffic in the
townhome portion of this development. Staff has recommended to the applicant that the VI structures be moved to this area, OR
additional VI buildings be located here. The applicant has not agreed to this recommendation.
At the time of the staff report, staff had concerns with the townhouse row indicated as “Building D” along the western property line
being as close as 30 feet from existing residences and the impact of a “wall effect” of these townhomes on the Windsong
Subdivision. Staff recommended Building D be broken into at least two groups of buildings. The applicant has submitted updated
drawings with this revision.
Access
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd., both arterials. There is an existing local
road, W. Crosswind St., which serves the adjacent Windsong Subdivision to the west and presently stubs to the subject property.
This development would include closing an existing access on N. Linder Rd and creating a new access from W. Ustick Rd.
approximately 250 ft. to the north. There is also a northern stub proposed to the property at the north, which is not presently in the
City.
The applicant has mentioned in their narrative that they are proposing a 3-way stop sign at the intersection of W. Crosswinds and
N. Wafting Ln, although this is not shown on the plans or mentioned by ACHD. ACHD has commented that traffic calming should
be provided in this area by way of a bulb-out. Staff has received a letter from a neighbor also requesting traffic calming in this
area. This should be addressed with the final plat.
Except for W. Crosswinds St, which would be a local street built to the typical section, all the remaining roads in this development
are proposed to be private roads. The preliminary plat reflects the private roads south of W. Crosswind St. meet the 24 ft.
minimum required width.
At the time the staff report was issued, staff mentioned the plat indicated the “alley” at the north side of the site did not meet the
requirements for an alley (dead-ends), it did not meet the 24 ft. private street width, and had too many units on it to be a common
drive. Staff suggested several solutions, including if Buildings A&B were converted to vertically-integrated residential projects
fronting along W. Crosswind St., the alley could be redesigned as a 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle. The applicant has since
designed the “alley” to meet the 24’ private street requirement, although N. Puff Ln still does not meet the minimum 24’ width to
qualify as a private street.
All parking requirements have been met, although the applicant should submit a shared-parking agreement between the
commercial use and the vertically-integrated buildings at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance.
Landscaping
The landscape plan shows a 25- foot wide street buffer as required adjacent to N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road although it
does not appear either landscape buffer meets the minimum landscaping standards of at least one tree per every 35 ft. Also, with
the staff report, due to the adjacent residential, staff recommended a 5 ft. wide landscape buffer to provide a better transition. The
revised drawings show this buffer.
Pathways
There are 7 ft. wide attached sidewalks existing along N. Linder Rd. and W. Ustick Rd. The Five Mile Pathway parallels the creek
at the west terminating at the subject property. This proposal initially included 10 ft. wide pathways along both N. Linder Rd and
W. Ustick Rd., connecting to the existing Five Mile Pathway.
Staff mentioned in the staff report the configuration as proposed was redundant and unnecessary. Staff recommended the
pathway along Linder be removed because there is already 7 foot sidewalk, the sidewalk along W. Ustick Rd be widened to 10 ft.
wide with the pathway shown directly south of Building H being eliminated, and the connection between the existing Five Mile
Creek Pathway and the W. Ustick Road Pathway being shifted further to the west. Updated drawings do show the pathway along
Linder removed but the other revisions do not appear to be made.
Also, staff does not prefer multiple pedestrian accesses from each building and recommends there shall be no more than one
walkway per building connecting to the pathways and sidewalks along W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
Elevations
Building elevations show townhouses comprised of materials consisting of rock, cement board and hardie board, lap siding, with
pitched roofs, exposed timber frame and trellis features, with stone bases. Windows are included on many of the garage doors.
The elevations demonstrate significant fenestration and modulation as well as a variety of roofline variation. Most buildings also
include first floor covered porches and second story decks.
Staff finds the elevations as proposed demonstrate high quality design, but as mentioned, the elevations of the vertically-integrated
structures reflect a townhouse design rather than a commercial business. If the Planning Commission and City Council believe it
important for vertically integrated buildings to include at least some portion of commercial use, as already mentioned, staff
recommends a condition that at time of building permit, the ground floors of all vertically-integrated units meet occupancy class
requirements for commercial structures.
Written Testimony: One letter has been received from Mike and Sandi Archibald. Their concern is regarding providing traffic calming
for Crosswind Street coming into their neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2021-0102, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 17, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2021-
0102, as presented during the hearing on March 17, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2021-0102 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #5: Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010)
Application(s):
Rezone
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 37.5 acres of land, zoned R-4 and R-8, generally located
northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way.
History: RZ-13-008; PP-13-013 (DA Inst. #114030972).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Medium Density Residential
Summary of Request: Request for a Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of including
five (5) additional building lots that were lost over the course of the previous 11 final plat phases of the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff
has confirmed the addition of five (5) building lots within this phase will keep the project consistent with the approved preliminary plat
from 2014. Because of this, there is no need for a new preliminary plat to be submitted—city code allows for later phases of a project to
include lots lost with previous phases so long as the total number of lots approved with the preliminary plat is not increased. However,
adding these additional lots within the existing R-4 zoning district is not possible as the minimum dimensional standards requirements
could not be met. Therefore, the applicant has requested the rezone to the R-8 zoning district.
Applicant is not proposing to change any of the previously approved road network. The proposed local streets and the stub
streets along the north boundary are shown in the same locations as before.
Applicant is proposing to increase the open space in this phase of the development compared to the existing approvals to
meet the latest open space requirements for the R-8 zoning district. According to their revised concept plan and narrative, the
Applicant is showing over 180,000 square feet of common open space for phase 12 which accounts for approximately 15% of
the gross area. This complies with the minimum open space requirements now required by UDC 11-3G-3.
Written Testimony: 4 pieces of public testimony submitted – Desire for rezone area to include more open space and an additional
pool for the overall subdivision. Additional questions/concerns regarding the HOA that the City does not have purview over.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval per the comments in the staff report.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number (H-
2022-0010), as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number (H-2022-
0010), as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number (H-2022-0010) to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
rd
Item #6: Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-0001) (continued from March 3)
Application(s):
Annexation and Zoning, and Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 1.22 acres of land, zoned RUT, located at along the railroad
corridor west of Ten Mile and at the terminus of Newland Street at the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision.
History: N/A
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community
Summary of Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat
for 9 detached single-family building lots and 2 common lots. Applicant has revised plat multiple times to address concerns noted within
th
the staff report – Staff report was analyzed against 10 lots but Staff submitted a Memo to the Commission on March 24 which has
specific recommended revisions to the conditions of approval based on the latest plat submitted. Applicant is proposing to construct
detached single-family dwellings at a gross density of 7.4 du/ac, an average lot size of 3,222 square feet and a minimum lot size of
2,257 square feet. Proposed use is a permitted use within the requested R-15 zoning district and all lots appear to meet UDC
dimensional standards.
Access is proposed via extension of W. Newland Street (an existing residential local street) into the site and is proposed to terminate
within the site as a full cul-de-sac. The existing access is from a private access across the Tenmile Creek to a previously private
segment of Pine Avenue to the northeast of the site. This access will be terminated upon development.
Tenmile Creek runs along the entire east property line and requires a 100’ total easement width (50’ on each side from centerline of
creek). The revised plat now depicts the Tenmile Creek irrigation easement along the entire east boundary as Staff previously
requested which further encumbers the buildable area of the property. Staff’s other concerns are as follows:
Analyzing project against MU-C designation versus adjacent MDR designation
Amount of buildable area once required cul-de-sac is placed within the site and how that affects the livability of the project
Difference between proposed lot sizes of this project and those within Chesterfield to the west
Number of driveways taking access from cul-de-sac
Can proposed elevations fit on submitted building lot sizes/configuration
Written Testimony: 13 pieces of testimony (as of 11am) all stating the same issues with the proposed project – too much density
which will impact traffic, safety, and not match existing development to the west.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subject applications with the conditions of approval noted.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2022-0001, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2022-
0001, as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0001 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #7: Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005)
Application(s):
Preliminary Plat, Private Streets (administrative approval)
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 13.8 acres of land, zoned TN-R (Traditional Neighborhood
Residential), located at 3104 N. Venable (SEC of Venable & Ustick).
History: H-2017-0142 (AZ, DA Inst. #2019-015427); A-2019-0118 (CZC & DES); A-2021-0025 (CZC & DES renewal).
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed-Use Community (MU-C)
Summary of Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single-family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3
common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential) and a request for
Private Streets through the multi-family portion of the project requiring only administrative approval—private street request made for
addressing purposes and requested by City departments. The minimum lot size proposed is 5,100 square feet for the single-family lots
and 18,988 square feet for the multi-family lots.
The subject site was annexed into the City of Meridian in 2019 with the Summertown Annexation (H-2017-0142) with the Traditional
Neighborhood Residential (TN-R) zoning district which allows multi-family residential projects as a principally permitted use. Therefore,
the Applicant was only required to obtain administrative approvals (Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review) to begin
construction on the multi-family portion of the project. However, the Applicant also included a small single-family component to the
project along the south boundary in order to comply with TN-R requirement of including two different housing types within the project.
Because of the inclusion of the single-family lots and a desire to place each multi-family building on its own lot, the Applicant has an
existing Development Agreement provision to subdivide the property prior to release of the first Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore,
the Applicant is submitting the subject preliminary plat application to meet the existing conditions of approval and create nine (9) single-
family lots along the south boundary. The expected development of the subject site is already outlined and conditioned via the previous
approvals and existing DA; many of the previous requirements will be checked for compliance at the time of final plat submittal.
All lots comply with the TN-R standards.
Proposed road improvements comply with previous approvals (one exception).
Access to the approved units is via extension of N. Venable Lane, a collector street, from W. Ustick Road to nearly the south boundary.
Access to the multi-family portion of the project is via a drive aisle connection to N. Venable in alignment with an existing multi-family
drive aisle on the west side of Venable (Crossfield Apartments) and two private street connections to a new local street near the south
end of the site, shown as W. Wrangler Street. W. Wrangler street is also the access for the proposed nine (9) single-family residential
lots along the south boundary. W. Wrangler is shown to be constructed with 5-foot detached sidewalks and a 33-foot wide street
section and stubbed to the east property boundary for future connectivity. This complies with City code and ACHD requirements, as
approved with previous applications. Upon analysis of the submitted plat, it appears N. Venable Lane is being shown as a 29-foot
collector street section for its entire length. Original approvals intended for Venable to be constructed as a 36-foot wide collector street
section from Ustick 245 feet south to the northern drive aisle connection. However, the road section shown on the plat was approved
by ACHD so they have approved it as a reduced street section for its entire length.
The proposed Master Pathways Plan (not adopted) depicts a pathway along the east side of the required Venable extension.
Submitted plat does not depict this pathway segment despite Staff presenting the issue during pre-application meetings. Despite not on
the approved pathways plan, Staff is requiring revisions to the plat to show this pathway on the east side of Venable Lane for future
connectivity to the south.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of subject Plat and the Director has approved the Private Street request.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number (H-
2022-0005), as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number (H-2022-
0005), as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number (H-2022-0005) to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #8: Records Apartments (H-2022-0008)
Application(s): CUP
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 9.95 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the NEC of N.
Records Way and E. Fairview Ave.
History: This property was annexed back in 2007 as part of the larger Meridian Town Center (aka The Village at Meridian)
development with the requirement of a DA. A conceptual development plan is included in the DA; however, future development of this
site is not tied to that plan.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-R (Mixed Use – Regional)
Summary of Request: A CUP is proposed for a MFR development, proposed to be constructed in 2 phases, containing one (1) 65’ tall
5-story structure with podium parking on the first floor & 472 apartment units above consisting of (84) studio, (208) 1-bedroom, (168) 2-
bedroom and (12) 3-bedroom units. The gross density of the proposed development is 47.4 units per acre which exceeds the maximum
density of 40 dwelling units to the acre in the MU-. However, Staff is amenable to a higher density for this area due to the urban nature
of this area provided the minimum UDC standards are met for the development.
Access is proposed from N. Records Way, a collector street along the west boundary of the site, and from a shared driveway via E.
Elden Gray St., a local street along the north boundary. ACHD is requiring a northbound dedicated turn lane on N. Records Way. The
UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available – this standard applies unless otherwise waived by City Council.
The Applicant intends to request City Council review of this matter.
A minimum of 822 off-street vehicle parking spaces are required with at least 388 of those being in a covered carport or garage. A total
of 813 off-street parking spaces are depicted on the revised site plan (with 477 of those covered) with 9 additional parallel spaces
proposed along the east boundary of the site after meeting with City staff to discuss the parking requirements.
There are specific use standards in the UDC that apply to MFR developments; a full analysis of compliance with those standards is
included in the staff report. Some of those standards pertain to private usable open space, common open space and site amenities.
A minimum of 80 s.f. of private usable open space is required per unit; the Applicant has requested Alternative Compliance to the
minimum standard to provide zero or a lesser amount as follows: zero (0) for studio units; 57-82 s.f. for 1-bedroom units and 60 s.f. for
3-bedroom units (89 s.f. is proposed for 2-bedroom units which meets the minimum standard) based on what they feel are
extraordinary site amenities coupled with innovative new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space and
facilities. The Director has approved the ALT request.
A minimum UDC open space standards require a baseline of 10% of the gross land area (i.e. 1 acre based on 9.95 acres) and outdoor
common open space based on the square footage of the units (i.e. 2.74 acres) for an overall minimum of 3.74 acres of qualified
common open space. Because this site is directly adjacent to Kleiner City Park to the north and has safe pedestrian access without
crossing an arterial street, this project is exempt from the additional open space requirements in UDC 11-4-3-27C.3. The plans as
submitted includes a total of 2.69 acres of common open space, which includes the street buffers along Fairview & Records which may
not qualify – only the areas outside of the required buffer along Records that are separated from the street by a berm or constructed
barrier at least 4’ in height, with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow pedestrian access, that are over 20’ x 20’ in area may be
approved through the CUP process – however, these areas are not ideal because they are adjacent to a very busy collector street and
internal driveway. Therefore, the total qualified common open space for the development is significantly below the minimum required.
Applicant intends to apply for ALT to the standard due to the site’s proximity to the City Park across the street to the north.
Site amenities from the quality of life, open space, recreation and multi-modal amenity categories are required based on the number of
units proposed. For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 amenities are required; for developments with more than 100
units such as this, the decision-making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
The following amenities are proposed: 1) a 9,624 s.f clubhouse with indoor amenities including a pet spa and fitness facility, and an
outdoor kitchen/grilling area, which count toward the quality of life category; 2) plazas with picnic areas with tables, benches and shade
structures, which count toward the open space category; 3) a swimming pool; snookball, cornhole and table tennis games; and multi-
use pathways along Records and Fairview, which count toward the recreation category; and 4) electric vehicle (EV) charging stations,
which count toward the multi-modal category. Other amenities are proposed as noted in the Applicant’s narrative. Off-site amenities
also exist in Kleiner City Park directly adjacent to this site to the north within walking distance that consist of a pedestrian circulation
system, splash pad, play structures, basketball court and bocce ball court. Staff finds the proposed amenities meet and exceed the
minimum standards.
A 10’ wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the PMP within the street buffers along Fairview & Records providing a
pedestrian connection to Kleiner City Park. Staff recommends the Applicant work with ACHD’s Planning & Projects group to see if a
pedestrian crossing can be provided to the north at the Records/Longwing intersection for pedestrian safety.
Conceptual renderings have been submitted for the proposed 5-story structure as shown. Final design is required to comply with the
design standards listed in the ASM.
Written Testimony: Tom and Liz Anthony concerns with traffic generated for this development.
Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation – response to the staff report. The applicant is requesting the deletion of condition #2,
acknowledging the need for Council waiver for the Records Way access and modification to condition 4m to seek ALT to
eliminate the baseline open space requirement.
Staff Recommendation: Approval with the conditions in the staff report that pertain
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2022-0008, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of April 7, 2022, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2022-0008, as presented during the
hearing on April 7, 2022, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2022-0008 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item 3. 53
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Amina's Daycare (fka Mulonge Daycare) (H-2022-0012) by
Godelieve Mulonge, Located at 4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave.
Application Requires Continuance
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare of up to 12 children on 0.145 acres of
land in the R-8 zoning district.
Item 3. F54
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Amina's Daycare (fka Mulonge Daycare) (H-2022-0012) by
Godelieve Mulonge, Located at 4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave.
A. Request: A Conditional Use Permit for a group daycare of up to 12 children on
0.145 acres of land in the R-8 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 3. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 4/7/2022 legend
DATE: Jt2 � fl
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission , LU
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 w; M
SUBJECT: H-2022-0012
Amina's Daycare w
LOCATION: 4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional use permit to operate a group daycare for up to 12 children on 0.14 acre of land in the R-
8 zoning district.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 0.14 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Use(s) SFR home
Proposed Land Use(s) SFR home with group daycare
Neighborhood meeting date;#of January 20,2022,no attendees
attendees:
History(previous approvals) AUP A-2020-0064 to allow for family daycare of up to 6
children
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) No
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State One access from S.Leaning Tower Ave.via. S.Locust
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Grove Rd.
Page 1
Item 3. 56
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
(Legend Lr— 0 Legend
P•aject Lc+ca;Lor — p fb_ ._z- Loco-on
} W
e
�MB_ I/U/ -
R s1 17tIaI 1A ': J . •Y 7
w '+7rcrrrtiooa as }}IIr
o _ IrJ z*
w density
Rlesidentilal sE ux
II ':
Zonninng,Map Planned DLelvelelop�ment Map
Legend L_LJ_� . _ Legend EL
I Fro"ec Loca=or ' � F-GJL-c#Lcoaia:n ----'
i Ca13f Umi+s
f
cc
LLI
7 a
W — PurradFo-uE= � � � >
RUT _-
47 fi rq n 47
r fit. i n 5
14—
-4
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Owner:
Godelieve Mulonge—4175 S. Leaning Tower Ave, ID 83642
B. Representative:
Same as Applicant/Owner
Page 2
Item 3. F57]
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning
Posting Date
Newspaper notification
published 03/22/22
Radius notification mailed to
property owners within 300 feet 03/21/22
Public hearing notice sign posted
3/28/2022
on site
Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /g compplan)
MDR(Medium Density Residential)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https:llwww.meridianciU.or /g comQplan):
• "Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare,grocery stores and recreational
areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings."(2.01.01 C)
The existing and proposed daycare expansion is within walking distance of adjacent
residential homes.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There is an existing home and associated improvements on this property.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The applicant is presently operating under an approved accessory use permit to run a family
daycare(6 or less children,AUP 2020-0064).A group daycare(7-12 children)is listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-2 as a conditional use in the R-8 zoning district.The applicant states the daycare
will operate from 6:30 AM to 7 PM on weekdays with outdoor playtime limited to one hour after
9AM and one hour after 1 PM.
E. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
The specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9,Daycare Facility, applicable to the proposed
use are as follows:
A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses,including the classifications of
daycare center; daycare,family; and daycare,group:
1. In determining the type of daycare facility,the total number of children at the facility at
one time, including the operator's children, is the determining factor.
The Applicant's narrative states the plan is to have up to 12 children. The applicant is
already operating a family daycare(6 children or less, which is allowed as an accessory
use in the R-8 zoning district), but wants to expand the use to allow up to 12 children.
2. On site vehicle pick up,parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe
discharge and pick up of clients.
Page 3
Item 3. ■
The applicant states they presently provide and will continue to provide the
transportation for the children. However, the subject house does have a parking pad
which is approximately 30 feet wide which could provide an additional parking space for
pick up or drop off. Parking spaces are also available along the curb in front of the
house if needed.
Staff has received several letters from adjacent property owners stating there has been
parking, traffic and safety issues from the existing daycare. Staff visited the site in the
afternoon on a weekday. At that time, staff only observed two cars in front of the house
and no other cars parked on the public street. Pictures have been included as part of the
exhibit.
3. The decision-making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and
hours of operation as conditions of approval.
The Applicant proposes an in-home group daycare for up to 12 children. The applicant
proposes to operate between 6:30 AM to 7PM.
4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire
inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code. Said proof shall be
provided prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. The applicant or owner shall
comply with all State of Idaho and Department of Health and Welfare requirements for
daycare facilities.
This has been listed as a condition of approval.
5. hi residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence,the hours of operation shall
be between six o'clock(6:00)A.M. and eleven o'clock(11:00)P.M. This standard may be
modified through approval of a conditional use permit.
As mentioned above, the Applicant presently operates the family daycare between 6:30
AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and this is not proposed to change.
6. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6)non-
scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting
properties.
The outdoor play area will be in the backyard, which is surrounded by a 6 ft. tall fence.
7. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6)high shall not be located in a front yard or
within any required yard.
All outdoor play activities will occur in a fenced backyard.
8. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be
used after dusk.
As mentioned, the daycare will operate from 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM. Outdoor play will
occur one hour after 9"and one hour after IPM.
F. Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
Not Applicable
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access is provided from S. Leaning Tower Ave.via S. Locust Grove Rd.According to the
applicant,they generally pick up and deliver the children,although occasionally it would be the
individual parent or guardian doing this. According to letters provided by residents,there are
Page 4
Item 3. 59
ongoing traffic,parking and safety issues associated with the daycare.As mentioned above, staff
did not observe these issues during a site visit.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Parking exists on the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for a 4-
bedroom single-family dwelling.A total of three(3) garage spaces and a 30 ft. x 20 ft.parking
pad exist which exceeds UDC standards. On-street parking is also available(see exhibit in
Section VILA). As mentioned above, citizens have commented there are ongoing parking issues
associated with the existing daycare.
I. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
A photo of the existing home on this property is included in Section VIII.C;no additions are
proposed with this application.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit with the conditions in Section
VIII per the Findings in Section IX.
Page 5
Item 3. F60
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(dated: 2/18/2022)
Ada County Assessor '{
10.9'
Main Level
1185.6 sf Second Floor
1551 .2 sf
m
-
Garage
ir
2.4 sf
w
22.2 . 4; Porch
15.8 sf
� 12+i
t d 7'
R6117160340
Page 6
Item 3. F61
IL
I
a a
- s s
t
h
Page 7
® El
B. Existing Residence Pictures
t?
NOW
IL
'• •e
Item 3. F63
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. Planning
1. The Applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-9 Daycare
Facilities,including but not limited to the following:
a. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot(6')non-
scalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and to screen abutting
properties.
b. Outdoor play equipment over six feet(6')high shall not be located in a front yard or
within any required yard.
c. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be
used after dusk.
2. The maximum number of allowable clients at the facility at one time shall be limited to
twelve(12).
3. The daycare/pre-school shall not operate beyond the hours of 6:30 AM to 7:00 PM on
weekdays.
4. The applicant or owner shall provide proof of criminal background checks and fire
inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11,Idaho Code prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all State of Idaho and
Department of Health and Welfare requirements for daycare facilities.
B. Ada County Highway District(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=254157&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
C. NMID
https:llweblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255745&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
IX. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit
The Commission shall base its determination on the conditional use permit request upon the
following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional
and development regulations in the R-8 zoning district.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian comprehensive plan and in accord
with the requirements of this title.
Staff ,finds the proposed in-home group daycare will be harmonious with the Comprehensive Plan
in that it will provide a much-needed service for area residents within walking distance of homes
within the neighborhood.
Page 9
Item 3. 64
3. That the design,construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and
that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
This is a small in-home day-care in which the single-family home is the primary residence of the
applicant. Staff finds the operation of the proposed in-home daycare should be compatible with
the residential uses in the neighborhood and the existing and intended character of the
neighborhood and not adversely affect such.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
If the proposed in-home daycare complies with the condition of approval in Section VII as
required, Staff finds the proposed use should not adversely affect other properties in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways, streets, schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,refuse disposal,
water, and sewer.
Because the site is within the City's Area of City Impact boundary and has been annexed into the
City and these services are already being provided to the existing home, Staff finds the public
facilities mentioned will be provided to the proposed use as well.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services
and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Staff finds the proposed use should not create any additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general welfare by
reason of excessive production of traffic,noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
The present operation picks up and delivers children, and this will remain the same. There could
be occasional onsite pick up/drop off, but there is sufficient parking and staff finds it would not
be detrimental to the general welfare.
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or
historic feature considered to be of major importance. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
Staff is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features in this area; however,finds the
proposed use should not result in damage of any such features.
Page 10
Item 4. 65
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Pavilion at Windsong (H-
2021-0102) by Kent Brown, Located at the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 3.42 acres of the subject property from C-C to R-40.
B. A Preliminary Plat on the entire 4.77-acre property to allow 33 townhouse lots, 2 lots for
vertically-integrated buildings containing a total of 12 residential units, and one commercial lot.
C. A Conditional Use Permit to allow townhouses in the R-40 zoning district.
D. A Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development
Item 4. F66
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 17, 2022 for Pavilion at Windsong (H-2021-
0102) by Kent Brown, Located at the Northwest Corner of W. Ustick Rd. and N.
Linder Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of 3.42 acres of the subject property from C-C to R-40.
B. A Preliminary Plat on the entire 4.77-acre property to allow 33 townhouse
lots, 2 lots for vertically-integrated buildings containing a total of 12
residential units, and one commercial lot.
C. A Conditional Use Permit to allow townhouses in the R-40 zoning district.
D. A Development Agreement Modification to allow the proposed development
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 4. ■
STAFF REPORTC�WE IDIANn-=-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 3/17/2022 Legend .
DATE:
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission I�11 ---
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 �J
z
SUBJECT: H-2021-0102
Pavilion atWindsong W-UST1CK-RD --
E-76
LOCATION: 1680 W.Ustick Rd. -=
E W - -
Z
I—Zi
W CL ,
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant proposes the following:
• Rezone of 3.42 acres of land from the CC zone to R-40 zone;
• Preliminary Plat on the entire 4.77-acre property to allow 33 residential lots,2 lots for 2
vertically-integrated buildings containing 12 residential units, and one commercial lot;
• Conditional Use Permit to allow townhouses in R-40 zoning district; and,
• Development Agreement Modification to enter into a new DA to allow the proposed
development.
Note: The Applicant is also applying for private streets in a portion of the project. This application
is reviewed and approved by the Director, Commission action is not required.Analysis of the
private street design is provided below in section V
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage IL 4.77 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use Community
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant
Proposed Land Use(s) Multifamily,Vertically Integrated Residential Project,
Commercial
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 33 residential lots,2 lots for 2 vertically-integrated
buildings, 1 commercial lot, 10 common lots
Phasing Plan(#of phases) One
Page 1
Item 4. F68
Description Details Page
Number of Residential Units(type 33 townhouses, 12 vertically-integrated units.
of units)
Density(gross&net) 9.4 du/acre
Open Space(acres,total 16.1%(0.77 ac)
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities Neighborhood Park, 10 ft.wide regional pathway
Physical Features(waterways, Five-mile creek floodway is at the southwest corner of the
hazards,flood plain,hillside) property to the south and west(but not on the property).
Creason Lateral traverses a small portion of the site at the
southwest corner.The lateral has already been piped in this
area
Neighborhood meeting date;#of November 29,2021 6—neighbors opposed W. Crosswind
attendees: St.being connected.
History(previous approvals) AZ-09-005,DA Inst# 11031366,Buyrite Apartments(H-
2018-0096);MDA H-2019-0092(not recorded),CUP H-
2019-0094
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
• Traffic Impact Stud es/no No
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access will occur from N. Linder Rd(arterial),W.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) Crosswind St(local)and N.Wafting Ln(northern stub).
Traffic Level of Service Better than"E"
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross A northern stub is provided(N.Wafting Ln)
Access
Existing Road Network W.Ustick Rd.,N.Linder Rd.,W.Crosswind St.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ N.Linder Rd.and W.Ustick Rd.have 7 ft.wide sidewalk.
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements Both W.Ustick Rd and N.Linder Rd are fully improved,
although the applicant will be required to install 25 ft.wide
landscape buffers.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ 115 mile to Settlers Park
size
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.6 miles from Station 2
• Fire Response Time <5 minutes
• Resource Reliability >80%
• Risk Identification 2
• Accessibility Acceptable
• Special/resource needs Aerial device will be needed
• Water Supply — 1,000 gpm per hour
• Other Resources
Police Service
No comments
Wastewater
• Comments • Flow is committed
Page 2
Item 4. F69]
Description Details Page
• Sewer must have at a minimum 3'of cover over top of
the pipe.This is not met at manhole SSMH A6.
• Water and sewer in parallel require a 30'easement.24'
road does not provide adequate space.
• Ensure no permanent structures(trees,bushes,
buildings,carports,trash receptacle walls,fences,
infiltration trenches,light poles,etc.)are built within
the utility easement.
• Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration
trenches.
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0
• Pressure Zone 2
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns • Eliminate the deadend water main in W Wind Gust Ln
by ending the water main at N Twister Ln and then
running water services to the remaining units off of W
Wind Gust Ln.
• Eliminate the deadend water main in W Whirl Wind
Ln by ending the water main at N Quall Ln and then
running water services to the remaining units off of W
Whirl Wind Ln.
• Eliminate the water main in the"drive through"within
the CC zoning.
• Eliminate the water main that is cutting through
Building B
• Connect water to the existing stub off Linder Road.
Grocery Store 1.5 mile+/-to grocery store and other goods and services.
Page 3
m
1 1 1
dhb
r'-
all
=1i�■ � IIII ->' i x
■
111.111151E=
■■■IrH�j�iMlhiaLp=c.r
i_ '��, toli-• �s•II■ IN II�;; �.MEN • F�. I! 1�l�
air
101 son
R.�..•-_
_imp ■ <.3?"�" =*• R ' T' - l...y:'
IF
■ ■
■2■ as � I■■2■■ as �
a
■
IIII
a aT II II 01
�::a4�� 1111111 =ill-a.
■
- Cd'a #■■II' 1 =�j'a \iia u',w�,l IIIII Yi
r ■ IIS+Io IIIII � _
• 1n!I° = IIII IIIII _
'I""'yy �C
'Ili■
. 11
MMPI 0" F N■■ _■ i ' r
_ 1111�"� 111�
■ttYrti■ riMl�Il■r.■ son
SO OR PR
■� ■ !!. ■N■■ �'�� a lid ■� ■
SOL
sll
M a
■ ' I p _� I III �
'+�l.i■ � fa�llii'� � t� � k�
■ ■ ■■■ far,; Ii ■ r Ii „�
.■r; ■■■ter■ ■ ■■■ —� .■NIS ■■■ I'
■■If�■r.:�■ ■■■�■■■■■■ ■■ ■■ I ■■ ■r �■ on
Item 4. F
1
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant/Representative:
Kent Brown—3161 E. Springwood Dr,Meridian,ID 83642
B. Owner:
Rama Group LLC— 1548 W. Cayuse Creek Cr, Ste 100,Meridian,ID 83646
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in
newspaper 3/1/2022
Notification mailed to property
owners within 300' 3/28/2022
Applicant posted public hearing
notice sign on site 3/7/2022
Nextdoor posting 2/28/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
The subject property is 4.77 acres and is presently zoned C-C. The property was annexed into the City
and zoned to C-C in 2009 (Inst. #110031366,JJA Land,AZ-09-005). At the time of annexation
approval, specific details for how the site was to develop were not provided. The recorded
development agreement requires those details to be provided when the property is subdivided.
In 2019,the property was proposed for a Development Agreement Modification and conditional use
to allow a mix of uses including multi-family, a self-service storage facility,office and retail uses.
During the October 1,2019 City Council meeting,there were concerns discussed with the multi-
family component in regard to transition in density,height of buildings(3 stories),overcrowding of
schools,traffic,and desire for more neighborhood serving uses to be provided in the area. The
Planning Commission did approve the self-storage use but strongly recommended retail uses at the
northeast corner of the site. Council approved the development agreement modification only for the
self-storage and commercial uses, and prohibited multifamily on the site. The development agreement
modification was never recorded and no construction has occurred on the property.
This proposal is to rezone 3.42 acres of the subject property from CC to R-40, and a preliminary plat
for 33 townhouse lots,2 lots for 2 vertically-integrated buildings with 6 residential units each
(commercial and residential), 1 commercial lot, and 10 common lots.A conditional use is also
required for townhouses in the R-40 zoning district. As mentioned above,because specific details
regarding development were not provided with the annexation, a development agreement
modification is required for any development of the site. This proposal also includes a request for
private streets because some of the units front on a mew.
Page 5
Item 4. F
2
A. Development Agreement Modification
The existing Development Agreement(DA) (Inst. #110031366,JJA Land,AZ-09-005)was
approved in 2009. At the time of annexation approval, specific details for how the site was to
develop were not provided. The recorded development agreement requires those details when the
property is subdivided. The terms of the existing DA are included below in Section VI.B. A legal
description and exhibit map subject to the new DA are included below in Section VI.A.
The Applicant desires to enter into a new DA to allow a development consisting of 33
townhouses on 33 lots,2 vertically-integrated buildings on two lots(12 residential units total),
and one 18,236 sq. ft. commercial lot with a 2,000 sq. ft. +/-building. The applicant has
submitted a preliminary plat, conceptual site plan, landscape plan and building elevations for all
proposed buildings. These will be included as part of the new development agreement.
B. Zoning
The property is presently zoned C-C. The applicant proposes to rezone approximately 3.42 acres
at the north and west to R-40 to allow townhomes. Townhomes are allowed in the R-40 zoning
district by conditional use. The applicant proposes to retain the remaining 1.28 acres+/-as C-C to
construct two 9,200 sq. ft.vertically-integrated buildings, each with 6 residential units as well as
commercial uses. The applicant also proposes an approximately 2,000 sq. ft. commercial building
at the southwest corner of W. Crosswinds St. and N. Linder Rd. Both of the uses are principally
permitted in the C-C zoning district.
C. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridiancitE.or /g compplan)
The FLUM designates the property for Mixed Use Community. The purpose of this designation is
to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the
urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including residential, and to avoid mainly
single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Employment opportunities for those living in and
around the neighborhood are encouraged.
The Comprehensive Plan describes components of what would be considered mixed use.
Elements pertinent to this proposal include:
• At least three types of land uses;
• Higher density residential development is encouraged when there is a potential for an
employment center;
• Mixed Use areas typically being developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an
annexation or rezone request, a development agreement;
• Transitional uses and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and existing low-or
medium-density residential development;
• Being centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi public centers of
activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and
amenities that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas
should be thoughtfully integrated into the development and further placemaking
opportunities considered; and,
• All mixed-use projects being accessible to adjacent neighborhoods by both vehicles and
pedestrians. Pedestrian circulation should be convenient and interconnect different land
Page 6
Item 4. 73
use types. Vehicle connectivity should not rely on arterial streets for neighborhood
access.
In addition,the Plan discusses the following additional pertinent requirements for mixed use
community:
• Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20%of the development area at gross
densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre;
• Vertically integrated structures are encouraged;
• Unless a structure contains a mix of both residential and office, or residential and
commercial land uses, maximum building size should be limited to a 30,000 square foot
building footprint. For community grocery stores, the maximum building size should be
limited to a 60,000 square foot building footprint;
The applicant submitted a conceptual plan as part of this application. The application reflects
three types of uses,with the majority of the residential portion of the development clustered
around a central open space. Two of the buildings(Buildings G&H) are proposed as
vertically-integrated structures. More than 20% of the development area is proposed as
residential at a gross density of 9.4 du/acre,A 2,000 sq. ft. commercial building with a drive
through establishment is also proposed(shown as a pad site). The development is connected
to adjacent neighbors through sidewalks, green spaces and the Five Mile Pathway.
Staff supports the inclusion of vertically integrated projects into this development. This is a
unique style of housing, is characteristic of a mixed-use development, and would provide
employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood. However, staff
believes the vertically-integrated structures would be more appropriate on the north side of
W. Crosswind St.where Buildings A and B are presently shown. This would better integrate
with the commercial pad and reduce the impact of traffic in the townhome portion of this
development.
Staff does have concerns that the vertically integrated buildings could build out in the future
as merely townhouses with no commercial component,resulting in this development being
only a residential development with a drive-through establishment. As the property is
presently zoned C-C, staff is also concerned about the loss of additional commercially-viable
property.As a condition of approval, staff recommends a requirement that at time of
building permit,the ground floors of all vertically-integrated buildings meet occupancy
class requirements for commercial structures.
The concept plans show a townhouse row indicated as"Building D"along the western
property line as close as 30 feet from existing residences. Staff does have concerns with the
impact of a"wall effect"of these townhomes on the Windsong No 2 Subdivision.As a
condition of approval, staff recommends Building D be broken into at least two groups
of buildings,with the break occurring approximately in the vicinity of Lot 19,Block 3 of
the Windsong Subdivision No 2.
D. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
• Encourage diverse housing options suitable for various income levels,household sizes,and
lifestyle preferences. (2.01.01)
This development proposes 33 townhouses and 12 residential units within vertically-
integrated buildings. This would increase the housing diversity in the area.
Page 7
Item 4. 74
• Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide
for diverse housing types throughout the City. (2.01.01G)
This development proposes townhouses and vertically-integrated residential units within an
area comprised of a large amount of single family detached to the south, east and west, a
commercial center directly across N. Linder Rd to the east(Sawtooth Landing) and a newly
developing mixed density residential development at the southeast corner off. Linder Rd and
W. Ustick Rd(Lennon Pointe).
• Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water,
sewer,police,transportation, schools,fire, and parks(3. 02.01 G).
All public utilities are available for this project site due to existing facilities abutting the site.
This project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal of 5 minutes. Linder and
Ustick Roads are currently built at their ultimate anticipated widths directly abutting the site.
• Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity(2.02.01D).
As will be discussed below, sidewalks are included on both sides of the public roads (W.
Crosswind Street and the northern stub) but only sections of the private roads include
sidewalk. Staff does not object because the development is aligned around a central open
space and other green spaces in such a manner that all portions of the development and
surrounding neighborhoods can be accessed by foot with a minimum of walking in the private
streets. The applicant is also providing a 10 ft. wide pathway connecting to the Five-Mile
Pathway.
• Encourage infill development. (3.03.01E)
The subject property is located on an arterial intersection, and is surrounded by the City of
Meridian to the east, west and south. Land uses in the area include detached single family,
multifamily (Lennon Point Community to the southeast) and multiple office buildings directly
across N. Linder Rd to the east(Sawtooth Landing). This would be considered an infill
development.
• Encourage and support mixed-use areas that provide the benefits of being able to live, shop,
dine,play, and work in close proximity,thereby reducing vehicle trips, and enhancing overall
livability and sustainability. (3.06.02B)
As this development is comprised of three different uses, including vertically integrated
residential buildings, it would be considered a mixed-use development. Numerous
commercial uses are within a mile of the property.
E. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
The property is currently vacant.
F. Proposed Use Analysis:
Townhouses are allowed by conditional use in the R-40 zoning district and vertically-integrated
structures are a principally-permitted use in the C-C zoning district. Although it has not been
determined what type of future use would occur on the commercial lot at the southwest corner of
W. Crosswinds St and N. Linder Rd,the concept plan suggests a drive through establishment. If
this drive-through is proposed in the future, it will require the approval a conditional use permit.
Page 8
Item 4. 75
G. Specific Use Standards(UDC 11-4-3):
UDC 11-4-3-41 requires vertically integrated residential projects to be at least two stories,with at
least 25%of the gross floor area being residential.None of the required parking is to be located in
the front of the structure. The minimum footprint is 2,400 sq. ft.,and the specific use standards
lists the types of uses that are allowed.
The site plan and building elevations reflect two 9,200 sq ft. +/-three-story vertically-integrated
buildings fronting W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd,with parking provided within the
development,not in front of the buildings.
As mentioned above, staff believes the vertically-integrated buildings would be more appropriate
on the north side of W. Crosswind St. verses located at the southwest portion, directly on the
intersection.This would allow the mixed-use buildings to provide a better transition between
commercial and residential uses,promote better walkability with the residential to the west, and
minimize traffic in the townhome area.
Also,based on the building elevations submitted, staff is unsure what is being proposed is
"vertically integrated residential buildings"as much as additional townhouses or a"work/live"
arrangement that could remain entirely residential. As a condition of approval, staff recommends
a requirement that at time of building permit,the ground floors of vertically-integrated buildings
meet occupancy class requirements for commercial structures.
The concept plan suggests a drive through establishment. As it will be within 300 feet of a
residential zone district, a drive through establishment in this location will need approval through
a conditional use permit per UDC 11-4-3-11.
H. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The R-40 zoning district requires a minimum lot size of 1,000 sq. ft.,25 ft. wide landscape
buffers along arterial roads(W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.)a 10 ft. street setback from local
streets(W. Crosswinds St.), internal side setbacks of 3 ft. rear setback of 12 ft. and allows
building heights of up to 60 ft. The C-C zoning district has the same landscape buffer requirement
and limits building heights to 50 ft. Staff notes it does not appear the 10 ft. landscape buffer
requirement is met along W. Crosswind St in the location of the commercial pad.
In the area proposed for R-40,the preliminary plat indicates lot sizes of at least 1,600 sq. ft.,all
setbacks are satisfied,the buffer is shown on the landscape plan, and the heights of the
townhouses do not exceed 35 ft. The building elevations of the vertically-integrated buildings
appear to be within the 50 ft. height limitation,although it is not specified on the elevations.
Design will be assessed in detail at time of design review or certificate of zoning compliance.
I. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd.,both
arterials. There is an existing local road,W. Crosswind St.,which serves the adjacent Windsong
Subdivision to the west and presently stubs to the subject property.
The sections of N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Rd abutting the subject property are improved
with 5-travel lanes, curb, gutter, and 7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk. Both presently
operate at a Level of Service"E",which is considered acceptable.W.Ustick Road is scheduled to
be widened to 5-lanes from Ten Mile Road to Linder Road in 2024. Design for widening N.
Linder Rd. to 5-lanes from Cherry Road to Ustick Road is planned for 2025, although a
Page 9
Item 4. 76
construction year is not in the IFYWP at this point. ACHD has noted this development is
estimated to generate 341 vehicle trips per day.
This development would include closing an existing access on N. Linder Rd and creating a new
access from W.Ustick Rd. approximately 250 ft.to the north. This would occur by extending W.
Crosswind St. across the subject property to N. Linder Rd.Although ACHD typically discourages
new local streets from intersecting arterials,ACHD supports the connection noting it would
provide additional access for emergency services and circulation for the site and existing
subdivisions located north and west of the site. There is also a northern stub proposed to the
property at the north,which is not presently in the City.
Except for W. Crosswinds St,which would be a local street built to the typical 33-foot wide local
street section, all the remaining roads in this development are proposed to be private roads.The
preliminary plat reflects the private roads south of W. Crosswind St.meet the 24 ft. minimum
required width. Required findings for private roads are discussed in the findings in Section IX.
On the north side of W. Crosswind St.,the plat indicates a private alley(east-west) and N. Puff
Ln(north-south).Neither of these roadways meet minimum requirements.Alleys need to connect
on both ends to serve as fire lanes,whereas the alley that is shown north of Buildings A&B
dead-ends to the east. Also,N. Puff Ln is shown to be 23 ft. in width whereas 24' ft is the
minimum. The applicant should revise this portion of the plat to meet the requirements of UDC
11-6C. This could be done by widening the alley and N. Puff Ln to at least 24 ft. in width, or
converting the"alley"to a common drive and removing units to comply with the maximum
allowed number of units allowed per UDC 11-6C-3-D (4 total,with no more than 3 on one side).
The applicant should note if Buildings A&B were converted to vertically-integrated
residential projects fronting along W. Crosswind St.,the alley could be redesigned as a 25-
foot wide commercial drive aisle as long as it met the requirements of UDC 11-3C-5.This
would increase the commercial uses desired in the area. If the applicant is amenable to this
request, staff would recommend that the concept plan be modified prior to the City Council
hearing.
NOTE: If additional Vertically Integrated Residential is proposed at the north,it will
require the applicant to submit revised legal description to reduce the proposed R-40 zoned
area because vertically-integrated residential projects are a conditional use in this zone.
J. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
For townhouses of 2 bedrooms or less,2 parking spaces are required, at least 1 in an enclosed
garage. For townhouses of 3-4 bedrooms,4 per dwelling unit is required,with two of them being
in an enclosed garage. Parking for vertically integrated residential units ranges from 1 to 4
parking spaces depending on the number of bedrooms(not required to be covered)in addition to
one space for every five hundred(500) square feet of gross floor area for the commercial portion.
The site plan and elevations reflect all townhouse units are wide enough to have 2-car garages,
and most have a pad in the front that meets minimum dimensional requirements for 2 cars(20 ft.
by 20 ft.). Buildings A and B on the north side of W. Crosswind St. do not have pads that meet
the minimum requirement to be counted as parking and therefore should be no more than 2-
bedrooms each. There are 8 additional parking spaces shown on either side of the central open
space to account for guest parking.
The commercial lot indicates a building of approximately 2,000 sq. ft.,which would require 4
parking spaces; 11 parking spaces are provided at the west and south sides of the building. The
12 vertically-integrated units would require at least 12 parking spaces if all residential units were
one bedroom,but the commercial spaces will also require parking spaces based on the amount of
gross floor area dedicated to commercial. The elevations show all vertically-integrated units
Page 10
Item 4. ■
contain a two-car garage with 14 additional parking spaces provided directly adjacent to an across
from the buildings. A shared-parking agreement between the commercial use and the vertically-
integrated buildings should be submitted at time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC).
Parking will be reviewed in detail at time of certificate of zoning compliance or building permit.
K. Pathways ( UDC 11-3A-8):
There are 7 ft.wide attached sidewalks existing along N. Linder Rd. and W.Ustick Rd. The Five
Mile Pathway parallels the creek at the west terminating at the subject property. This proposal
includes 10 ft. wide pathways along both N. Linder Rd and W. Ustick Rd.,connecting to the
existing Five Mile Pathway.
Staff supports providing multiuse pathways but finds the configuration as proposed redundant and
unnecessary. At the east along N. Linder Rd.,the plans propose a 10 ft. wide pathway directly
adjacent to the existing 7 ft.wide sidewalk. Similarly,the applicant proposes to provide a 10 ft.
wide pathway slightly offset from the existing sidewalk on W.Ustick Rd. In order to reduce
impervious surfacing,unnecessary construction and increase landscaping,staff believes it is
unnecessary to provide the additional pathway along N.Linder Rd and that the existing 7
ft.wide attached sidewalk should remain. The sidewalk along W.Ustick Rd should be
widened to 10 ft.wide,the pathway shown directly south of Building H should be
eliminated, and the connection between the existing Five Mile Creek Pathway and the W.
Ustick Road Pathway should be shifted further to the west(this has been red-marked on the
concept plan shown in Exhibit IX).Also,staff has concerns with the multiple walkways
connecting Buildings G and H to the pathways.For less conflict points,staff recommends
the plans be revised to include only one walkway connection to the pathways from each
building.
L. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
This proposal includes private streets within this development except for W. Crosswind St
(collector)and what is shown as an alley at the northern perimeter or the property.UDC 11-3F-4
does not require sidewalks along private street streets in residential areas.Although the concept
plan shows only portions of the private streets contain 4 ft. wide sidewalks,the development is
clustered in such a way that pedestrian access is possible throughout the development by either
pathways, sidewalks or across green space without the need to walk in the street.
5 ft. wide sidewalks are provided along both sides of W. Crosswind St.,and the stub street to the
north. As discussed in the pathways section above, 10 ft. wide multi-use pathways are being
provided along W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
M. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
No parkways are proposed with this development.
N. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to N. Linder Road and W. Ustick Road. Buffers
are required to be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC I I-3 B-7C. UDC 11-3B-7 requires
all residential subdivision street buffers to be on a common lot,maintained by a homeowners'
association. Pathways are required to be landscaped with a landscape strip a minimum of five(5)
feet wide along each side of the pathway. It does appear landscape buffers of at least 25 ft. in
width are provided along both arterials although they are not dimensioned. However, it does not
appear either landscape buffer meets the minimum landscaping standards of at least one tree per
every 35 ft. as there are long sections of arterial buffer without trees. It is also ambiguous
regarding whether a common lot(s)has been included for the entire length of both landscape
buffers,particularly along the N. Linder Rd frontage.
Page 11
Item 4. 78
The concept plan as submitted indicates an alley or private drive directly abutting the
residentially-zoned parcel to the north. To provide buffering and a softer transition,staff
recommends a 5 ft.wide landscape buffer in this area,landscaped as required by UDC 11-
313-8.
O. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
As the property is less than 5 acres in size,it is exempt from required qualified open space.
However,the applicant has provided an open space exhibit, and the plat indicates 16%of
qualified open space is provided. This includes a 9,500 sq. ft. central open space with a gazebo,
although it appears some of what is shown as"qualified open space"does not meet the minimum
dimensional requirements,such as parking spaces included into the exhibit.
P. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
As mentioned above,the property is less than 5 acres in size so it is exempt from the qualified
open space requirements. Townhouses (each unit on an individual lot) are considered single
family residential, so the multifamily amenity requirements do not apply. However, an
approximately 9,500 sq. ft. central open space is provided with a gazebo.As one of the objectives
of the Mixed-Use Community designation is for open spaces to be centered around spaces that
are well-designed public and quasi-public centers of activity,at time of CZC or plat public
accessibility should be specified in the CC&Rs,maintenance agreement or property owner's
association agreement.
Q. Waterways(UDC 11-3A--A):
The Creason Lateral traverses a small portion of the site at the southwest corner. The lateral has
already been piped in this area, and it is within a common lot on the Plat.
R. Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Public utilities will be provided from the Windsong Subdivision to the east. A public utilities plan
was submitted with this development. The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized
irrigation system for the development in accord with 11-3A-15.
S. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Building elevations has been submitted with this application. The elevations show townhouses
comprised of materials consisting of rock, cement board and hardie board,lap siding,with
pitched roofs, exposed timber frame and trellis features,with stone bases.Windows are included
on many of the garage doors. The elevations demonstrate significant fenestration and modulation
as well as a variety of roofline variation. Most buildings also include first floor covered porches
and second story decks.
Staff finds the elevations as proposed demonstrate high quality design,but the elevations of the
vertically-integrated structures reflect a townhouse design rather than a commercial business. If
the Planning Commission and City Council believe it important for vertically integrated
buildings to include at least some portion of commercial use, as already mentioned, staff
recommends a condition that at time of building permit,the ground floors of all vertically-
integrated units meet occupancy class requirements for commercial structures.
Page 12
Item 4. 79
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone,preliminary plat,development agreement
modification and conditional use permit with the provisions as noted in Section VII.A per the
findings in Section IX of this staff report.
Page 13
Item 4. F80
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit
Le-gal Description
PAIN Subdivision Prop" Rezone—R-40
A parcel located in the SE Ya of the SE'/d of Section 35. Township 4 North, Range 1 Writ, Boise
Meridian..Ada County. Idaho. arid more particurarly desObed as follows:
Commencing at a Brass Cap monument rnarkrng the southeast corner of said 5E 1/4 et the SE
V..from which a 5/0 inch rebar marking the southwest corner of the 6E l of said Section 35 bears
N Sg°14'45-VV a distanw of 2643.85 feet;
Thence N 89'14'46" VV aloog the southerly boundary of said SE 'It of the SE 'K8 a distance of
244.80 feet to the POINT OF BMNNING.
Thence continuing N 59`14'45' VV song the southerly boundary of said SE Y< of the SE N a
distance of 145.20 feet to a point,
Thence leaving said southerly boundary N 0'1519' E along the easterly boundary and the
extension thereof of indsong Subdivision No_2 as shown in Book 100 at Plats an Pages 13M
thru 13024, records of Ada County, Idaho, a distance of 657.50 feet to a 518 inch rebar marltirr-g
t#re northeast corner c)f said tiNkndsong Subdmwin No. 2
Thence leaving said easterly boundary S 99c31'02" E a distance of 369.94 feet to a point on the
easterly boundary of said SE '1/d of the SE'/,I
Thence S 0"15'0+4" VV aioog said easterly boundary a distance of 125.00 fret to a paint;
Thence leaving said boundary N 89`3V02"W a distance of 231 914 feet to a point:
ThencL-S 0"28'58"bV a distance of 121.50 feet to a paint;
Thence S 80°31 02" E a distance of 47.21 feet to a paint of curvature;
Thence a distance of 42.30 feat along the arc of s 27.00 foot radius curve right, said curve ha%nnq
a central angle of W46'05"and a long chord bearing S 44°37'59' E a distance of 38.1 1 feet to a
point of tangency;
Thence S 0"1604"W a distance of 223.18 feet to a Point;
Thence N 90'00VT VV a diatatce of 87 15 fleet tc a point
Therice S 0000'00"VY a distance of 160.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 3.42 acres and iT,subject to any easements G1
existing or in use. r�
Clmtan W. Wanseri, PLS
Land Solutions. PC
aacember 14,2021 OF
Page 14
Item 4. F8_1
PAW SUBDIVISION
REZONE EXHIBIT
UWFLATIE4
5&9'31'42'E 389.94'
ry
W. CRMS00 5T. 231.9+'
—-�- 584'31•d2'�
LAlra
47.21'
' DF C-C t4NE
o r
" R-0 2M 53
3.42 ACRES w
I r o
W
a ea f.
87-15'
S9[S'Q4'Od�
dpin
cc
o �
i
�2s3.S5' 14&20' 4,84' 35 J6
PORT OF �E IHWIHO ���S OF VEARING POINT 4F 9EUMING
R-40 2OW C 24NE
0 50 100 200
CURVE TABLE dlutirj
CURE LENGTH RADIUS DELTA BEARING I CHORD � allrVVjft and Consulting
'JAI L 5TN gT STE F
CI 4 _�D 27.44' 99`A6'OS' N+#'37'S9"i4 3�11• s.wr, o aWu
",M,'M.2y4} f279J 2B9-Y=rl�
- x.r.rrcuuy 6a
Page 15
Item 4. F
2
B. Preliminary Plat Legal Description(date: 9/23/2021)
Legal Description
PAVIY Subdivision
A pared located in the SE IA of the SE-,,,of Section 35,Towtlship 4 Noah, Range 1 Wast, Boise
Meridian.Ada County, Idaho. and more particularly described a5 follows,.
CnrnmencinQ at a Brass Cap monument marking the southeast corner of said SE 'le of the SE
A from which a 516 inch rebar marking the southwest corner of the 5E'f said Section 35 beam
N 89'14'45"VV a distance of 23 35 feet;
Thence along the southerly houndary of safd SE '/, of the SE % N 69`14 45" VV a distance of
390.00 feet to a point.
Thence leaving said southerly b❑undary N 0"15:19' E a distanw of 45 00 feet to a paint on the
northerly right-of-way of VV. Ustick Road and the POINT OF BEGINNING,
Thence coQntrming N 0"151R' E along the easterly boundary and the extension thereof of
indsong Subdivision No, 2 as shown in Book 100 of Plats on Pages 13022 thru 13024, records
of Ada County, Idaho, a dlstaoce of 61112.60 teetto a 51e inch rebar marking the northeast comer
of said Windsong Subdivision No. 2:
Thence Ieaving said easterly boundary S 89'31'02' E a distance of 344.93 feet to a point orf the
westerly right-af-way of N. Linder Road;
Thence along sasb westerly right-of-war the fallowing described murses:
Ttlerice S 0°t 5'0.!V"VV along a line being 45.00 feet westerly of and parallel to the easterly
boundary of said SE'b of the SE '/4 a distance of 291A6 feet i4 a point;
Thence S 7-22'34"W a a stanne of 96.75 feet to a paint;
Thence S 0'15'W VV along a line being 57 00 feet westerly of and parallel to the easterly
boundary of said SE'/.of the SE'/4 a distance of 191.60 feet to a point;
Thence S 45`30'09'W a distance of 49.28 feet to a point on the northeeiy 6ghl�f-way of
VV- ltsttck road;
Ttrenca along said northarly right-rf-way, being 48-00 Feet northerly of and parallel to the soutd,eriy
boundary of said SE 'f4.of the 5E '1¢, N 89°14'46'W-3 distance of 297 99 feet to the PRINT OF
BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 4.77 acres and is sublectto any easernests o�KL LA NN ,
existing or in use. $T�7 p
a {
a 11118 M
Clinton V11. Hans en. PLS ,
Land Solutions, PC -Y
September 23, 2021 PO VJ
Page 16
Item 4. F
3
C. Existing Development Agreement
5, CONDITIONS GOVERNING DIE ELOPMENT OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
5.1. Owner/Developer shall develop the Property in accordance with the
following special conditions.
1. Future conStruetion and development of the site shall comply with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the objectives and guidelines of the
Meridian Design Manual in effect at the time of development.
2. Certificate of Zoning Compliance, Design Review and Altemative Compliance
applications are rewired if the applicant proposes a change of use for the
existing single family home to a non-residential use.
3. One(1)Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) may be issued for the
portion of the property that is located south of the right-in/right-out access
point to Linder Road provided the existing home is removed. Additional
CZ.C°s shall not be issued until a concept plan is suhrnitted and approved
for the subject property.A concept plan shall be reviewed)with a future
DEVEWPMENT AGREEMENT—JJA AWFxATION(AZ 09-005) PAGE 3 OF I I
Page 17
Item 4. F
4
preliminary plat applicatiorr_ The following requirements shall apply to the
development of the parcel:
a. coordinate,design and cnnstructthe extension of W. Crossroad Street
(public street) to Linder Roars and stub a public street to the
undeveloped parcel to the north(# G435449905)with ACHD and the
City of Meridian.
b. }provide a 5'public accesslreereational casement in favor-of the City of
Meridian measured from the back edge of 7-foot wide attached
sidewalk starting at the western edge of the existing access on Ustick
Road and continuing to the east property line,
c. depict a 25-foot wide landscape casement along Ustick road and
Linder road,
4. At the time of development for either portion(north or south)of the property,
the applicant shall construct a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway beginning on
the western edge of the existing access to Ustick Road, proceeding
northinorthwest connecting to the existing service road on A HD°s drainage
site located at the wesiem boundary_ An easement shall be provided for
public access to and maintenance of the pathways; contained within an
easerent agreement or noted on the plat. The City will not assume
maintenance of the pathway until it connects from one major arterial road to
another, unless otherwise agracd to by the Parrs& Recreation Department.
5, The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining a Flocdplain Development
Permit and secure approval prior to any construction beginning on the site_
6. Development of the subject property shall comply with the U-Cr standards
listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and the allowed uses in Table 11-2H-2.
7_ All future development of the subject property shall comply with City of
Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development.
8. The applicant shall be responsible for all cosh associated with sewer and
water service installation.
9. The applicant shall construct a 5-foot pathway within the subject property
providing int=onnwivity to the 10-foot pathway planned for the party
along Ustick ]load, The applicant shall provide a pedestrian circulation plan
for review and approval by the planning Department with the submission of a
concept plan or the first CZC application.
Page 18
Item 4. F
5
D. Preliminary Plat(date: 9/22/2021)
+x+"TED o
r i�] r LI r xc7P �� R7+ ;prr IJ� �lor we T may•
, T L
rwrf I.lm I.M VAN LIIY 1J1�` '�,� .�g��,. r�.•' `� }
N.
x
` rs, w I ] If
1 I�— r. c I
R I
_,j } 3 II
J
�H i�'21 y I ~
8L IIILDl G=_ xo j
IC ��•... fiuo e � , 1
i �S
rw�Ar L I
,flf/''
I i«n F,
BU Lol G= i
I • , -. I � � � I � II
3&r h® llrl 1AP -JW ROW
It
6
401514'E
+ 15'. FJIr'I
1 Y •aes w�- ` �
�:f �GN �P T.'sTIG�C
.--"-� 15
........... -..,�r�
e F•�
Page 19
Item 4. F86]
E. Concept Plan—Remarked(date: 12/20/2021)
a,
'` ❑'.
z.;
CROSSWINDS STREET CROSSWINDS STRE. 74
EDINGTON COMMONS
- I -
i R-15 ZONING
i E
u Only one walkway i pathway
D G _ connection per building
k ■ SAWTOOTH LANDING OFFICE
CONDOMINIUMS
CD
Staff recommends this4r
CC
pathway segment be t CC ZONING
removed F z
H J
Connection b-o provided here -
Page 20
Item 4. F87
F. Landscape Plan(date: 9/9/2021)
1 t 1
1
' M 1
� f I - II 1 I
IT
21"1 '.E-- �._., .��.sJ• cv. 7r�nA 73.,�,. ' II 1 I Er, 1
1 I ftil ';
I E Ma ,
S+f,
-•I 'I
* I
Eh T
+ P J FJLOGIf 3 1
1 4 ❑'IVETHRGUGH
I¢r '? s --4a _ — � s • F3 F Ft4:sr, # I li 1
-IFF.
' r 595 , t• as — '_
P.aT� +°°'
I�
I
I
1 I �° •mot - -�e � J — Ifr I Y
M I
H �- �
Page 21
Item 4. F
8
__4mr
L7-i—l
nms
4
a !.
f
! Fm . I e +
f I - 4 •�'J �r I �� I
1 �I•� r[
� -
}
} 1 C � I �I •11 I 1 I ix V,L
, n I
4c x 3,7 III,
E -:IT-
14
r1 b.,, ----
SE81'E EASE.'
-
_I REALIG.4MEl%7 EASEMENT
W UST CK 1?,r,
-- — — — -
Page 22
Item 4. F89
G. Building Elevations: 12/20/2021)
C ;�r :: �w
BUILDING 'AEl ffn
FFCiNT ELEVATION
dtt T- —' ter; — _— ❑o kL
� , i�
� '000 � eeoo� ee' ��� >3�
�. i� of ❑� ,
KEAK ELEVATION
rr-7
u
L Ef7 ELEVATION I I hT ELEVATION
Page 23
Item 4. 90
_ -t �g
le
oil
BUILDING 'C'
BUILDING 'D'
Page 24
Item 4. 91
Vertically Integrated Building Facing Linder Rd
looms
mom ME
BUILDING 'G'
Vertically Integrated building facing Ustick.
- ■■ mom
■■long INmom-
1 �,1� ` �■ \
lot
11
BITILDING
Page 25
Item 4. 92
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Prior to approval of the rezoning ordinance, a new DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian,the property owner(s) at the time of rezone ordinance adoption, and the developer.
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 rezoning and DA modification. The DA shall, at
minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
a. Future development of the site shall be generally consistent with the conceptual site plan,
landscape plan, and elevations submitted with the rezone application contained herein.
b. At time of building permit,floor plans shall be submitted that indicate the ground floors of all
units shown as vertically integrated structures meet occupancy class requirements for
commercial structures.
c. Buildings on the north side of W. Crosswind St. shall be vertically-integrated buildings.
Buildings G and H at the southeast corner of the site may be vertically integrated structures
OR townhouses.
d. At time of CZC or plat,public accessibility for the central open space shall be specified in the
CC&Rs,maintenance agreement or property owner's association agreement.
e. At the time of CZC or plat,an executed shared-parking agreement between the commercial
lots and the vertically integrated structures shall be submitted.
f. Building D along the western property line shall be broken into at least two groups of
buildings,with the break occurring approximately in the vicinity of Lot 19,Block 3 of the
Windsong Subdivision No 2.
2. All private streets shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-3F-4.
3. All common lots, streets and alleys shall meet the requirements of UDC 11-6C-3.
4. There should be a consistent architectural theme throughout the development. Administrative
design review will be required for all new attached residential structures containing two (2) or
more dwelling units. Design review and certificate of zoning compliance will be required for any
commercial buildings or vertically-integrated buildings.
Page 26
Item 4. 93
5. The Director has approved a request for private streets as required per UDC 11-3F-4.
6. The preliminary plat, dated 9/22/2021, shall be revised as follows:
a. Per UDC 11-3B-7, all arterial street buffers shall be on a common lot or on a permanent
dedicated buffer,maintained by the property owner or business owners'association.
b. Residential street buffers shall be on a common lot,maintained by a homeowners'
association.
c. The development table shall be updated to indicate 2 vertically integrated residential lots,
verses 12.
d. Parking spaces shall be subtracted out of all areas indicated as useable open space.
7. The landscape shall be revised as follows:
a. The additional pathway along the south perimeter shall be removed,and the sidewalk along
W.Ustick Rd shall be widened to a 10 ft.wide pathway along the property line,with a 10 ft.
wide connection to the Five Mile Creek Pathway at the west perimeter of the site.
b. The pathway shown along N. Linder Rd shall be revised to include only the existing 7 ft.
wide sidewalk.
c. There shall be no more than one walkway per building connecting to the pathways and
sidewalks along W. Ustick Rd. and N. Linder Rd.
d. A landscape buffer of at least 5 ft. in width,meeting the planting requirements of UDC 11-
313-9, shall be required along the northern property line or as otherwise required by UDC 1I-
3B.
8. The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for vertically-integrated projects as
listed in UDC 11-4-3-41.
9. A conditional use permit shall be required for the drive through establishment shown on the
commercial lot.
10. Off-street vehicle parking shall be provided on the site in accord with UDC 11-3C-4 for
townhouses,commercial buildings and vertically integrated projects.
11. Direct access to N. Linder Rd. and W.Ustick Rd. is prohibited. All existing curb cuts shall be
replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk.
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The Applicant shall have a maximum of two (2)years to commence the use as permitted in
accord with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two(2)years
of approval, a new conditional use permit must be obtained prior to operation or a time extension
must be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.
2. 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.
3. Any fencing constructed on the site shall be consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 1I-
3A-6, 11-3A-7.
4. Comply with all bulk,use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC
Chapter 2 District regulations.
5. Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
Page 27
Item 4. 94
4. Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-1.
5. Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or
mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10.
B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Easements for combined water/sewer mains outside of right-of-way must be a minimum of 30-
foot-wide with the minimum separation between mains; additional width may be required if
minimum distance is not maintained.
2. No permanent structures can be placed within a City easement including but not limited to
buildings, carports, overhangs/eaves,trees,bushes, light poles, infiltration trenches,trash
enclosures,etc.
General Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility,or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but
rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The
easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed
easement(on the form available from Public Works),a legal description prepared by an Idaho
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked
EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 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 development plan approval.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
prior to receiving development plan approval.
5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and
possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per
Page 28
Item 4. F9_5
UDC 11-3A-6. hi performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207
and any other applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in
the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their
abandonment.
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
inspections(208)375-5211.
9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,
road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision
shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy
of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety
for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in
UDC 11-5C-3B.
12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure
that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district
or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in
accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate
of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
Page 29
Item 4. ■
19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved
prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy
of the standards can be found at httq://www.meridiancity.org1public_works.aVx?id=272.
21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for
duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond.Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
C. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=250947&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC
fty
D. ACHD
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aVx?id=253599&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Ry
E. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255718&dbid=0&redo=MeridianC
ky
F. NMID
https://weblink.meridiancily.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251526&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
https://weblink.meridianciU.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251853&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
Page 30
Item 4. F
7
IX. FINDINGS
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:
A. ZONING
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
This is a proposal for rezoning of 3.42 acres of subject property from CC to R-40 to allow
townhouses. This complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan,particularly
to provide a diversity in housing opportunities and to encourage infill development.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds the proposed map amendment to R-40 and the development generally complies with the
purpose statement of the residential districts in that it will contribute to the range of housing
opportunities available in the City consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety, and
welfare;
Staff ,finds with the recommended conditions of approval the proposed R-40 map amendment
should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare as the property is on an arterial
intersection, sufficient buffering and parking is provided, and the property is surrounded by
single family attached, multifamily, and commercial uses.
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
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
5. The map amendment(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning is in the best interest of the City if the property is developed in
accord with the provisions in Section VII.
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-
2005)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord.08-1372,7-8-2008,eff.7-8-2008).
Page 31
Item 4. 98
Staff finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC if the Applicant complies
with the conditions of approval in Section VII.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Staff ,finds public services can be made available to the subject property and will be adequate to
accommodate the proposed development.
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
Staff finds the proposed plat is in substantial conformance with scheduled public improvements in
accord with the City's CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and
Staff ,finds the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or
general welfare.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.(Ord.05-1170, 8-
30-2005,eff. 9-15-2005)
There is an existing floodplain and Five Mile Creek at the southwest portion of the property.
These features are shown to be preserved in a common lot.
C. CONDITIONAL USE
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed
conditional use in terms of the following,and may approve a conditional use permit if they shall find
evidence presented at the hearing(s)is adequate to establish:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional
and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds that if the site is designed in accord with the site plan and landscape plan shown in
the exhibits and the conditions of approval, the site will be large enough to accommodate the
proposed use and meet the dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district
for townhouses.
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in
accord with the requirements of this Title.
As described in the staff report, the proposed multi family residential use in the R-40 zone meets
the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and UDC.
Page 32
Item 4. 99 1
3. The design,construction,operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in
the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity
and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
This proposal would allow 33 townhouses on an arterial intersection, surrounded by multi family
detached and attached, commercial and multifamily uses. Sufficient buffering and landscaping
has been provided, there is satisfactory parking, and the elevations reflect high quality design.
The general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the use will be compatible with
other residential and commercial uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and
intended character of the vicinity and will not adversely change the character of the area.
4. That the proposed use,if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed,will not
adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
As mentioned above, staff finds the proposed townhouses will not adversely affect other property
in the vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services
such as highways, streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal,water, and sewer.
Essential public facilities and services are presently serving the existing development. Sanitary
sewer, domestic water and irrigation can be made available to additional property. Please refer
to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department
and other agencies.
6. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional
capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will
be required to pay impact fees.
7. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes,materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic,noise,smoke,fumes, glare or odors.
Staff finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that
would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area. Staff recognizes there will
be a small increase of traffic and noise with the approval of this development; whenever
undeveloped property is developed the amount of traffic generation does increase
8. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction,loss or damage of a natural, scenic
or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Stafffinds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any
natural feature(s)of major importance.
Page 33
Item 4. 1 00
D. PRIVATE STREETS (UDC 11-317-5):
In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following:
1. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or future
property owners will be required to pay impact fees.
2. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article;
The private streets meet the design requirements of not connecting to an arterial street,
allowing sufficient maneuvering for emergency vehicles, not serving more than 50 units and
meeting the minimum width of 24 feet.
3. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard, or nuisance, or
other detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity
As these are private streets internally contained within this development connected to adjacent
properties by public streets, there is adequate parking provided and Meridian Fire and Police
have not expressed objections, the Director finds approval of the private street would not cause
damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity.
C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan
and/or the regional transportation plan.
As listed above in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the Director finds the use and location of
the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or the regional
transportation plan.
D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
The majority of the townhouses are clustered around a mew with their entrances facing the
open space. This would be considered a mew development.
Page 34
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
Pavilion At‘PAW’WindsongPavilion At‘PAW’Windsong
Development Features1 Commercial/Retail Lot12 of those are Live/Work45 Dwelling units in 8 buildings4.77 AcresDevelopment Features1 Commercial/Retail Lot12 of those are Live/Work45 Dwelling
units in 8 buildings4.77 Acres
City of MeridianCommunity Mixed UseFuture Land Use Plan DesignationCity of MeridianCommunity Mixed UseFuture Land Use Plan Designation
SURROUNDING AREA 128 Single Family Homes-Whitecliffe Estates 8 building Office Park-Sawtooth LandingHunter Elementary SchoolWalmart Supercenter-Regional Library-Orchard Park Linder 66
Biltmore Co. Homes-Windsong Single Familyfamily and -Mixed Use Commercial, Multi-Lennon Pointe (Proposed)Rocky Mountain High School Homes92 Attached and Detached -Edington CommonsPAWSawtooth
Middle School DEVELOPEMENTSURROUNDING AREADEVELOPEMENT
•Common AreasCommon Areas by 9 spaces (from 12 to 21).Parking was increasedBased on Staff comments, Guest•Community Park & Picnic area•% Open Space16.1•Meridian Greenbelt Connection
with 10ft wide Pathways•by 9 spaces (from 12 to 21).Parking was increasedBased on Staff comments, Guest•Community Park & Picnic area•% Open Space16.1•Meridian Greenbelt Connection with
10ft wide Pathways
Traffic Calming:staff request.Split into 2 buildings per buffer at Windsong 2 story building transition Additional guest parking has been added throughout the site•neighbor comments
and ACHDCrosswind St. and N Wafting Lane intersection per Windsong out’ is proposed to calm traffic at the --A 3•Windsong neighborhoodPavilion At Windsong will have a similar architectural
theme to the •Additional Landscape buffer added along North Property Line•Ustickneighborhood to the Live/Work buildings along Linder and 2 story townhome buildings will transition from
the Windsong •Neighborhood Compatibility Additional guest parking has been added throughout the site•neighbor comments and ACHDCrosswind St. and N Wafting Lane intersection per Windsong
out’ is proposed to calm traffic at the --A 3•Windsong neighborhoodPavilion At Windsong will have a similar architectural theme to the •Additional Landscape buffer added along North
Property Line•Ustickneighborhood to the Live/Work buildings along Linder and 2 story townhome buildings will transition from the Windsong •Neighborhood Compatibility out’-‘Bulb-way
stop-3-
Example HomesTwo StoryExample HomesTwo Story
Example HomesLive/Work BuildingsExample HomesLive/Work Buildings
Development Features1 Commercial/Retail Lot12 of those are Live/Work45 Dwelling units in 8 buildings4.77 AcresDevelopment Features1 Commercial/Retail Lot12 of those are Live/Work45 Dwelling
units in 8 buildings4.77 Acres
Item 5. 101
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC,
Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way
A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose
of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision.
Item 5. 102
(:�N-VE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Oaks North Rezone (H-2022-0010) by Toll Southwest, LLC,
Generally Located Northwest of 5151 N. Rustic Oak Way
A. Request: Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district
for the purpose of recouping five (5) building lots in a future final plat phase
of the Oaks North Subdivision.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 5. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING 4/7/2022 -- =---
Legend
DATE: 0
Project Location
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission P -
i
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2022-0010 ' "
Oaks North Rezone
LOCATION: The site is generally located northwest of � ® -
5151 N. Rustic Oak Way, in the NW 1/4
of the SW 1/4 of Section 28, Township ---
4N.,Range 1W. J .®®
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request for a Rezone of 12.02 acres of land from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of
recouping five (5)building lots in a future final plat phase of the Oaks North Subdivision,by Toll
Southwest,LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage RZ— 12.02 acres; Current Property Size—37.5 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Existing Land Uses Vacant
Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential
Lots(#and type; 83 future residential building lots; unknown number
bldg./common)) of common lots
Physical Features (waterways, None
hazards, flood plain,hillside
Neighborhood meeting date;# January 20,2022—number of attendees unknown
of attendees:
History(previous approvals) RZ-13-008; PP-13-013 (DA Inst. #114030972).
Page 1
Item 5. F104
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) No
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access Access is proposed via local streets that are either planned or currently
(Arterial/Collectors/State under construction.No changes to the previously approved road layout
Hwy/Local) (Existing and are proposed.
Proposed)
Stub There is no proposal to change the previously approved road layout,
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross including stub streets. See attached concept plan in Exhibit VII.B.
Access
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Portion of required buffer along McDermott Road to the west(west
Buffers boundary of Oaks North No. 10)is already approved—future final plat
for this phase will be required to complete this buffer.
Proposed Road None required to any adjacent arterial or collector streets because of
Improvements previous improvements and road dedications.
Fire Service
No Comments
Police Service
• Concerns Area can be serviced per letter from Police Department(Exhibit VIIL!!)
Page 2
Item 5. ■
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend 0 Legend
Project Location MU-C Project Location ;
0
Mixed Use - - E €
in r ange Low Density I ,
r� . Ar.
Residential
ensity�
R
® ®
ifl MEMO",
4
CIVIC AA
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend R1 R13Ll�f� 0 Legend 0
Project Location Project Location �
L-OM, y City Limits [
• R-15 RUT Planned Parcels -- €
.RUT ; R
• R=8
R-4 R-4
L
R-15 _
- v R 4
R-8
R 1 R 15
+ R-8
V' ILLZ
RUT ®®
OWE RUT _
R-4
RUT R=8'- II
I R-4 RUT
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Kristen McNeill, Givens Pursley,LLP—601 W. Bannock Street,Boise, ID 83702
B. Owner:
Adam Capell, Toll Southwest,LLC—3103 W. Sheryl Drive, Ste. 100,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Jeff Bowers, Givens Pursley,LLP 601 W. Bannock Street,Boise, ID 83702
Page 3
Item 5. F106
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 3/22/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 3/21/2022
Site Posting 3/28/2022
Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Rezone
The subject application is for a Rezone that contemplates approximately 12 acres of land,
currently zoned R-4. The Applicant is requesting to rezone this area from the R-4 zoning district
to the R-8 zoning district for the purpose of including five(5)additional building lots that were
lost over the course of the previous 11 final plat phases of the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff has
confirmed the addition of five(5)building lots within this phase will keep the project consistent
with the approved preliminary plat from 2014. Because of this,there is no need for a new
preliminary plat to be submitted—city code allows for later phases of a project to include lots lost
with previous phases so long as the total number of lots approved with the preliminary plat is not
increased. In short,the future phase 12 final plat is sufficient to memorialize the addition of lots
within the Oaks North Subdivision. However, adding these additional lots within the existing R-4
zoning district is not possible as the minimum dimensional standards requirements could not be
met. Therefore,the applicant has requested the rezone to the R-8 zoning district.
In addition,the applicant has stated within their narrative that the request to rezone 12 acres to the
R-8 zoning district along a portion of the Oaks North northern boundary is also in better
alignment with the existing R-8 zoning to the north(Prescott Ridge Subdivision)while providing
for additional variation of lot sizes within this area of the Oaks North Subdivision. Staff supports
the requested rezone for the purposes noted.
Outside of the Rezone application and the zoning implications,it is important to analyze other
changes that would occur because of the rezone and increase in density of this phase. First,the
Applicant is not proposing to change any of the previously approved road network. The proposed
local streets and the stub streets along the north boundary are shown in the same locations as
before. Secondly,the Applicant is proposing to increase the open space in this phase of the
development to meet the latest open space requirements for the R-8 zoning district. According to
their revised concept plan and narrative,the Applicant is showing over 180,000 square feet of
common open space for phase 12 which accounts for approximately 15%of the gross area. This
complies with the minimum open space requirements now required by UDC 11-3G-3. This is
helps maintain a livable neighborhood and assists in the project meeting current purpose
statements outlined within the new open space regulations. However, some of the open space
areas shown on the concept plan may be better suited in larger and condensed areas; Staff will
work with the Applicant between the timing of this Rezone application and the future final plat
submittal to make any necessary adjustments to the location of the open space as allowed under
the subdivision ordinance. In general,the locations shown on the new concept plan do appear to
comply with code.
Page 4
Item 5. F107
B. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the
provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public
services.
Staff ,finds the proposed Rezone to the R-8 zoning district and anticipation of 83 additional lots is
compliant with the future land use designation of MDR. Because the existing preliminary plat and
Rezone request comply with the future land use designation, Staff does not have additional
comprehensive plan analysis on the future land use of the subject area and this project.
The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with a rezone application
pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.Staff is not recommending a new DA or a
modification to the existing DA because the subject property is still subject to the terms of the
the existing recorded development agreement(DA Inst. #114030972).
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
Site improvements are currently in progress or planned per the existing final plat approvals and
the future phase 12 final plat.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use of detached single-family residential is a principally permitted use within the
requested R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-2. The proposed use is also consistent with
the existing preliminary plat(PP-13-013).
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The new concept plan for phase 12 of the Oaks North Subdivision does not show lot sizes. Staff
will analyze the future final plat for compliance with the minimum dimensional standards of the
requested R-8 zoning district,per UDC Table 11-2A-6.
F. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted conceptual elevations for the future single-family homes. After
analysis of these conceptual elevations, Staff finds these elevations to be consistent with the
approved conceptual elevations in the DA(DA Inst. #114030972). Due to the number of
conceptual elevations submitted,please refer to the public record to view these elevations.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested rezone per the conditions of approval in Section VIII
and the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. Commission:
Enter Summary of Commission Decision.
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 5
Item 5. 108
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Rezone Legal Description and Exhibit Map
Legal DescrIption
Proposed City of Meridian Rezone
The Oaks North Subdivision
A pared located m the N '/}of the SW%of Section 28. Township 4 North, Range 1 West. Boise
Mendlan City of Meridian,Ada County, Idaho,and mode particularly described as follow&
Communcrng at a Brass Cap monurnertil mark:ng the southwest comer of said SectI.Dn 28, from
which am Aluminum Cap rnolnurneni marking the southeast comer of the SW Y* (S A Dnrner) of
said Section bears S 89'16'69'E a distance of 2635.25 feet'
Thence N 1'W'42'1=aloog the west boundary Of the SW ,of Section 28 a distanca of 2630.B5
feel to an AJurninurn Cap monument marking the northwest comer Df the SW% (W Y.comer) of
saad Section 28.
TtTence along i1 ee north bound ary of said SVV S W21'17"E a distance of 971.05 fleet the POINT
Of BEGINNING
Thence amlinuing S 99'21'l7' E along said north boundary a distance e. 340 07 feel to the
northwest corner of lire NE Y.of the SW YL of said Section 2S;
Thence alarag the west boundary of said NE'/L Of the 3VV'/4 S 0'52:12"VV a distance of 16.99 feet
ID a paint;
Thence Ieawing said boundary S 89'14'34' E a distance of 596.07 feet to a point;
Thence S 0'45'26"Vv a distance of fa6 93 Feet to a point of Curvature;
Thence a distance of 189.18 feet along the arc of a 600 00 foot radius Curve lek said curve having
a oenlral angle of 18°03'57- and a tong chard bearing 5 8'16'32"E a distance of 188.40 feel to a
VoiM on the Centerline of W Bum Sages Drive,
Thence along said centerline the following courses and distances
Therim S 72*41'29' W a distance of 157.31 feet to paint of curvatute,
Therir-e a #istance of 275 35 feet along the dre OF a 1Q00 9G foal radius curve left. said
curve having a central angle of 15"4630" and a long chord bearing S 04"48'11- W a
distance of 274 49 feel to a point of langency.
Thence S 59*54'53`W a distance of 368 06 feet to a point.
Thence heaving said centerline N 33*05-07'W a distance of 144.00 feel to an angle point on the
nofinerly boundary of the Oaks N01h Subdrvision No.8, as shown in Book 121 of Plals on Pages
18996 through 10999, records of Ada County, Idaho;
Thence&tang sai�j subdivision boundary the following Courses and distances:
The rtee S :56'54'53' W a distance of 00.00 feel to a point,
Landsoll.ttJofirs Pr sndR*tfie
Tne�kaMwthSibdn**rs
Jab Nn.1&35
Pago a of 2
Page 6
Item 5. F-log]
Thence 5 63'40'51'1N a distance of 73.86 feet to a paint_
Thence S 63"WX VV a divWrxw of 79.71 feet to the northeasterly comer of said The
Oaks North 9ubdrvrs,on No-6_
Thence leaving said boundary N 6'38'19*W a distance of 137.94 feet to a point;
Thence N 0-38'at- E a distance of 135.00 feet to a paint;
Thence S B9°2: f 7'E a distance of 46.00 feet to a point:
Thence N VW43' E a distance of 425.00 feet to the PMNT OF 8EGtNNINGt
This parcel cof-tarnS 12.02 acres m"or less.
CtiMon VV. Hansen, PUS o�p'i La&o
Land Solutions, PC q* 5 Tr
November 11, 2021 q
4
Page 7
Item 5. Fl-lo
THE OAKS NORTH TH UBDIVISIO 1
PROPOSED CITY OF MERIDIAN REZONE
LOCATED IN THE N 112 OF THE SW V4 OF SECTION 23,TAN„ R.W. R-M.
ITS'OF MERIDIAN.ADA COUNTY. IDAHO
sI+ fz
?'E 13�1.1- Cw -!16 _ __ 5�§ �'�7"E _i31 .13'
24r28 971,Q4` .3a0.0�' S899+'34'E '196.pr
POINT QF IUEGLNNXII �K
rRPk
I
r- -
589'Z1'17E
46
uor
39 3E of, IAtAium RD _ Y28
as
HAS1S Or $ OM. I-LA ANAD� 1{1
W18
CURVE TABLE ��pt 0f V°
CURVE 0 LENGTH RADIUS DELTA SEARING CHC W.
2 M,35 ROD3.W W46'36` M4'48'11'w 27-,4-V Land Surreyft end Comftng
2J+E 7l 14 S' 5l3 A
ha FbDM i6 6Y
47W ��09179425fi7w
Page 8
Item 5. F111
B. New Concept Plan for applicable area(Illustrative Purposes Only)
THE OAKS NORTH
PHASE 12-UPDATED LOT LAYOUT
Meridian,Idaho
5'pq—be'1.2021
83 TOTAL BUILDING LOTS
I.
4 S 6 7 8 4 L 11R l fB H 16:ffi
O 1F m :ZO tl:Pl 23 24 25 26: 27: ,
14
i E SIAN�[AW�i
75
�.
�$2
` 77
se ea e7 04 %A\
F77-
}, COMMONacoms� 1 s0
Li R-4 ZONE
+ R 8 ZONE
COMMON LOT
TOTAL COMMON LOT AREA-ffiI=8F
FEET
n ,v
ELSE CONSULTAM"Ca
GRAPHEC SCALE 1 in 15fl R
'roll Brothers ..�....�
AMEI11<�']LVNVIIY HOME EViLCEM wvw.f�ew-a��mwo.iwor�ecwa
Page 9
Item 5. F112
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. Comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with the site(RZ-13-008; PP-13-
013 (DA Inst. #114030972).
2. With the final plat application associated with this phase,the Applicant should provide a
minimum of 15%qualified common open space as proposed.
3. The final plat must comply with the dimensional standards for the R-8 zoning district as
outlined in UDC Table 11-2A-6.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
General Comments
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. Submit an executed easement(on the form
available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional
Land Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an
81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B)for review. Both exhibits
must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available,a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
5. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible
reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho
Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are
any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or
provide record of their abandonment.
Page 10
Item 5. F113
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
9. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
13. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
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 design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least I-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. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.orglpublic_works.aspx?id=272.
19. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount
of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,
cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https:llweblink.meridiancit .00rglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=256297&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Page 11
Item 5. ■
D. MERIDIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=255100&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
Lty
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-513-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a
full investigation and shall, at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant
an annexation and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive
plan;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property with the R-8 zoning
district and site design is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and previous approvals.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the requested development complies
with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the
purpose statement of the requested zone.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Stafffinds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare, especially if all conditions of approval are met.
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
Staff 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.
N/A. Property is already annexed into the City and subject to an existing development
agreement.
Page 12
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
Oaks North Phase 12 Planning and Zoning Commission (April 7, 2022)
•Toll Brothers employeesOver 180 •of MeridianCity headquartered in the Division Idaho •Founded in 1967 •500 company Award winning, FORTUNE
Oaks North Rezone–
Oaks North Project units653TOTALunits8312PhaseFutureunits570PLATTEDTOTALunits3011Phaseunits5410Phaseunits209Phaseunits378Phaseunits727Phaseunits366Phaseunits375Phaseunits354Phaseunits713Phaseunits502
Phaseunits1281PhaseCOUNTLOTNUMBERPHASE
Oaks North Phase 12–
Phase 12 @ RUnits838-Phase 12 @ R3.31 Units/Acre78 Units4-
Oaks North Phase 12 area 3.2 acres open space in : Phase 12 w/ RezonePhase 12 area acres open space in : 1.7 Preliminary Plat Phase –
Oaks North Phase 12 Rezone–
Oaks North Phase 12 Rezone–
Item 6. 115
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from March 3, 2022 for Pinedale Subdivision (H-
2022-0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #51210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning
district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the
requested R-15 zoning district.
Item 6. 116
(:�N-WE IDIAN
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 3, 2022 for Pinedale Subdivision (H-2022-
0001) by Pine Project, LLC, Located at 3275 W. Pine Avenue (Parcel #S1210417400)
A. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22
acres in the requested R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 6. Mayor Robert E.Simison El
E IDIANCity Council Members:
Treg Bernt Brad Hoaglun
Joe Borton Jessica Perreauit
Luke Cavener Liz Strader
MARCH 24, 2022
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
CC: Bruce Hessing, Pine Project LLC and
Antonio Conti, Ackerman-Estvlod.
FROM: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner
RE: Pinedale Subdivision(H-2022-0001)
Dear Commissioners,
The Pinedale Subdivision AZ, PP application was continued to the April 7, 2022 Commission
hearing from the March 3, 2022 hearing for the purpose of allowing the Applicant and Staff to
work through some final details of the submitted plat.
Since the publication of the staff report and the March 3rd hearing, the Applicant has submitted a
revised preliminary plat that contemplates nine (9) detached single-family building lots and a
slight revision to the required cul-de-sac design—the cul-de-sac is now shown to terminate in a
more linear terminus from the existing stub street instead of bending towards the south property
boundary. The revision includes a reduction of one (1)building lot from what Staff analyzed
within the staff report. Further, the revised plat now depicts the Tenmile Creek irrigation
easement along the entire east boundary as Staff previously requested which further encumbers
the buildable area of the property.
Staff is recommending changes to the conditions of approval noted within the staff report
following the revisions made t. Below are Staff s recommended changes to those conditions:
• Strike Condition VIII.A.3a.
• Modify Condition VIII.A.3b—Lot 4 3 shall take access from the cul-de-sac and not from
the common drive in accord with UDC 11-6C-3.
• Strike Condition VIII.A.3c.
Add Condition VIILA.3d— Show the reec wired five (5) feet of landscaping along the west
boundary of Lot 3 and show-itto-be part of the Lot 11 common lot to comply with UDC
1-r 6C-3.
Community Development Department . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Suite 102, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-884-5533 . Fax 208-888-6854 . www.meridiancity.org
Item 6. F118
• Strike Condition VIII.A.4b.
• Strike Condition VIII.A.4c.
• Add Condition VIII.A.4d—Prior to the City Council hearing, the he Applicant should
contact NMID to determine if any trees may be located along the western edge of the
irrigation easement to allow for trees alongproposed pathway within Lot 10.
Attachments:
- Revised Preliminary Plat
2
Item 6. 119 1
A. Revised Preliminary Plat (dated: March 15, 2022)
i
.. -
21
Z
CH
to §o H lu
zz
R^
K _ ? �C7
C
w 9_
6 aul
3
A PINEDALE SUBDIVISION '\_ACKETVOLDRMAN
�ES
pPRELIMINARY PLAT�z rssi wesr emeraiaeonvn,sm.inzmrnen cinrioaan�
A F 208.853.64I0 v v.dChPmidtl-¢¢1v01tl.tOm
- 3679 WEST NEWLANDSTREEi,MERMAN,ID
3
Item 6. ly Fl 20
— r-� l � .• RSIP.NW�RYRAT Td2
\
PINEDALE SUBDIVISION
� r r nFCffonrof THE A5riavoF5Ecnoniio.r.aN..R.iw..e+oOE
� / MEWIHN.DA COUNly.IPNIO.
FiNF,"n 2022 9CAlf:I'-15' 9FW I OF I
Pf
1,7
,I I I I on.r coven nmmu�snnw.xam -
I
I I
- \
M� .m ....a. -
m •\ _
....da ~
� !I ���_�- •,
I II ' I
l
�
J I
�1
Nbn..clnc FYIrwE
4
Item 6. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r A M O
HEARING 3/3/2022 Legend
DATE: -
0
Project Location LLLLLLLEU
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner � �
208-884-5533 � �
�r] MW
SUBJECT: H-2022-0001 -__ -
Pinedale Subdivision _--------
1
LOCATION: The site is located at 3275 W. Pine - f
Avenue (Parcel#S 1210417400), at the .
east terminus of W.Newland Street in -
the Chesterfield Subdivision, in the NW --
1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 10, ELL- > ��
Township 3N,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Annexation and Zoning of 1.22 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district and a Preliminary
Plat for 12 building lots and 2 common lots on 1.22 acres in the requested R-15 zoning district,by Pine
Project,LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.22 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community 6-15 du/ac
Existing Land Uses County Residential
Proposed Land Uses Detached Single-family Residential
Lots(#and type; 12 total lots— 10 residential building lots; 2 common
bldg./common)) lots
Phasing Plan(#ofphases) 1 phase
Number of Residential Units 10 single-family units
Density Gross—9.83;Net— 12.1
Open Space (acres,total Approximately 8,000 square feet of open space
/buffer/ ualified (approximately 15%
Amenity Seating area; micro-path connection to future multi-
use pathway at north end of property
Neighborhood meeting date; # November 5,2021 — 1 attendee
of attendees:
Page 1
Item 6. F122]
Description Details Page
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 extension of the existing stub street,Newland Street;
(Arterial/Collectors/State it is proposed to be extended into the site as a cul-de-sac.
Hwy/Local)(Existing and
Proposed)
Stub No opportunity for further public street extension;Newland Street will
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross terminate within the site.
Access
Existing Road Network No
Proposed Road The Applicant is only required to extend Newland Street into the site.No
Improvements other road improvements are proposed or required.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire 2.8 miles from Fire Station#2.
Station
• Fire Response Time The project currently lies outsie of the Meridian Fire response time goal of 5
minutes. Once Pine Avenue is constructed over the Tenmile Creek,the
project will lie within the response time goal window.
• Resource Reliability Fire Station#2 reliability is 85%(above the goal of 80%)
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards(Tenmile Creek along east
boundary)
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required road widths, and turnaround dimensions.
Cul-de-sac is required to be signed"No Parking,"per Fire Department
regulations.
Police Service
No report—see online record for any comments from MPD.
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer 0'
Services
• Project Consistent Yes
with WW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
• WRRF Declining 14.26
Balance
• Impacts/Concerns • Flow is committed
• See Public Works Site Specific Conditions
Page 2
Item 6. 123
Description Details Page
• Additional 510 gpd flow was committed to model
Water
• Distance to Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 2
• Project Consistent Yes
with Water Master
Plan
• Water Quality None
Concerns MMOM
• Impacts/Concerns See site specific conditions in Section VIILB
Page 3
1 1 1
' • - • • • _ II1r Win • - • • • "�IU ,�, .
__■o J i !
■
■� ��■� � �—ter a1, qq ., -:.x
1loss ■n■1■►i r111 11n1 "ty \ `tea r ` ti
■■ions ■■1 H
+ ■ - - c �. i�
IIIIII ■11 - • _ ` ° a. ._5-�_ n .. I �}
■■■■■nnl e - ;1 `P-INE" = � - `PINE
IIIIII=_ � • - • ` � �`` � J
I:9
111111 S-����i1p1111111 I —
IICmIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIs11n11111�_ Z
�,.� �' F
Inll�lfl 6 -
:w
e
Iuumlm '� !■'�'�'!'F_RANKLIN _� � =FRANKL-I'N
1111111 1 ]Illlllllgl -:;*� _�!1111111I111 �pAlllsll
own-111 ■
EWER
IN
1I NO Mill, �1 I 1 nn■ w�11� I ss I+
Iloilo .11111..n Il IIIIIIII _
IIIIII III 11��' '® ol�� ' • -• •• - �e_ �� 11L1'� ��,a
;oo■■IIn In11111 � n ■:
■1ll■1■s1ll Ijlnlnis '-� r--- l'N 1:
IIIIIII�' 111 �IIIIII - r 1111
IIAICIII n1lnlllnllllp111 ill I11111 =_��=��nnlll �,-!�i��l � �IIIIIIIIII
p�:0111AA111111 I r y s
Il�nlll 111111111111A1111111111'I��\1•s'.I■1► Z
� W
F
;W h■ �
If In■
�1�1....__ ■■ ■-- ° ZI mi, n uun
• W �- ■■ i ii
1° FRANKL-INN ~ -p •■ ..1.■...
1- - '1131lIIIR1 1. 1.1.1.1■ICRAN KLIN
A n m nnulil�Inmrlrim
1 1 1 11 •• ' 1" / 1 1"
i � ' ' 1 i i1 1" i. � 1 . 1 i •� •
11
Item 6. 125
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 2/15/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 2/14/2022
Site Posting 2/21/2022
Nextdoor posting 2/15/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(ht(ps://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Mixed-Use Community(MU-C)—The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where
community-serving uses and dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric (residential
dwellings are allowed at a gross density of 6-15 du/ac). The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,
including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings.Non-
residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use Neighborhood
(MU-N) areas,but not as large as in Mixed Use Regional(MU-R)areas. Goods and services in
these areas tend to be of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to,but also walk or bike
to (up to three or four miles). Employment opportunities for those living in and around the
neighborhood are encouraged.
The subject 1.2 acres is designated as mixed-use community but is part of a larger, 30-acre
mixed-use designated area to the east that is west of Ten Mile and south of the future Pine Avenue
extension (more MU-C acreage exists on the east side of Ten Mile as well). However, this site is
physically separated from this MU-C area by the Tenmile Creek that abuts the east boundary of
the subject site with only a future pedestrian connection available for any connectivity between
this site and the MU-C parcels to the east. Because of the physical separation and the lack of
connectivity to the east, Staff believes this project and site is more consistent with the existing
subdivision to the west, Chesterfield Subdivision, than it is with any mixed-use project to the east
(Foxcroft or Mile High Pines). Chesterfield and all of the residential to the west and northwest of
this site is in the Medium Density Residential(MDR)future land use designation and
contemplates residential development in the density range of 3-8 du/ac such as the proposed
Pinedale Subdivision. Because of these facts, Staff finds it appropriate to analyze the subject
project against the MDR designation instead of the MU-C designation by floating that
designation to this site, as allowed per the Comprehensive Plan.
Since the original project description was published, the Applicant and Staff have worked
together to revise the plat and remove two (2) lots so the total building lots proposed with this
plat is now ten (10). Ten lots on 1.22 acres of land has a gross density of 8.19 du/ac, at the
maximum allowed within the MDR designation. Therefore, the Applicant is proposing a project
consistent with both the MU-C and the adjacent MDR future land use designations. Due to the
site being at the end of an existing stub street, the only vehicular connection is via extension of
the stub street(Newland Street) into the property which is required to terminate within the site as
a full cul-de-sac, requiring a large portion of the site to be reserved for right-of-way and reduces
the buildable area of the project. Because the buildable area is greatly reduced by the required
cul-de-sac, the Applicant is proposing lot sizes smaller than those within Chesterfield to the west
which requires the R-I5 zoning district; the adjacent Chesterfield homes are within the R-8
zoning district.
Page 5
Item 6. ■
Original discussions with the Applicant contemplated 15 building lots on the subject site but the
Applicant submitted the preliminary plat with 12 lots after Staff voiced concerns over the
proposed density, lot sizes, and overall livability of the project. Other discussions occurred
following submittal of the subject applications and the Applicant reduced the number of building
lots to 10. This allows the project to comply with the MDR designation by rounding 8.19 du/ac
down to the allowed 8 du/ac. However, due to the requested zoning and proposed density not
matching Chesterfield to the west, Commission and Council should determine if a further
reduction in density is necessary. If the Commission or Council desires less density, Staff would
recommend Lot 1 be removed in lieu of additional usable open space along the west boundary
and to allow the lots to shift west around the cul-de-sac and remove a driveway connection to the
cul-de-sac, reducing the amount of concrete and asphalt at the end of this street.
An additional recommendation made by Staff that the Applicant has shown on the latest
preliminary plat is to include some shared driveways in the project. Staff did not recommend
multiple common drives as one is already proposed. Instead, Staff is recommending as many lots
as possible utilize shared driveways on their shared property line to further eliminate driveway
connections to the cul-de-sac. This recommendation would likely require at least some of the
homes to have a side-loaded garage instead of a front loaded garage;Staff notes for the benefit
of the Applicant that if a parking pad is required to meet minimum off-street parking standards, a
minimum 20 foot by 20 foot parking pad may be required and would need to be measured in
front of the garage even if it is side-loaded. The Applicant should ensure their desired home
design is viable with this recommendation. Specific setback analysis would be analyzed with
future building permit applications.
Furthermore, the subject site is surrounded by existing City zoning in all directions with
existing development to the south, west, and northwest and entitlements on the land to the east
and northeast. Therefore,Staff believes annexing this land into the City to remove this small
county enclave is in the best interest of the City so long as the Applicant adheres to Staffs
recommended DA provisions and conditions of approval.
Staff finds the proposed project to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as
discussed above. Specific Comprehensive Plan policies are discussed and analyzed below.
The City may require a development agreement(DA)in conjunction with an annexation and
rezone pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A.In order to ensure the site develops as
proposed with this application, Staff recommends a new DA that encompasses the land proposed
to be rezoned and annexed with the provisions included in Section VIII.A1. The DA is required to
be signed by the property owners)/developer and returned to the City within 6 months of the
Council granting the rezone and annexation approval.A final plat will not be accepted until the
new DA is executed and the AZ ordinance is approved by City Council.
NOTE: Upon application submittal and initial review, there was miscommunication between Staff
and the Applicant and the Applicant was required to revise the Annexation boundary to include
area that is already annexed into the City(within the railroad right-of-way). There is no need to
rezone this area in conjunction with this annexation so Staff is recommending the Applicant
submit a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and exhibit map that encompasses only
the area not currently annexed and matches the plat boundary.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics. Staff is
not analyzing the project against any mixed-use policies but is instead analyzing the project
against general policies as the project is being reviewed with the MDR designation.
Page 6
Item 6. F127]
"Avoid the concentration of any one housing type or lot size in any geographical area;provide for
diverse housing types throughout the City"(2.01.01 G). The proposed project offers a density
most consistent with the projects to the east, however the submitted plat does not match the lot
size and density of the Chesterfield Subdivision adjacent to the west. The subject site is
encumbered by the requirement to construct a cul-de-sac entirely on this relatively small site so
matching the lot sizes and the same look of Chesterfield would be difficult to attain. The
impediments on this site allow the Applicant to propose a smaller building lot which subsequently
allows a smaller home to be constructed than what exists in the surrounding area; this should
add to the housing diversity in this area.
"Establish and maintain levels of service for public facilities and services,including water, sewer,
police,transportation, schools, fire, and parks"(3.02.01G).All public utilities are available for
this project site due to the existing stub street on its west boundary. Road improvements currently
under construction (i.e. Pine bridge over the Tenmile Creek)will place this project within the
Fire Department response time goal and Fire has approved the accesses for the proposed plat.
West Ada School District has not sent a letter regarding this application but with a relative low
number of homes a large number of school aged children is not anticipated to be generated by
this development. Furthermore, Chaparral Elementary is within walking distance of this
development should any elementary aged children live within this site.
Stafffinds that the existing and planned development of the immediate area create appropriate
conditions for levels of service to and for this proposed project.
"Preserve,protect,and provide open space for recreation, conservation,and aesthetics"
(4.05.01F).Because the property is less than 5 acres, the Applicant is not required to provide any
qualified common open space. However, the Applicant is showing a connection to a future multi-
use pathway at the north boundary and has chosen to include an open space plaza area near this
connection point for future residents to enjoy. This area is tucked away behind the building lots
so all adjacent fencing will need to be open vision or semi private fencing. Staff anticipates this
area being utilized as a quiet oasis due to its location. Staff is not aware if this site and future
building lots will be part of the Chesterfield HOA for residents to access the amenities and open
space within that project. However, Fuller Park is approximately % mile to the north of the
subject property which offers acres of open space and amenities within walking distance.
"Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is extending the attached sidewalks
along Newland Street and is proposing a micro path connection to the north boundary to connect
to a multi-use pathway segment from the Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the Tenmile
Creek. Furthermore, the Applicant is preserving a potential connection point to the railroad
corridor should the City ever decide to construct a regional pathway south of the site.All of these
pedestrian facilities allow this small site as well as the existing development to the west to have
multiple links together and promotes neighborhood connectivity.
"Ensure that new development within existing residential neighborhoods is cohesive and
complementary in design and construction."(2.02.02F).As discussed, the Applicant is proposing
lot sizes smaller than the adjacent Chesterfield Subdivision to the west largely because of the
requirement to terminate Newland Street within the site as cul-de-sac. The proposed lots directly
abutting the existing homes do not match in lot size but they are abutting 1:1 in terms of lot to lot
so the existing residents should not feel as though there is slightly higher density directly to their
east. Furthermore, because the property is at the end of an existing street and it will terminate on
the subject site, Staff anticipates the project will feel cohesive in its livability despite not matching
lot sizes and density of Chesterfield. Should Commission determine a further reduction in lot
count is necessary, Staff recommends one of the lots taking access from the cul-de-sac be
Page 7
Item 6. ■
removed in lieu of additional usable open space and help remove the number of driveway
connections to the cul-de-sac.
"Require new development to establish street connections to existing local roads and collectors as
well as to underdeveloped adjacent properties."(6.01.02C). The Applicant is required to and is
proposing to extend Newland Street into the site by constructing a cul-de-sac wholly on this
property, terminating Newland Street. This is the only access point into the site and connects this
project directly to the abutting Chesterfield Subdivision that has access up to Pine Avenue, a
residential collector street that will be extended from west to east over the Tenmile Creek to Ten
Mile Road.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
According to GIS imagery,there appears to be an existing residential structure and an out-
building on the subject site.Any and all structures and debris are proposed to be removed upon
development of this project. Furthermore,the existing access for this site is via vehicular bridge
over the Tenmile Creek at the very north property boundary that connects to a private drive that is
essentially Pine Avenue. This access will be closed upon development and the vehicular bridge
should provide access for a regional pathway Foxcroft subdivision is constructing to the east.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is detached single-family residential with an average lot size of 3,363 square
feet and a minimum lot size of 3,099 square feet,based on the latest submitted plat(Exhibit
VII.B). This use is a permitted use in the requested R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2
and all lots meet the minimum lot size requirement of 2,000 square feet. The Applicant has not
noted if this is a phased project,however Staff anticipates it to develop as one phase due to the
size of the proposed project.
As discussed in the Comprehensive Plan analysis, the proposed use is the same as the existing
detached single-family to the west in Chesterfield Subdivision but is proposed with smaller lots
and subsequently smaller homes.According to the Applicant, the goal is to construct smaller
homes at a lower price point to add more affordable options to the area and market.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The residential lots appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted plat. In
addition,all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design and
Improvement Standards(UDC 11-6C-3). The proposed preliminary plat and submitted plans
appear to meet all UDC requirements except for the number of lots taking access from a common
drive. Per UDC 11-6C-3D, no more than three(3) lots can take access from the same side of a
common drive and the proposed plat depicts four(4) lots taking access (Lots 4-7)from the
common drive because of Staffs recommendation to have shared driveways where possible. The
Applicant will be required to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac instead of showing it
shared with Lot 5 and on the common drive.
The common drive is shown as 20 feet wide and is less than 1 SD feet in length meeting Fire
turnaround and UDC requirements. Furthermore, the Applicant is showing a 6-foot wide
sidewalk attached to the common drive from the proposed attached sidewalk around the cul-de-
sac to the southern boundary to assist the Parks Department in reserving a pedestrian facility
through the site in the event the City constructs a regional pathway system within the railroad
corridor to the south of the property. This 6-foot area appears to be shown as a sidewalk on the
latest plat but is shown as landscaping on the landscape plan (this landscape plan does not match
Page 8
Item 6. ■
the latest plat). The Applicant should clarify what the intended purpose of this area is in order to
comply with UDC 11-6C-3D.5 as well as the Parks Department condition of approval. The
landscape plans should be revised to comport to the revised preliminary plat prior to the City
Council hearing.
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.
However, the submitted elevations depict a number of different architectural and design styles
with all of the elevations depicting two-story homes with two-car garages. The elevations depict
varying field materials of lap siding, brick,fiber cement board and stucco with differing accent
materials, roof profiles, and overall varying home styles. Staff finds the conceptual elevations
should be adhered to closely in order to offer an array ofpotential home designs for this small
subdivision.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, I1-3H-4):
Access is proposed via extension of W.Newland Street(an existing residential local street) into
the site and is proposed to terminate within the site as a full cul-de-sac. ACHD has approved the
proposed access with the additional condition that the radius be widened to 50 feet instead of 49
feet as currently shown. Further, according to the latest plat, four(4) lots are shown to take access
from a 20-foot wide common drive in the southeast corner of the site. As discussed above,the
Applicant will be required to revise the plat to show Lot 4 taking access from the cul-de-sac
instead of the common drive to comply with code unless Alternative Compliance is requested and
approved.
The existing access across Tenmile Creek and up to the private segment of Pine Avenue will be
closed upon development of the site.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table H-
3C-6 for single-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. Staff will confirm
compliance with these standards at the time of building permit submittal for each residence. In
addition, it is important to note that no parking is allowed along the perimeter of the proposed
cul-de-sac nor on the proposed common drive. So,there is no opportunity for any on-street
parking within this subdivision because it includes a cul-de-sac as its public access.
One of the reasons behind Staff's recommendation to reduce the number of lots proposed in this
development is based in the lack of available on-street parking within the site due to the only
public street access being a cul-de-sac.In response, the Applicant removed two lots, as
previously noted. An additional solution to this potential issue would be to require the Applicant
to provide an area of off-street parking in lieu of one of the building lots for guest parking. Staff
is not specifically recommending this but is calling this out as an option should Commission or
Council find it necessary. However, should this be a requirement, additional lot shifting will
likely be needed to accommodate for 19 foot deep parking stalls and a 25 foot wide two-way
drive aisle for access.
Staff also recommends the inclusion of shared driveways in order to promote side-loaded garages
and further help with the potential off-street parking issue. This type of design can force longer
driveways that go deeper into each site which allows for more off-street parking. This design also
creates an opportunity for the living area of each home to be moved closer to the street as the
Page 9
Item 6. F130]
living setback is 10 feet while the garage setback is 20 feet; this allows for more buildable area
than is shown on the submitted plat(i.e. specifically for Lots 3, 4, and 9). Staff is recommending a
specific DA provision to require a number of shared driveways and to help mitigate this potential
issue. However, Staff notes the building lots may not be wide enough to accommodate the
required parking pad for side-loaded garages. The Applicant should work to mitigate these issues
and revise the plat accordingly.
I. Sidewalks/Pathways (UDC 11-3A-17; UDC 11-3A-8):
A 5-foot wide attached sidewalk is proposed along the Newland Street cul-de-sac, consistent with
UDC and ACHD requirements. In addition,the Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide micro-path
on the north side of the cul-de-sac for the purpose of providing a connection to the future multi-
use pathway approved with Foxcroft Subdivision on the east side of the adjacent Tenmile Creek.
The proposed sidewalks meet UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards. The micro-path lot does not
meet UDC 11-3A-8 standards—this lot is shown as ten(10)feet wide but code requires a
minimum of a 15-foot wide common lot for increased visibility and to allow 5-feet of landscaping
on both sides of the micro-path. The Applicant should revise the plat to show compliance with
this standard and show the required number of trees adjacent to the path in accord with UDC 1I-
3B-12.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The required landscaping regulated by code within the proposed development is the common
open space and micro-path areas around the north and eastern perimeters. The submitted
landscape plans shows landscaping in these areas as proposed but does not match the latest plat.
The Applicant should update the landscape plan prior to the City Council hearing.
The Applicant is proposing the micro path lot as 10 feet wide instead of the required 1 S foot
minimum but is currently shown with two trees abutting the path, exceeding code due to its length
being approximately 100 feet(trees are required at the ratio of 1/100 linear feet,per UDC I I-
3B-12). Furthermore, this micro path lot opens up to a common open space area shown with a
seating area,grass, and a few trees for shade. This landscaping shows compliance with code
requirements for the number of trees and other vegetative ground cover for common open space.
The Applicant may be required to modify the plat and landscape plan to accommodate the
required Tenmile Creek easement and satisfy UDC 11-3A-6 to include the irrigation easement
within a minimum 20 foot wide common lot. This common lot would be required to be vegetated
per UDC standards as well as meet the irrigation districts standards but the creek itself may be
left natural because it is listed as a natural waterway within the UDC.
K. Qualified Open Space and Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The proposed preliminary plat area is approximately 1.22 acres in size in size which does not
require a minimum amount of open space nor an amenity,per UDC 11-3G-3. The Applicant is
proposing a common open space area that is approximately 2,500 square feet in size to include a
seating area and a micro-path connection to the north boundary for future connectivity to a
regional pathway segment.
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7 and 11-3A-6.
Fencing is proposed as shown on the landscape plan and does not meet UDC standards.
6-foot tall wood fencing is proposed through the site despite being adjacent to common open
space areas that are tucked away and adjacent to an open waterway, the Tenmile Creek. With the
final plat submittal, the Applicant should revise the landscape plan to show open-vision fencing
Page 10
Item 6. 131
or semi private open vision fencing along the rear property lines of Lots 1-7 and the side
property lines abutting the micro path lot for Lots I &2. In addition, the Applicant should clarify
if any fencing is proposed along the Tenmile Creek and coordinate with Nampa Meridian
Irrigation District on where they would like any fencing located within their easement.
Furthermore, the landscape plan appears to show solid fencing along the east property line of
Lot 8, abutting the proposed common drive.According to UDC 11-6C-3D.5, if solid fencing is
proposed abutting a common drive, at least 5-feet of landscaping is required between the
common drive and the buildable lot. The latest preliminary plat does not appear to comply with
this but the landscape plan does show landscaping. So, the Applicant should clarify which plan is
accurate AND revise the landscape plan to show the proposed fencing type.According to the
document provided by the Parks Department, the required pedestrian easement for a future
connection from the south boundary to the north boundary of the subject site can overlap the
common drive and essentially utilize the common drive as the pathway. This would allow for the
required S feet of landscaping on the west side of the common drive adjacent to Lot 8 to allow for
solid fencing.
M. Waterways(UDC 11-3A-6)
The subject site directly abuts the Tenmile Creek along its entire eastern boundary.
According to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District(NMID),the easement width for this
facility is 50 feet on either side of the centerline of the"drain."The submitted plat doesn't
appear to depict the required 50-foot easement. Staff is concerned that this may severely
limit the viability of the buildable lots along the creek(Lots 2-7,Block 1).Furthermore,
UDC 11-3A-6 requires a minimum 20-foot wide common lot if more than 10 feet of an
irrigation easement encumbers the buildable lots.Under this code section the applicant can
ask that the easement be placed on the buildable lot rather than in a common lot.However,
the width of the easement may impact buildable area of the lots if the irrigation district will
not allow any structures to encroach in the easement.Prior to the Commission hearing,the
applicant should graphically depict the easement on the plat and contact NMID to
determine if any encroachment would be allowed in the easement.If encroachments are
allowed, staff recommends the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes
on these lots would comply with NMID requirements.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and preliminary plat applications with the
requirement of a Development Agreement if the recommended revisions in Section VII of this
report are adhered to per the Findings in Section IX of this staff report.
B. Commission:
Enter Summary of Commission Decision.
C. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 11
Item 6. ■
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation and Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map(NOT APPROVED)
= ACKERMAN
E S T V 0 L D WWW.ACKERMAN-ESTVOLD.COM
January 10,2022
Pinedale Subdivision Annexation and Rezone Legal Description
3679 West Newland Street
Meridian,ID 83642
A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence
along a line perpendicular to the Union Pacific Railroad centerline South 01'34'46"West a distance of 100.00
feet to a point on said centerline;thence along said centerline South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet;
thence leaving said centerline along a line perpendicular to said centerline North 01'34'46"East a distance of
100.00 feet to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence along said westerly edge of Tenmile
Creek North 32"49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet;thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;
thence North 43"31'33"West a distance of 144.27 feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek
North 88`25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision
Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00'52'04"West a
distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1.93 acres,more or less.
ate"
6s9 i
. 1/10/2
vat 2"OF
10 M
HEADQUARTERS 4161 311TH AVE S 3210 27TH ST W 7161 W RIVERSIDE DR
190717TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102
MINOT,ND 59701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714
701.937.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208,853.6470
Page 12
Item 6. Fl 33
N
ANNEXATION
EXHIBIT B
=01R I I ON 0 11 IL SL 1/4 Cl `=LC L N 10,
Ivl_�ICIAN, C I C, 8�/&f-$
P�1- ICI �N, ADly COLN—, DA O. o sco• �
=_ARNC�,0.kr]I:,'-Ah:=.S NAY YAF,"=zSVI
-TVIUl15 ri ITS DU-M,:=-r7FK-h!f-io,5
CF uEASIR-14-vTs.
W PINEAL _ — - — - — — — — —
II
'•� WIVE AD DINE ST
\._W FARLAM DRIVE_ `
tJ—W NLWLAN❑S7_
P.O.B. A -- -- —
ONION PACIFIC RAILROAD s e �• �
------------ ----�
j;
STOR-IT SELF STORAGE
FOUNDMONUMENT
B.O.B.BASIS OF BEARING
P.O.B.POINT OF BEGINNING
P.O.C.POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
CCITY OF MERIDIAN
L.
AREA TO BE ANNEXED
ACKERMAN
�ESTVOLD
7661We9Rarsitleurw,Ste,102 Garden City,1083714
208.853&770..—ackermaa- told.I.
MInN Na I Far o,Na WIIl"t,ND
8ol5e,le
Page 13
Item 6. 134
wwW.ACKERMgiV-ESTVOLD,COM
1\7,,ACKERMAN
ESTVOLD
January 10,2022
Pinedale Subdivision Legal Description
3679 West Newland Street
Meridian,ID 83642
A parcel of land being a portion of the SE%of Section 10,T.3N,RAW,Boise-Meridian,Ada Couty,Idaho,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a 5/8"iron pin marking the southeast corner of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence
along the northerly right-of-way line of Union Pacific Railroad South 88°25'14"East a distance of 311.32 feet
to a point on the westerly edge of Tenmile Creek;thence leaving said northerly right-of-way line of Union
Pacific Railroad on the westerly edge of said Tenmile Creek North 32`49'09"West a distance of 120.21 feet;
thence North 48"06'05"West a distance of 101.97 feet;thence North 43°31'33"West a distance of 144.27
feet;thence leaving said westerly edge of Tenmile Creek North 88"25'56"West a distance of 66.78 feet to a
point on the easterly boundary of Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4;thence along said easterly boundary of
Chesterfield Subdivision Number 4 South 00°52'04"West a distance of 267.00 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains 1.22 acres,more or less.
51STC `ti�
6�fi9
r 1/10/2
OF
ONTO M c'
HEADQUARTERS 4165 30TH AVE 5 3210 27TH 5T W 7661 W RIVERSIDE DR
1907 17TH ST SE SUITE 100 SUITE 200 SUITE 102
MINOT,ND 58701 FARGO,ND 58104 WILLISTON,ND 58801 GARDEN CITY,ID 83714
701.837.8737 701.551.1250 701.577.4127 208.853.6470
Page 14
Item 6. ■
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 2/21/2022)
\
\
_ � � � PP.FJJMINARY FIAT FOK Q� a
PINEDALE SUBDIVISION
�� � nPornoN OTm�eoumensr ua or-srrnoN lo,r_sN.,z,w-.aolse �w_�=
l\ f M!}JDL4N.ADA CONNiY.fDA110. 4 �-.'
-
��. 0 a
s
I J.n.sc i
air EF ^G \
^��" \: PREIJMINARY
union raem.a.ar...e plp11
1.0
Page 15
Item 6. F136]
C. Landscape Plans(date: 8/3/2021)
CL w
7H
M
M
®R
AN H�
H
NONE
eg
Page 16
Item 6. 137
Planting Ledgen
BTRalogancBu[NIaB ■ 1LLRF ovEanwRO LEo iocsot�vRatnoE SEEd ai
q�'6 c'", sw ES ANo sao Ai ALL oaTHER
Re{� ■ NnTIVE901L
Yp'4� ■ oNCRE0.iE cuR9 euTTERPNo
a� a
3
3
Lot 3
oti ot2
t Newlantl C1.
Pervious Concrete
U
Lot
H.
of 14
Lak 6
Lot 1 Lat 7
a-Lo['11 of 13
Lola
of 1n
of 6
Lana Scapa plan
1"-2P-0"
Y!t4"Top and Bottom
RTllfp sewn t
I'll P
"F Pmp 1'k4'PT Post
7 _ — IuSends¢, :-2o1-
6lalnbyaT.etTalePalpta.
' NAii<a.tia a oinaoi sec
rveutxc sue;sprnTe.
5.,Fence Detail
Page 17
n 0
r
*+fir_ ��►• ,
a
.•3 ',fie F _ r�a�
I'
4r
iA
1 M
f
i
.•�F it iM�t I
Item 6. ■
r'� l �� •r
L
fr• -
ct
i ■■ ■a■ IBM : ■■■
5
Page 20
Item 6. ■
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement(DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance,a DA shall be entered into between the City of
Meridian and the property owner(s)/developer at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,
and the developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner and returned to the
Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council granting the annexation;
Applicant shall provide a revised Annexation and Zoning legal description and Exhibit
Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area.The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the
following provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be substantially consistent with the
approved plat, landscape plan, and conceptual building elevations included in
Section VII and the provisions contained herein and shall be obligated to install
and maintain the open space and amenity as proposed on the approved plans.
b. The Applicant shall include shared driveways to help remove the number of driveways
proposed, especially for those lots taking direct access from the cul-de-sac,W.Newland
Court.
2. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall provide revised Annexation and Zoning
legal description and Exhibit Map to exclude the railroad right-of-way area.
3. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, dated February 21, 2022, shall be revised as
follows prior to the City Council hearing, except as noted:
a. Show the entrance to the open space lot(Lot 12)containing the micro-path lot to be
at least 15 feet wide,per UDC 11-3A-8 standards.
b. Lot 4 shall take access from the cul-de-sac and not from the common drive in accord
with UDC 11-6C-3.
c. Prior to the Commission hearing,the applicant should graphically depict the Tenmile
Creek easement on the plat and contact NMID to determine if any encroachment
would be allowed in the easement. IF encroachments are allowed, staff recommends
the applicant provide an exhibit that demonstrates how homes on these lots would
comply with NMID requirements.
4. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C, dated August 3, 2021, shall be revised as
follows prior to submitting for Final Plat approval:
a. Revise the plan to match the latest preliminary plat.
b. Lot 12,Block 1 shall be a minimum of 15-feet wide and landscaped in accord with
UDC 11-3B-12.
c. If solid fencing is proposed on the east property line of Lot 8, show the required 5
feet of landscaping between the property line and the common drive (Lot 11)in
accord with UDC 11-6C-3D.
Page 21
Item 6. F142]
5. Future development shall be consistent with the minimum dimensional standards listed in
UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 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. 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 11-313-14.
10. 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.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. Water main alignment may need to be adjusted to enable perpendicular service lines to
appropriate locations-specifically at the edge of right-of-way at the entrance to the private
drive.
2. No sewer utilities provided in Record. Public sewer infrastructure must be reviewed and
approved by public works.
3. Sewer main shall not run-down private driveways that serve 4 or fewer lots. For lots
6, 7, and 8, run sewer service in the driveway only.
4. Ensure no sewer services pass through infiltration trenches.
5. A portion of this development is in the Floodplain Overlay District and floodplain
development permit is required for land development. This property is in a FEMA "A" Zone
without Base Flood Elevations. A hydraulic analysis has been completed for Foxcroft
Subdivision.Applicant will need to compare base flood elevations for existing conditions in
this analysis to the existing conditions survey on 3725 W Pine. This should form the basis for
a Letter of Map Amendment(LOMA) application to remove the entire property from the
floodplain. The quicker LOMA process is started the better, otherwise we will need
floodplain permits and elevation certificates for any development in the current flood zone. If
fill this property is not eligible for a LOMA, fill may be added for a FEMA LOMR-F
application. In this case, floodplain permits and elevation certificates will be required for each
structure in this zone.
6. As noted in the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Atlas Materials Testing
& Inspection, there are shallow cemented soils across the site. Particular attention
needs to be focused on ensuring that all residences constructed with crawl spaces
should be designed in a manner that will inhibit water in crawl spaces. This may
include the installation of foundation drains, and the installation of rain gutters and
roof drains that will carry storm water at least 10-feet away from all residences.
Foundation drains are not allowed to drain into the sanitary sewer system, nor the
trench backfill for the sewer and/or water service lines.
Page 22
Item 6. F143]
General Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals,or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho
Well Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. The Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are
any existing wells in the development, and if so,how they will continue to be used, or
provide record of their abandonment.
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this
subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
Page 23
Item 6. ■
10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer,an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been
installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required
before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings
per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and
approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the
project.
20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting.A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridianciiy.orgZpublic works.aspx?id=272.
21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,
which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact
Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount
of 20%of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure
for duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,
cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the
Page 24
Item 6. 145
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service
for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.ory WWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251084&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
D. PARKS DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.orzlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=251081&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
E. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251841&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=251854&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
G. NAMPA/MERMIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252550&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
iv
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
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;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment to annex the property into the City of
Meridian with the R-8 zoning district and Rezone a portion of the project from R-4 to the R-8
zoning district with the proposed preliminary plat and site design is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, if all conditions of approval are met.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the request for the development complies
with the regulations outlined in the requested R-8 zoning district and is consistent with the
purpose statement of the requested zone.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Staff finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the public
health, safety and welfare.
Page 25
Item 6. F146]
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
Stafffinds 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.
Stafffinds the annexation is in the best interest of the City.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Stafffinds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive
Plan in regard to land use, density, transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Stafffinds that public services will be provided to the subject property with development. (See
Section VIII of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Stafffinds 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;
Staff finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section VII for more information.)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare;
and,
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting
of this property. ACED considers road safety issues in their analysis and has offered their
support of the proposed development with the proposed road layout in mind.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that exist on this site that
require preserving.
Page 26
Item 7. L147
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown,
LLC, Located at 3104 N. Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N. Venable Ln. and W. Ustick Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single-family lots and 14
multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning
district (Traditional Neighborhood Residential).
Item 7. F148]
(:�N-WE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Summertown Subdivision (H-2022-0005) by Summertown, LLC,
Located at 3104 N.Venable, at the Southeast Corner of N.Venable Ln. and W. Ustick
Rd.
A. Request: Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots (9 single-
family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and 3 common lots on approximately
13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district (Traditional Neighborhood
Residential).
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 7. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING April 7,2022 Legend 170
� W
DATE:
Ll,Project Location �� I,
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission OHIO
FROM: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner `
208-884-5533
PIZ-
SUBJECT: H-2022-0005 -
IL
Summertown SubdivisionEARN
LOCATION: Site is located at 3104 N.Venable, at the �� �®
southeast corner ofN.Venable Lane and WEB � t
W. Ustick Road,In the NW 1/4 of the
NE 1/4 of Section 1,Township 3N, -9 � _.
Range 1 W. f
ME
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Preliminary Plat consisting of 23 residential building lots(9 single-family lots and 14 multi-family lots) and
3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district(Traditional Neighborhood
Residential),by Summertown, LLC.
Note: Additional request for Private Streets through the multi-family portion of the project requiring only
administrative approval—private street request made for addressing purposes and requested by City
departments.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 13.8 acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed-Use Community(6-15 du/ac)
Existing Land Use(s) Multi-family Residential under construction
Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family Residential and Detached Single-Family
Residential
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 23 residential building lots(9 detached single-family and
14 multi-family)and 3 common lots
Neighborhood meeting date December 16,2021
History(previous approvals) H-2017-0142(AZ,DA Inst.#2019-015427);A-2019-0118
(CZC&DES);A-2021-0025 (CZC&DES renewal).
Pagel
Item 7. 150
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Pa e
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) No(Previously reviewed under the CZC and Design
Review applications from 2019.
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Access is via extension of N.Venable Lane,a collector
Hwy/Local)(Existing and street that connects to W.Ustick Road at the northwest
Proposed) corner of the property.
Access to the multi-family portion of the project is via a
drive aisle connection to N.Venable and two private street
connections to a new local street near the south end of the
site,shown as W.Wrangler Street.
W.Wrangler street is the access for the proposed nine(9)
single-family residential lots along the south boundary.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross Applicant is stubbing N.Ridgebury Avenue to the south
Access boundary to connect to the existing Ridgebury Avenue.
W.Wrangler Street is proposed to connect to the terminus
of N.Venable near the southwest corner of the site.
Existing Road Network N.Venable is currently a substandard road section that
provides access to homes and apartments to its west and
one large county parcel further to the south.
N.Ridgebury Avenue is stubbed to the southern property
boundary through the Vallin Courts Subdivision.
Proposed Road Improvements Applicant is required to construct Venable as a complete
street section.
Distance to nearest City Park(+ Settlers Park(55.44 acres)—adjacent to the northeast
size) corner of the site on the north side of Ustick Road.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.7 miles from Station#3
• Fire Response Time Falls within the 5-minute response time goal area
• Resource Reliability 80%(at the goal of 80%)
• Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths,and
turnaround requirements as presented.
• Additional Project can be serviced by the Meridian Fire Department
Comments/Concerns
Police Service
• Distance to Station Approximately 3.8 miles from Meridian Police
Headquarters
• Response Time Approximately 3 minute response time to an emergency.
• Call Data Between 1/l/2020- 12/31/2021,the Meridian Police
Department responded to 4,545 calls for service within a
mile of the proposed development.The crime count on the
calls for service was 440.
Between 1/l/2020- 12/31/2021,the Meridian Police
Department responded to 66 crashes within a mile of the
proposed development.
• Additional Concerns None
Page 2
1 1 1
N■■1 p:,........ C_1111111■IIIII- '�
INN
Ill.mNI
tell 11 a�
_ _ I .-i:iii iii •� . • 'r•pllllllli _ _■ o e ■■■■■■rrr�/� • 11i•nun■■u C 11 a
�I nnpl non �:: ► ounnn ,!�.' 1 � - 1 _
1•� 'lylll+_II-NII.Illtlp ■� ..■:::...�� I ►IIIII-11 @ ^'j'�
ffI nano=� ri_1 l► I ,i. I n�{A,7- J 7 a
l..a•'�`F-
>, P,
IIIIII I: � In ry i t �.� I IFN .•
Hill US 1 lr--.—� � - \v'�- usLU
�z v
.n Q - I n lrJ1i:J- i •-=n�rl.��p I �� - ,r � _Q'rf
N r=_N -I-
■ IIIII-• 1 .«�;I--I
iiiii■I ;.....y-ai =: � -..„ - Fes- •• 11 H d._ r, Fy
mu■■•❑ nm_ ■iq noon...-. - ■uAl .IIIII5a1�
-NIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIA r W
' r. .1 r•. :.nt � +OIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII '_ ��! ',�� kR^ 1
•—• - • B - IIIIr■Fr �.Iltttttn _ ter. I _
T IIIIII r:: ■■ • - a nv 1 nrnplil -,-■ :� ram^ �O` ,X ,;t ��
rIn111C nnnnn 6q-IN
-----I■111111111111 `
.ing.:-: ■■■iiii[:rural!! _.1 1�+' 1 F] d '^ I' RIEI > I ■
N�_o-[•� .I 1111111_- �. fhF C"I I rA'
n un■b+ �lllrr■■. uu:.! iii h� a
=nnu .� �n■n!hnn�- •
umn_ - umn_
nr■ -:-loon. i=.�pot'- iI■■n■!
-rnl l.:nnrrn.- :I•-.:111111111111 Irrnr■..-_:.1111111111111
- • - • '■■�■■q n■■■nr..■■�Illlln'AI..I..Illl - ! _ • ■■■■.F■�■�111111'111.1..1._-.`IIL
'!nnri nnm!uir•■irr hum ------11.Tr.r■n■n��on■.i
_- _ "'I"•-i:iii N 1111� '�•-i:iii • .r[.'� ■ \11111111�
- --!.■■pl non! u. 1 nu M u..•�C
!� r nn o01 ■r.�.l ::i���� =nonnn
tint ulnl■n mmtl, ■nn '-ll;:: I.III on unn - -IIIIII 911.
�.Pnll N11R1111 Illly f _p ' • -• '• - IIN i•�d�-II
11 IAltf I +��i- NI
NIII _-131 11 111- � III- f i/
LIIIIIIIIIIII'___ I� �'■
__•_ �!�� 1 71.111E N
num n TTf�I/' L7�1
so-
ii•. =IINn S� ru !1
Illlmuni= Y pamn'y Q•y!��¢;�
-=="" r�. 't� -_- -=lnni.nr lliilllmi3
�•��CIO i�'1 mh6.
ma �• non■.li'Ipnmy+ i■: =1C . non.•_[. rr ■11.[I�I �aI
•11::• ■nn�� !" n:aar �h- •■urlll.■IIIII�raY, ,u
■l.- W 111111111 0 -■Iu._JI-n...ry�i•= J 1�' IIIIII OIIIIIIIII d=
fa
Q ri
IIIII 11111III 9.��.i 11.=1 C✓1111111 IIIIIIIIII 1
■Ill,.,l.u,,, /ai i 7 :. i_ r�!=ri.1.■.1,.uun..n.
••1 f.iI._ mnnunuu � �� :i�.[ I.rrY■rlI ru■mm�nunuln■.�r'I��nn
!1!!!- r�IItt111r9G
J 1�1� /!o;■■!■■. .mm�■1 pnn°■ C=oral W• /•;: n■■••• rnnl■Fcmllpnrnnl 1�,':■■■�::
fyq ■. 1 n■n.nn► 1 n >.�� •_-Illnnlnnlnu nm n.
4 A:: n■ .r_ 11 =nm ♦ .I- un.[-.r_ CIO �
r e.■m- . ,Illl,lllrn I111r 1 114111111
1■ -_ �`h.r■i■In. _-■I,Illl,rn■■on FIIrI l� v1`h
nnln lnmm 11
n....... ......■n ■mnn■. M no:nu.orn■■■csy......■■■ noon■q/�•nu. O
E�a-m-�:non N= ® .� • N9=_� IPn'-[:non 1!� .� • • .
•1 nr+ Inulll l== ::. r ! 1_.�� 1.■.�.Nl nmll l=_ .1•'gNr ♦ la
:.� �ouF.=- . ..i� 4 3 ■■ . r Dour■== . r.ii• •4 ■
iiw g4Ar■■1!-A■■■-■�nn! =■rant yr!pr■■. An■- ■ uv N
l.nnl 1 nnq =nnln yo. •.1■o •►nln is n■n. •■111 �■
it � •A[ iii ii••��•:it----• ►• � � it��il�r\1.•■[Riii ii�+ �:it nu �I.nnon r :ii
i I i � ' ' • • ' III / 1 / • •�
i
I ■ I• I � / 1 / i •�
, r-
Item 7. F152
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 3/22/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 3/21/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
3/23/2022
on site
Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN/DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The subject 13.7 acres were annexed into the City of Meridian in 2019 with the Summertown annexation
(H-2017-0142)with the Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)zoning district which allows
multi-family residential projects as a principally permitted use. Therefore,the Applicant was only
required to obtain administrative approvals (Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review)to
begin construction on the multi-family portion of the project. However,the Applicant also included a
small single-family component to the project along the south boundary in order to comply with TN-R
requirements of including two different housing types within the project. Because of the inclusion of the
single-family lots and a desire to place each multi-family building on its own lot,the Applicant has an
existing Development Agreement provision to subdivide the property prior to release of the first
Certificate of Occupancy. Therefore,the Applicant is submitting the subject preliminary plat application
to meet the existing conditions of approval and create nine(9) single-family lots along the south
boundary.
The Applicant received Certificate of Zoning Compliance(CZC) and Administrative Design Review
(DES) approval in 2019 and subsequently in 2021 to establish the use of the multi-family residential
component of the project and be allowed to submit for building permits. With these administrative
approvals,the City and ACHD reviewed the required public street network(Venable and Wrangler).
Staff cannot locate the final ACHD staff report from May 2019 but has the draft copy which likely did
not change. Within this report and consistent with the staff report and approvals at the time of
annexation,the Applicant is required to construct Venable as two different street sections.According to
the submitted plat,this does not appear to be shown correctly. Further analysis is below in subsequent
sections however,all of the requirements for construction of Venable are already required within
the DA(Inst.#2019-015427).Furthermore,the expected development of the subject site is already
outlined and conditioned via the previous approvals and existing DA; many of the previous
requirements will be reiterated in this report and checked for compliance at the time of final plat
submittal.
The subject site is part of a larger Mixed-Use Community(MU-C) future land use area. As noted above,
this project was analyzed against the Comprehensive Plan at the time of annexation in 2019. At that
time, Staff concluded the project was compliant with the Comprehensive Plan. The submitted
preliminary plat is consistent with the MU-C designation and the concept plan included in the recorded
Development Agreement(Inst. #2019-015427).
B. PRELIMINARY PLAT(PP)
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 23 residential building lots(9 single-family lots and 14 multi-
family lots)and 3 common lots on approximately 13.8 acres of land in the TN-R zoning district. The
Page 4
Item 7. F153
minimum lot size proposed is 5,100 square feet for the single-family lots and 18,988 square feet for the
multi-family lots.
Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures on this site but building permits have been issued for construction of the
multi-family buildings.
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The proposed subdivision and subsequent development are required to comply with the minimum
dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-7 for the TN-R zoning district. The TN-R zoning
district does not have a minimum lot size nor street frontage requirement. The proposed single-family
residential along the south boundary and the bisecting public local street(W. Wrangler)act as a
transition and buffer between the existing R-8 single-family residential south of the subject site(Vallin
Courts Subdivision). Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and it complies with all zoning standards.
Access(UDC 11-3A-3):
Access to the project site is via extension of N. Venable Lane,a collector street, from W.Ustick Road to
nearly the south boundary. Access to the multi-family portion of the project is via a drive aisle
connection to N. Venable in alignment with an existing multi-family drive aisle on the west side of
Venable (Crossfield Apartments) and two private street connections to a new local street near the south
end of the site, shown as W. Wrangler Street. W.Wrangler street is also the access for the proposed nine
(9) single-family residential lots along the south boundary. W. Wrangler is shown to be constructed with
5-foot detached sidewalks and a 33-foot wide street section and stubbed to the east property boundary
for future connectivity. This complies with City code and ACHD requirements,as approved with
previous applications.
Upon analysis of the submitted plat, it appears N. Venable Lane is being shown as a 29 foot collector
street section for its entire length,from Ustick south to Wrangler Street connection point at the
southwest corner of the project. Previous approvals allow Venable to be constructed with this reduced
collector street section for a majority of its length but not in its entirety.According to ACHD, Venable
should be constructed as 36 foot wide collector street section from Ustick and 245 feet south to the
northern drive aisle connection across from the existing drive aisle connection to Venable for the
Crossfield Apartments. It is unclear on the submittedplat if this condition of approval is being shown
accurately. The Applicant should revise the plat to meet this condition of approval or provide written
documentation that ACHD has approved a reduced street section for this area of the project.
In addition to the public streets required with the subject preliminary plat,the Applicant is also
requesting private street approval for the internal drive aisles at the request of the Meridian Fire
Department and our Addressing Department to allow for more specific addressing within the
development. The ability to give buildings addresses from internal streets rather than all buildings having
a Venable address makes it easier and safer for emergency services. Private Streets must comply with the
applicability and minimum standards in UDC 11-3F-2 and 11-3F-4,respectively.
Staff ,finds the previously approved project complies with the private street applicability standards as it
is not a single-family development and all of the units front on or access green space rather than the
street. Further, the drive aisles (private streets)are shown to be 26 feet wide with sidewalks adjacent to
a majority of the parking stalls. UDC 11-3F-4 requires private streets to be a minimum of 24 feet wide
and sidewalks are not required. Therefore, the Applicant complies with the minimum dimensional
standards outlined in the UDC. In addition, the private street must be within a single platted common lot
or constructed on a perpetual ingress/egress easement.According to the submitted plat, the private
street is not within a common lot and is noted as being within an easement. However, this easement is
not clearly depicted on the plat and a plat note has not been included noting its purpose. These items
should be corrected with the final plat submittal. If these conditions of approval are met, Stafffinds the
Page 5
Item 7. F154
proposed Private Streets comply with the required findings outlined in UDC 11-3F-5, as noted in
Section IX of this staff report.
Pathways(UDC 11-3A-8):
The Pathways Master Plan shows a pathway along the east side of the required Venable extension. The
Parks Department has not submitted comments on this project but Planning has had multiple discussions
with the pathways coordinator and the City does wish to comply with the master pathways plan for this
segment in order to have a regional pathway connection from Ustick south to pathway along the Creason
Lateral approximately a quarter mile south of the Summertown project boundary. According to the
submitted plat and landscape plans, a 5-foot wide detached sidewalk is shown on the east side of
Venable instead of a 10-foot multi-use pathway.
In addition to the 5-foot detached sidewalk along Venable, the Applicant is showing 4-foot wide sidewalk
on the west side of the internal private street that runs north-south within the multi family portion of the
project(shown as N. Ridgebury Lane). Ridgebury Lane is shown with sidewalks on both sides of the
private street but is not required by code, as noted in the previous section. In addition, the Applicant has
some room within the building lot itself to adjust the property line and building setback to Venable
because the TN-R zoning district allows a reduced setback when the units are alley-loaded—these multi-
family units take vehicular access via Ridgebury Lane, an alley in its functionality, and main pedestrian
access along Venable. During pre-application meetings,Staff presented this issue and recommended
the Applicant remove the western sidewalk along Ridgebury Lane and make minor building lot
adjustments to construct the required multi-use pathway along the east side of Venable. Per the
submitted plat, the Applicant did not make these revisions.In order to comply with the Pathways
Master Plan,Staff is including conditions of approval consistent with these recommendations.
Furthermore, this multi-use pathway segment is shown to continue south through an adjacent County
parcel(S1201214713) in the future. In order to allow for this to occur, a logical termination of the
multi-use segment on the east side of Venable should occur so that a safe crossing location is attainable.
The logical location for this would be at the northeast corner of Venable and Wrangler Street so it can
be constructed at the southwest corner of this intersection should the county parcel redevelop in the
future. Staff notes, the existing county residence takes access via Venable and will continue to do so until
such time the property redevelops.After reviewing the existing conditions of the county parcel and the
existing stub streets to its property, Staff anticipates this existing access being removed and becoming an
area of open space and the multi-use pathway segment. Therefore, setting up the correct locations of the
multi-use pathway stubs with this project to the county parcel is significantly important. Staff
recommends the Applicant construct a segment of the City's multi-use pathway within Lot 1, Block 2.
Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Detached sidewalks are proposed along the internal local streets (W. Wrangler and the Ridgebury Lane
extension)and along N. Venable,the collector street along the west boundary. There is existing 5-foot
wide sidewalk along the west side of Venable that was constructed with other projects. According to the
submitted plat and landscape plans,the Applicant is proposing a minimum of 8-foot wide sidewalks
along all public streets. In addition,the Applicant is showing 4-foot and 5-foot wide attached sidewalks
along the private streets within the multi-family area of the project. All proposed sidewalks meet UDC
standards. However,the sidewalk along the east side of N. Venable should be constructed as a 10-foot
multi-use pathway, as discussed in the section above.
Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
8-foot wide parkways with street trees are shown along both sides of the proposed local streets(W.
Wrangler and N. Ridgebury). All parkways within the site adjacent to detached sidewalks shall be
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-313-7C.According to the submitted landscape plan,
there appears to be the correct number of trees but the table does not accurately describe the parkway
along W.Wrangler and instead labels it as perimeter landscaping.With the future final plat application,
Page 6
Item 7. M
the Applicant should correct this and list this parkway within the landscape table and show the correct
number trees.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The TN-R zoning district requires a landscape buffer to arterial, collector, and local streets. According to
UDC Table 11-2D-6 a 25-foot wide arterial buffer is required along W.Ustick Road(measured from
back of curb); a 13-foot buffer along Venable(a collector); and a minimum 8-foot wide parkway
adjacent to all local streets(W. Wrangler Street and N. Ridgebury Avenue)with all buffers required to
be landscaped per the standards in UDC Table 11-3B-7C. The landscaping has been previously approved
through the annexation and administrative approvals, as noted. According to the submitted landscape
plans,the required street buffer widths have been met along all public streets adjacent to the site.
The purpose of review for this plat is to ensure the landscaping is maintained through appropriate
means via the plat. In most cases, the required street buffers for residential developments are contained
within common lots but because the project has received previous approvals prior to platting(including
building permit approval), the locations of the buildings have already been set and a common lot is not
appropriate any longer. Instead, the UDC allows the required street buffers to be placed within
landscape easements noted on the preliminary plat. Therefore, Staff is including a condition of approval
to depict the required landscape buffer easements on the plat at the time offinal plat submittal. The
caveat to this is along W. Wrangler Street and N. Ridgebury Avenue—there is no need to depict a
common nor a landscape easement over the 8 foot parkways along these local streets.
There is existing landscaping and detached sidewalk along Ustick Road and the Summertown property
line does not extend all the way to the back of curb, where the required buffer is to be measured from per
the UDC. Thus, the entire 25 foot buffer is not required to be solely on this property but the Applicant
should do the following for clarity: 1. Note on the plat that the remaining buffer area is within ACHD
right-of-way along Ustick consistent with the UDC, and; 2. Depict and label the full buffer width on the
landscape plans. Including these two items will create transparency on both sets of plans moving
forward to plat recordation. Further, the Applicant should enter into a license agreement with ACHD to
landscape the right-of-way area consistent with City code.
All common lot and parking landscaping were reviewed and approved with the CZC and Design Review
applications(A-2021-0025). The Applicant is required to comply with all previous approvals so Staff is
not including any additional conditions for this matter.
Qualified Open Space& Site Amenities(UDC 11-3G):
The minimum amount of qualified open space and amenities were analyzed and approved with the
previous approvals.According to those approvals,the Applicant is including 3.11 acres of qualified open
space(approximately 135,000 square feet)that is to be shared by both the multi-family and single-family
residents. This amount of open space exceeds the minimum UDC requirements.
Staff notes the existing approvals do not account for the parkways along W. Wrangler and the Ridgebury
Avenue stub. So, the amount of qualified open space is in fact higher than previously noted—with the
final plat submittal, the applicant should revise the open space calculations and include these parkways.
Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6 and
11-2D-6 (TN-R standards).According to the submitted landscape plan, all proposed fencing meets UDC
requirements. Staff will further verify code compliance at the time of final plat submittal and inspection.
Off-Street Parking (UDC 11-3C-6):
The number of off-street parking spaces required for the multi-family portion of the project was analyzed
and approved with previous approvals. According to these approvals,the Applicant is proposing 384
parking stalls with 198 of these being covered. The proposed parking meets the minimum required by
Page 7
Item 7. F156
code. Single-family residential is required to provide off-street parking based on the number of
bedrooms per home; Staff will verify compliance with the UDC at the time of building permit submittal
for each lot.
Staff notes that the north side of W. Wrangler Street will allow on-street parking along its entire north
side with the exception of the two private street connections due to it being constructed as a 33 foot wide
local street. This on-street parking will likely be utilized as overflow parking for the multi family
residents.
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-I5):
An underground pressurized irrigation(PI) system is required to be provided for the development as set
forth as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Building elevations were previously approved with the Design Review in 2019 and subsequently in
2021. Staff will include exhibits of the approved elevations during the public hearing but is not including
them within this staff report as they can be accessed through multiple avenues. The Applicant has not
submitted any conceptual elevations of the single-family homes but Staff notes that single-family
residential homes do not require design review approval. However,the future single-family homes
should be designed to complement the multi-family units that are part of this development.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Preliminary Plat per the provisions included in Section VIII
in accord with the Findings in Section IX and has approved the Private Street request per the Findings in
Section IX.
Page 8
Item 7. 157
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Preliminary Plat Legal Description
DESCRIPTION FOR
SUMMERTOWN SUBDIVISION
A parcel of land located In Oo+1@rnmeot Lot 2 of S@otwon 1, T.3N., R.IW W. 9.M ,A¢e
DOuinty, IdihO mine particularly de-acnbed as follows
Commer ing at the N114 corner of said Section 1 from which the P4E comer of sa.ic
Sacion 1 be2re S"09`4634-8"East 2.W2.21 ftet.
thence along Itm Noll bourKWy hne of Said Section f South 89'AZ4V'Eas4. 20-Olt
feat.
Menem tea+nng said MOM boundary line South 00°19'S0'East,63.94 feet to a point on
the South rrghl-of-way 11ne of W L1g#rck Road.sand point also being the REAL P'ID4NT OF
BEGINNING.
thence along saA South npht-of-way lim for the following Iwo courses and distances
Iher"North 64'44'15"East,37.04 feet:
thenw South 89'4048'East.W 48 feet
thence lewng said South righl-of-way line South 00'23-17"well. 290.03 feet;
thence South 89"4646"East. 26.57 feet;
thence South Wi!'4T Eeet. 695 07 feet to the NW comer of Lai 21. Black 7 of Valhn
Courts Subsdrvislon as filled in Book 93 of Plats.at Pages 11.208 through 11.212, recards of
Ada County. Idaho.
MentA along the extenor boundary line of sand Vallin C&urts Sub erosion me foliowing
2 Nurses and dislances:
theruce South 001749"East. 56.60 feat;
thence North 89 4W21'West, 640 00 feel*the NW comer of Lot 1_Block 3 of @aid
Vailrn Cpurts SubSdiw$ion',
thence along I"Ent r6gMl-of-way im of N.1Hnabls to North 00119r50-Wsai.
926 09 feel tree REAL POINT OF BEGINNIM Cordarn4ng 1317 @iris,more or less.
17
, 4M�I�;
Page 9
Item 7. 158
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: January 2022)
SIIr RI1'RTOWN SUBDIVISION
w
z
U
iJ IJ 'i � YICMIT I4W
r
f p y
y
O O c enaa
.• � �M.I o�i'W W i0'a�'av y wx I�iR�'!RV.i[``!'K'UK''`IIlve Kry pM.
a1u'��RKinr[1,M.wxd ....�uxxM�101•Il�!
j6D
-
• M
r � � . � �� LW���.P4'M�E9 ,p c�xewu cannucrarti oevaar.n (�w+eF7! g57�?Q. ,�
Page 10
Item 7. 1 91
W l!S"iIC 3ffi , 4 - A 4G 40
wpnRE
X�vaeood3 1 -
Ltw FFC"'mIS
KW6 D -'-
�
� � 4
Kd�MqNE Simi,
maNUA
. x
m
Y msf Mwo
-
e awls � BLPPK i
I �+
as,lot art e[s
I
I a _
II I
41 PRRKST4HE LN
r
Ij
memo =
YRiW� �gr rr
1161Py1Pyip I'• igpn si
WON DA r I I� � � mmm=, �
A6I N X1N!IE 1:!
�4�e.$Xe I i 514hryi}pp
wimx c w I .Xiomw
�S 1E I I
!! I MAW art
menu -
F I seoex r 4
4 e�iw 9��N MF
1nnw�n nfoe �
BWRNeOA
.Mix.9
L a eXxXe 2-yo 9R
axe v
XV4 m e i
II w SFANDMP�sr I ar acx r
II
-—� w WRANGLER LN
coo*"
wKx Mw f
m�w nH awc
erwti n erer �,
— —W WRANGLER ST-
eewRcflo ,y
1�1,TI 6lili o
o ® a o 0 0 0 o a
mum Esu BLPCH 3 y �.foaio
XeoeN.maa Till, � - axe x eboc H
�sUM DW � e1K++pTiC irtnowl.o nu
�taaXDgO I� :aa n RUGm1Mx AS wRldiCx Ib1EY u lCF!uc
Aredl o�
l A"H KO " -111 ;g Xw x�wloc s
i81C1`l �e1P 19 IBy8qq H¢ $$ V � � awl 6 81916
w axe
IBAWc P A-eM �,� � � � X6¢Sk.16i9G �W
R I11 P1i061P _ —q I 'yam °� IQ WOYJ..h U.6'h
` 2�H1 X Wlll'ME
1�91►{Cl e9116 or�.n wri
Page 11
Item 7. 160
C. Landscape Plan(date: 12/27/2021)
SUMMERTOWN SUBDIVISION I
A PARCEL DF LAND;745 W.VSTICK RD
W.USTIICK ROAD LOCATED IN
-----uu--uuu--uuu--uu------, SECTION IACOU,R 14Y.,
M<rRIpIAN,ApACOUNTV IpAHO
DECEMBER2017
I I
1 ❑ —�-
_- .�-PPME III
1
(2 SFGRY
I r Tp'.v►rlolrEsl Y--�
1 1
PHASE I
PHASE II t „ I 0 STMY
(SVr3LE STORY � A.PARTAIEltiBh
CLUB HOUSE) I g ._ hQ FKE C[�kRAL _
1 uu _ 1
E CUF IRA;
w s� �NJ VICINITY MAP
I ¢ �• O D � 1 BVI M:
1 Z. I� 1
1 > �q AIK9CORRAL tMV4LO-In 1"mom iR MICr LANWavrAOCHMKI
1 ..a.� ewe A :. M
��wt�n
PHASE III 1 1 PHASE I
(2SICIRT t.. C}'
rowrrnrxes( ANAR1Mf..NrS] CITY REQUIFIEMENTS
1 BIFfEppHRxL .cecw•-..eve.w wawa,
+N.rrrt v.raa•rt+r•.l.pro+►w
- 1 1r1eE.��.,.a'.Lnw6�eaneo
1 � - -- 1 iF+Festrna�errs
I - — - PA 071 .sit w Lncn r
lra,�e,..enrr�7r
n wn P r*avr rla\�
1 I- FUTURE MINrRe�r..a
Wpm- d hlaM1r.p ryP�xMrK+
I L _ � I PHASE
aver+r�rF.F.a•-a�r Feenen
- 1 sr�n�
SSINGLE FAMILY)
C,inrw ONW0 pgr ie4 ."-N -
I SJtl'Are P NrrWk NT.yyrl
rr�[.l���p. 'wrI M1aP1rP
•nYOwi,p�alflGnl'�Rrr v tiler rKro.alC+'�P.wLLr
MASTER SITE PLAN r•erdra r.wrl•it. it lwdid44 ,MG
SITE DEVELOPMENT FEATURES
..-. ... - a..ro�wre rurb•ar.+ae, las..c,ee
.R.e.'•.1 .Ala�cw�orq ,�jGAIG1.YYllru orb.�1O�
lt1 R
•k r,ran�•h�'• -e Mt w-,rWr. IM 1G�■
9=SHEET Ll.l-L1.2 FOR DETAILED ac�c i %; _:cwneo�w ccw�..� •Rww.w r.lwn n rweisue r..cn..�wna v.s:
LANDSCAPE PLAN. SEFs SHEET L2.1 & L2.9 «wars.wa�w+�
"�fMF}W/SlS1�1�iKPMHW'1!r►
FOR LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE, l•+ak+.eTMr►n'^+nrlK`�aa+'+'�we+"u'I"'w
NOTES AND DETAILS. SEE SHEET L2.2 "ru.rr..npa+ou*rar�w .eee� aK ar. rN eln
.vwemrw ry��:srw�Hr r•r.,,q+rrl Ile -
FOR SPECIFIC AREA ENLARGEMENT'S. nnwrrwreweae
ssrtw •.+tie� see var
+y.x*rel. vnr.w.-r.wa+ue .uat
Iursr,wlxs �nlac err vn�y sesr Irxrra
Page 12
Item 7. Fl 61
M..
r'ne�e,vsw�3:w
SHEET L2.2 � -�,�• w ,.
— r
�]l��E�i rRPTT�' • w�J -
� }•��r' I -- +� _ _ � LLl'T*� Tart
z'}x x R+n
-T,S
' L2,2
_ I
� tea_-Ts-. 'j -I__ � .r.w.,, ���"��•rm�:�
I � �- l w•.r.nerw�'• I.
r
i k¢y .I-' —.d'e l ' L-.hi��`•`w♦ �_8 � '7h�s 7 c I1 7 � 1
/\ LANDSCAPE PLAN y 7 F LEGEND:
...�I. ,Y�' 1 L.MW k�-Pw/�u•i�i�ii M[y� n� PItiIFVf
a8 nx�4►viidf rb F.dsLT4daPW-• �� mrrr�.�
SEE SHEET L2.1 FOR PLANT SCHEDULE, ftMWM2r'wrw10 WWI I�e+- r k r^+
NOTES AND CONSTRUCTION DETAILS F*+•rnru
siasxws
Page 13
Item 7. F162]
Iry
3A
•
PIMA
I• _ — f, ¢k
i- _ r
LL {.
L { ` 4..
r. LL .
� f
1' r
L - -- — —
L„ i s , 1 I
•1 L I
lh'i Y�1a.144�t,iti11,I,'L
z
f
z 8LQC1[7 wow '4
Page 14
Item 7. F163]
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Preliminary Plat(PP):
I. The Applicant shall adhere to all previous conditions of approval associated with this site: H-2017-
0142 (AZ,DA Inst. #2019-015427); A-2019-0118 (CZC &DES); A-2021-0025 (CZC &DES
renewal).
2. The applicant shall comply the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2D-6 for the
Traditional Neighborhood Residential(TN-R)zoning district and those listed in the specific use
standards for multi-family development,UDC 11-4-3-27.
3. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval—depict N.Venable Lane as 36-
foot wide collector street section from Ustick and 245 feet south to the northern drive aisle
connection or show proof that ACHD has approved a reduced street section for this area of the
public street.
4. Future development shall comply with UDC 11-3A-7 and UDC 11-2D-6 for any future fencing
constructed within the development.
5. Future development shall comply with the Private Street standards,UDC 11-3F-4.
6. If not already submitted to the Planning Division,the Applicant shall record a maintenance
agreement for the multi-family development that states the maintenance and the ownership
responsibilities for the management of the development,including,but not limited to, structures,
parking, common areas, and other development features, in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27 and submit
said document to the Planning Division prior to the release of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
7. With the final plat submittal,the applicant shall submit a revised open space exhibit that includes the
parkways as part of the open space calculations.
8. 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 I 1-613-7.
9. 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 11-313-14.
10. Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I-
3C-6 for multi-family dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit.
11. The submitted preliminary plat, dated January 2022, shall be revised as follows prior to Final Plat
submittal:
a. Depict the required landscape buffers along Ustick and Venable via a landscape easement—
ensure minimum width of 25 feet along Ustick is noted despite not being on property(measured
from back of curb).
b. Add a plat note referencing the required license agreement with ACHD for the portion of the
landscape buffer in the public right-of-way,per UDC 11-3B-7C.5.b.
c. Construct a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway on the east side of N. Venable Lane and within Lot
1,Block 2 consistent with the Pathways Master Plan.
d. Remove the sidewalk on the west side of N. Ridgebury Lane (east side of Lots 8, 9, & 14,Block
1)to move the units east to accommodate the multi-use pathway on the east side of N. Venable.
Page 15
Item 7. F164]
e. Depict the private streets within a singular common lot or clearly depict the private street
easement on the plat,in accord with UDC 11-317 4A.
f. Add a plat note stating"No direct lot access is permitted to W. Ustick Road or N.Venable
Lane."
12. The submitted landscape plan, dated December 27, 2021, shall be revised prior to final plat
submittal:
a. Revise the landscape plans consistent with the preliminary plat revisions noted above in
condition VIII.A.8.
b. Add data to the landscape plans showing compliance with UDC 11-313-7C for the proposed
parkways.
c. Clearly depict the required street buffers along W.Ustick Road and N.Venable Lane.
13. Placeholder for additional conditions if needed.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. A streetlight plan will need to be included in the final plat application.
Standard Conditions of Approval
1. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department,
and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of
a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover from top of pipe to
sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of
Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2. Per Meridian City Code (MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to
and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for
infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
3. The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single
utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat,but rather dedicated
outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be
graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement(on the form
available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land
Surveyor,which must include the area of the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map
with bearings and distances(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed
and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing
this document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development plan
approval.
4. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source
of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water
for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the
culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving
development plan approval.
Page 16
Item 7. 165
5. All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by
the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and
possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
6. All irrigation ditches,canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,crossing
or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed per UDC 11-3A-6.
In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other
applicable law or regulation.
7. Any wells that will not continue to be used must be properly abandoned according to Idaho Well
Construction Standards Rules administered by the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The
Developer's Engineer shall provide a statement addressing whether there are any existing wells in the
development,and if so,how they will continue to be used, or provide record of their abandonment.
8. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections
(208)375-5211.
9. Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,road
base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be
recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
10. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted fencing,
landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
11. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the
structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such
improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-
3B.
12. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan approval
letter.
13. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
14. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that
may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
15. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
16. Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads
receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
17. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum
of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
18. The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage
facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The
design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with
the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is
issued for any structures within the project.
19. At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the
City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to
the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
Page 17
Item 7. E
20. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the
standards can be found at hyp://www.meridiancity.oMIpublic_works.aspx?id=272.
21. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of
125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse infrastructure prior to
final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to
the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit,cash deposit or bond.
Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development
Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
22. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%
of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of
two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City.
The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant
must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department
website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.orgj ebLink/DocView.aspx?id=252899&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiU
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=252855&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
E. NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255744&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr
=1
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=254219&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
No comments sent for this application—ACHD approved the subject project with previous applications.
IX. FINDINGS
A. 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;
Stafffinds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial compliance with the
adopted Comprehensive Plan and previous approvals.
2. 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 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
Page 18
Item 7. ■
improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own
cost, Stafffinds 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;
Stafffinds 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
V and VIII for more information.)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and,
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this
property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and has approved the proposed road
layout and connections to adjacent parcels.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is unaware of any significant natural,scenic, or historic features that exist on this site that require
preserving.
B. Private Street Required Findings
In order to approve the application,the director shall find the following:
1. The design of the private street meets the requirements of this article;
Stafffinds that the submitted site plan shows compliance with all dimensional and development
regulations in the TN-R zoning district in which it resides except for those noted and required to be
revised.
2. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage,hazard,or nuisance,or other
detriment to persons,property,or uses in the vicinity; and
Stafffinds the proposed use of multi family residential, in conjunction with the other residential
housing types proposed, is in accord with the comprehensive plan designation of Medium-High
Density Residential within the Ten Mile Plan and the requirements of this title.
3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or
the regional transportation plan.
Stafffinds the design, construction, and proposed operation and maintenance will be compatible
with other uses in the general neighborhood and should not adversely change the essential character
of the same area, if all conditions of approval are met.
4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
Stafffinds the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of approval imposed, will not adversely
affect other property in the vicinity.
Page 19
E IDIAN;---
Applicant Presentation
jeC%.
landp oDATA SUMMERTOWN SUBDIVISION
VICINITY MAP
.. y
jar..
gill
i e jam , @
ice., ,ww!
W I-MmI w
13VI Elf
ilk
1 *1 1 1 ;,Jim
Fitk
M-A
raw
t ry
I
,�• 43 37'38.36" N 116 23'56.04" W
TAN
Apr 07, 2022 IandproDATA.com The materials available at this website are for informational
Scale: 1 inch approx 300 feet purposes only and do not constitute a legal document.
CROSS
ACCESS
PONT a
III
CK..RDW USTICk RD -- WUSTICKRD _
-
�II F FI��
• El t
U , 11,44
NN
k c 1
W,ON NCR- 1 m
y. e.& � !—^ '. � � t G. � '•sue
Fill
IL
y, � EOGEV1IGI CPMIN
�- �•
'1 ~
CONCEPTUAL STREET
DESIGN FOR THE AREA
1
ti
I r
ti
■
■
r
1
J
I � r
1
I a r
II
+r I
1 f
J 1
f '
Il 1 L
In
in
1
4� ��4``'L •1 I '
5,� 4
I
I +
1 _
•� I• F I. � 7
1 I +h Fr IMF
h. {'
d ■: F
t 4 L
r
- �r F
{ �� le � _
=7
:. ti
_ � L �i� + + r f� ~�
Jr
r yy r y y - ` 000
1 a
4 K
' + I�
'' r t r• ' L� ' r
L �- •,�•',, � +� K . J '+� r `� y,M 1N�+ '. ma's X
'N 5.ti � I �L m. \ i .r• yr } + f � � r
1 J•
i - '� '� **i t## **■�i Y; +*#� I 1 r I ^ram 6e104,
_
S !
r _L '9•1r -
-P w _
asAp
I
_ I , J •yr++* _ i , 1
r
or
__ � ■ i � � I 1 -.. � � f Jam- ...err� � _ � _ Yi IF
dL
r -- _- h �{+ ± _ r I ` 1 _L i r ,•y. pp j_��* + rrp
■ -1 { ' + 1 -.�, k k�F• r'�i }+-+
{ 9.
lie •■ � .ti.'+� ti f
- - - .�L 1 ii ; I F Yi _+' •r r• s• _. -ti' ' 1 1*Y ' { '+L � ,t r 'L+',f''f* fir` 1F: ' �•4 MWi _ Y � _� _ ' +w.T+ ■ _ .-
r
'J� 1 `�
� *-� ,'�.T - 'vim • � � �� �F�� + T,� ;_ _-r �' 1 i'�` I r �j + �`'1 _ (I ,-� rr :..r 'L�1 r � `r ' }� � r * ��J r � _ _ F � i~� � ^ _, +
�t _ _ ■.��
r' �' ,1 �- ` + + � '��_ T � '� �ir _ ram• _ _ �r ���� * - = ���- _
`"Fj ' :# f� y Y•� + t r '. " - FI' Fr - - _ 91 - r }
v ,� ,� f 4 li ' r _ * ++r,-r Y J - + •{ - *,:_ - r ''-Yf ' - -ti_ �f r �_'' 1 - _
*: •T .+,,�`+ t'..� r ,.•, -- F �-' T 1 - -W y r -• - _ - _ F. +
• ' J4 �' _ ' a + a+ + _ ,� ' * ,PEFW
€_y rtiV� ,' 1,.�- 1 ` _ Jr :� _7�,y .r_ { :' + + r _rt--r• � ,F,L• + +J•:, _
qp
E■r_ ~ti- M1,� - � T a �rt�.. i - �' ti T .1 * `4 _ _-� +F .-..rI�L r#- ti s - L�i-,•, < `-ti �• ■� .sr*+r.r+ti i~~ 1�h�}' r ` ''t { ' j _ a= 1_' r Y -+ti-',r ti1� �± .r - r _- _ - . e .__te a _ -••'. �F.�+-+at_ -
rs -t P.
# :Lf+ _
- -
IF f
--
=i'' J r`,�•f � #� .J.. 1 �..r• �X - •{ _ F _ -
-� _ _ - ■ �16 �,F ! - �' �
r .� s �+• ._r _ _ . •r"r '" '971
0. .
%91 _ - - .i r+ ti f -•�+ ,S,Jr-r r' ; ~• tii� '1. rr„ } -
_ ~- ; - i _ �- I ti • yL -� _�-a r•# 4�' ti + rt r-' ter• ^�1 ' *" y% ti 1
ILL IVA'
1 - r to •.r1 _ i w�" �/-#,�'r•_ i + _ _ -
''■ f'�M, } "FF } y T 1 k'� i T _ � - -, 'i
r _ ► + - '` J - .'.. �. _-* - {� I+F •+' J +�II1 rNY. - •T• _ ■"" _ t-�� `' �'
9■ .y'Lrr'�F �C ''9 r I+• .� ' HY, ■ r V7 •�4 ! s f_ • :_ram - • _ - ` - rr
.r< #. :�-f - _ r •+ ' i _ y f' • �+� i ' y+ ' ` + - _r+` `rL 1: '+'fi ■r '�qF6 • '
=' �` `4pkk
' �4 + r - ~ ;' F'; `_ }#,- r „� � i Jr � _ } +C,y- •� • ' ir - _ '„te_r_ • - -- -�� _
+t
+ '•r `• r� ; fir 'ir - f _ _
s - r _ - 3: , {IJ �• f stir ■�� '•' J
.-`�� - + � •� + r J ■ c r_ Y• i '+" 5 'k' i L F' •+ ice- r :r �� r '� ••?- -
' , � r �•��r F �e' � • .- } � ' '� 4 •�+'�' • r- = -
- a ter-_�! r r t■�' # JIaV
+�" _ _ rt� ` � - '*'- `- rir. + -f _ �• '# _ {- - - -
fir [ r ;+ .�■� +L+ i +a �y _i + �# r N ' aL ■ ai+Wl r{k' J 1 +T- 1�.� • z; ` 3-" T f..73 �,
N �' + - -+ �iVr4
, + j` = ti #'+ y `16J - ' + _ - - • '' `
% � ,7�
. , . qS
*+ r +9 J6 , .!!-. M�_b-la M - I, lb d.0 7
p m '} r' - { 5• } �� '•�. r'.. ` i ar • +G ,J r �Y
1 ~_ � L �� t � lT' ai - r+"�� '� _ �} •r �` - -
+ �; t � F - - �+ '�■� y . -� ~ ,* #ti '-♦ rs.=r - -- �� 9 9 - .�• ~ =+� .J -T •�.i - _ #y� r ' ■ +i, 9 '' }w - � , - �_'ar� !4 R - +Liy __ ••�.-''
•. 4j � r "�'~"_ `� - -�{ - �� ; � �y _ � #�, _ _ __ �S* rti=• - ��1 �
- 4 ti" M1 ti• -'# '-5 *� . - � L;� �a a -}y�■Frt ••.Y �•{\ '
_ 1 � T ` + 'x ` + ti �•' 1 '_ �# -`•� '' ,+� rf � f .` --�* + t r _'# - r + }R .
� 1 1' •' ' _ r a ■r - y ice+' -4 ' �� }h4L � �.``
* ti %. _ 3 ; tom•; -_ '� +k t1- J<J riL r• tom` ti i'{ R� ;
• '� ~�• i- } �_ ; r - ;` `z � t it �
% y fit_{ 4 M13-} ~ _ •+ + + Zi- 1 _ ++ ~ r r - �- +y _ -i T '7 ; • t { +rJ'
* T ` } .: # ' '� ; 1+ - ik =`�,..� L -J_ - } oz1� ■• +_ ` r� ' #� 41r : v ' tt - - / ta. 1+1h' *'� _ _ ' r
� + 4, ■4 M.` ; z • to- _ �i � _ .+�. ,' Y �]I �'+ J :{. -� '�'`� ��•_' _ '}■~ -
dp
; - ~*`FZ - srr - �- T_ r �.i .T 7- -b. '.� r t� ' - , . :1-• s L•"• .l'�TL - Y -`i-
AP 4• F- yi ' L.rpa
z } ice" * � - �' '� �rF:' - • •�rr ' # f � �
.�� { ; a■r �� i ,� T _ � _ + ` - ��r• �' r1 r Y rr'
-�� _ J� -�• i � 4 r r # � a � k �'� - •�# `fir
:� '� ; .+ ■"� ; -•r '•, } + *• �� ■ �+ - 4 L { + * � ���i�
* k # .� # + - •- #+ ", - r r w +y ri ■+ t 1 1 �1 -�{ demLlt
" � , r• 'i'T - _ 7 k '-■'. ' * ''" �. r , :� r.# � �'-r '�• _ _
b%Vice + - i i a_ _ - - { - t ■ T �' 3 Y .. Y - # * r '+'C'' It-AV r%
Ir
� • � � r j~~ � �i -� � �■� � :.# .a�� - + � � �•+ 7■`-�.� rtL_r•• _ ������ -3
r+ ��r• _ ROL y` ` Ji a J' _ _•+ •t=rti {a ■ R.4 +
A� f �` t ' - �11-r �S _* �* - i � ' Mob z - Jw *'• + _ { +s J L, _,�' r L r } i h `` r r S `?,1F L � Y Y F- �• s . ` r- �• 'T
�' 3 �� �r } I'it`"" •tiy
_ T �• rti+' r _; r- ... r t} r r s s ~��pprr � l� tr. _ �. '' ` '� - •~ 1 r + +!i + } �• �rrl� �ar� 1 _ _ r .�, �•r+ -
- -` � � '�•~ � •_ } ' i� }� '•• - r+ �` r - r '# y- - -`ram- • +
±� r t .� +If F i 1,� �_1r.z• - _ -+ •`r
• ■ } ;' t +.a~� +1 #t . - J .kart^ *� , _ - + tiy 4i `R y -` 7 +�••+ '�� _"ti.`_ r'
Jb
1t - ' L X1 •FL 1- It � ! k, `'
+, w �� � _a7 - �� � ' _ � _ � k�4�s -'�� ~r� �■ � Y t R � �F-•? z - _ ~ -� � _ �_i� � � � ���1�' fL r�' + J� , �� � �� F `
} _ `• a --{{{ - 1�. 'y- .t `�. ,�1'Y ram* z -
LPL am+ � _akr _`. +_ •• "t # _ rft� _ _ ■ �' 4 {;+t'�i' .� r r - i• +i•� + �■ - " _ # ' 1 �" �+
r F * } L#f L� * k - Jt _ * - _! ` + _ R� _; }�, � i t }F YTJ�yrty '� � '� +.
_ � r * # a ■*�~ ra w + s _ rw - a '''L , �. i c + } � iJ■+41 r {i _
- _ _ t4+ _ a + _ _ _ �+ •: 1' r}R ••lrtz - F' f� ip • y F '■ . a ' r_ a r - ~-..rfJ'' _• _
w_ ■9111111� r L •� w ■ ` r •�� `fir ■ t 4, t: � Y; ti �' �! �Y� i+~�•
~ ` is r ti �+ � �� - f r ^F +. #' �F �y _
+ r� ' r } - �. + . r .ri�,t y _ .r f *_ _ _ ,t. r ��� ` ' r �' ii ti� �RI�.; 3y; ��' �• ''■•�+ N.
_ - _
>� �i• Vk- f r•+ _ W. � + _ h �-" - r5 arm r'. 1 _ y - _.■'lam #+� + - '* y w -' fir' k _ 1 T �{r•Fr t 1.�L + i L r 4 .i M S J; +3 ■' 4 i� ' __ _ - _ 4' ti
� �rrr r i � + •+ a' ' � �- � � k � L ti+ �� � ` , i� �4 •Yfti' � _
+_ •� try- ' + r 'r 'r•` - - � '+_
r r z r - i F i - i J am+ ]i- �' - r f ; 1 y w = P ■ ; tiV ■' �_ r+ 1 I_P i , �l _
■ .La f 'r - + t w _ v . + \t - ' - * * `� �7 4 L J ti• •i.r _i #=.r r �1 ti• . R#"'� ,- r r+ #■* _ _ -� ~ �i�r _. _ ~L~ Lr T'- + -
_ dr t I + ■ i 'i`: ry., k'ti _ ~ ` + - !'; *�■ '^ T� '_
�• } S+ 'Y f r.I -Apr ~:■ �� , +� { 1 �' �,#. 1 � - i1' '{ .�. + - � �+�- : ! 4 -• a
� � ■■`"; �.a �.,r.� .�4� � � � _ ti � _ � - + •fir` � -- -r _ rti����•.L z� �� •r.-.�{� �■ r - •F �#~ � �' � � _ +- -
' - ~�F 7 t ',• r +• ti + '� _ r . `r R ri. _ 1 fy ' , ` !r+l ti' } '�7`•-+ `' - i_ r ' f - - - � t• �ti< _ -__ •' ,F -� � - _ - `� ,T - -
' _ w 1 •.. i .� `,,rti + r• # _ t 1�J� ■+M1 y 5':` ■ i +'rt#�+F+y - � ; k
a + =a. y r +} ' _ � ' + ; + }''
/ i r L ■ , y,•' t y. + + , ;ar iiy-�� ' + F rt 19
+ ~ �■■�� �+ *■ +a+ !''� + ' Ik • l =� �r` i ti _ �' ■ yr ,T z `1. = _ =ti ' r w- + ��r� - #/` -
IL F•• # r +-f # � d ry } - y - i •r #r +1 •+{ _ F+ei ,r .1." y j it i + _ �` r .• f • 1. ri~ •� `k ,� �'~ '�`���`• - •• - - ti ~~Lr "` _ ti' ` _ +t
•'' #�'�•�� +i � y� ; i _ _ .+ r � + ~ � i'� ' ■ � t - + 4 ,LT �ti 1 � �� J �.Y: 1 } .'J� 4'_ f.�#�_,� -~ ' _ "• + ~-�'` .t'• - � - �� _ - � _ - '
w J t _+• r. - r+ • ,� •� Y! r ~ r ; r ■ j qr y� - J _ _ r• +■ - � - k - _ - 'k f ~
• :`� "`'r + - ��•';.■ � � �+ � T �� r # _ _� vet � , 4 �_ �� � - � i _ . � �� t , �` a�T � � Las. � � F' '� ti ~a- _ � ' �,-'�� '"`f -L�.} +���+-fir~+ r,r � +�• *ti����i*� _� ~~_ r- ' z�_ �� t _ _ � ` - -
'# r k * i■ri. _ + I+*� * ��w Y" ` -� Jrt■�� 4 _f _ t+tiy - - _ 1
a L Jt + +f t
a r r` 3 - r _ �' i.r +� i _ +` T `"* Tar +. 9 ,•• -
t _ +� _ + Y, it J t 'r +.` +L rY�^kr' • i• + �Y *?. '`T .rt�.+i *~S`` __ ,'wry _�� �+ 1PL
+# + } +`_ rr + ' +_Iiy#� _ ���, } � .••ti =�+-� _
+• L �• ` # +� ,a' ■i - - - t 1r _ '- •F r� _ C,+^a•�_ti,
■ • '' ` t ' 4 i` "r. _ - r � t T `,• -� _ + �_ 7 }� _ ' '� � y ti_� +* ~
3 a �� ay rr .J �r • w t- _ '� • �* ` M1.lL + + � r,-` ti,��+r •,' ,J ar+ t= Y F i l_
�' • * * ■ ; 4 '.T � + ..rF + r - r. fr:r. •� 1 .,f ti _ '4 k ��-•- %T• + :� s' . -: . _ �. ■�� ~ r �. ' _
i• h- 3► t - k r `- _ t* i t•i i J' - l t [[ . _ + � -
# r! r� _ { 1 `,rr rt r r - ! } ; .� fY , - fir: - t k _ _ - J. r '. '--+ z+ r rIY •ti #+ it- t ti +y`'■ ~aif : w4 �s�� L
■ # i.' +.+##,� } # * _ .• - + ti Y f + i L.1# �- ti ' tir- + L #• ir. f
. `' • } ` r: *� � _ Y i . . �* , � • , ~ �R ' r< _ P.
•-• rrt+ r `� 4 ��} ' + �y 2. , -k '�i ■ h'+T -F ~T 4 ri # - y:+ -+ie` • � _'~ - �� ' ~� . i
- - ■ y T r - ~ TiA 9Yr + y ate•" _�L'' ,�•fr • '�_ ��}� ,+ ti _
* ! - r L J r`i+' r r L - r� `J"i ti L• '�, { + I `� !' ��'• ; 'r, r„■��� k �` ' �• r'I y _~ -•,L�
r a _ -- . 1!' �;k� + air ,fir , .� .
'- ..� { f, rtia a ti - ,off` - ;' � r - - t� rw , ; +trr'' �M` _ i � •' �
+ - Y IP.Yri+.'ta * * ; ■ ■ F +.L �'` y .• ; - ice} ! --1 .■ _ �. R+,+I#. F{ f -�- -f +. ~ ��' � _ ,�+ -
' rf _ r : r - r '# �- k t_ . - ti-� r•.l "F�, L i L t +�._ J4, �i'#++ _ y .- Fy z, t '4' . � L
4110-
r * r� + ',,,r 4 # ~r 1f, * �- ti1 'S a ` + I, t I ` � •� F'�w■k � - --f rY ���.r } �tom•+ +�� ' a �rtii ; '• � +.r
+ t t '+� - - - ti - �" ' 'i '' 1 f ' F { kILIC r _ -� r L�,y '`_ _ L ti _ /■k = `� - •.�
_ F }' f _' s; 4 - •'
T r r r - _ i 9 9r� r _ yr _ ; +"`
_ � _ _ F � #`�"fi_� ` �# s�* � � ` ~e r � P. � � -_ �t LJ 1 �'1 � r �� � � 'y '�' ��� ti~.' r � ~ � - -y' _ _�� }�•
i y - • F f i 1IL� 4 ,+ a ,'' *•fit �. r.: - � �-� - r • '...` - ti• . f+■ '. -_,l+'R'4 } �`� + w• i.■.' _
I k - •� r � �� r aW rs , - r` '� r + r 'T { i■ ' -•ti, t• '� - + - - �• "- �' �` ■� � '"" ■ _�Xi � � i4
f• i r i R 1 ' L' :t' _ a�{�` -5; F ��` M� '
r r r 7 ■ kr.�r + f F - r t * Y _, r k + t F r 'k *. J+yi ra; ,.�_ _* '```_ ■. - � t# r� ` �'+.
._ f }'' r + y' a �' r`+ f ,w r � tT + 4 '{' _ � �{t .. - a' �'
� � � y - 'r r � _i.-v.� i'k. ti� r �', y r �±�� y ■ r ; _ � ~� .y za•�F �-� ��t`S~ , � � T �
�+7 r{. �•` �•_ _ . _ {• •�Y � ��-1-� � � +• � .y. ��`-+-..' � �, �F• r}*� _ "*. ���
1�, � # ■• � _ +� .�}'t �� �y JAR �}•k� _- c.r ,_y� ++ � � i' +�;T •� + + - -� F •Y �-� ��•- ; ~Y� ti � ti ��
■ _ } LN + %-• �+ - fr' + *� LE _ ; J + 5'•+ '' _ a #. ' Mi - F� .ti ..+ � +Y,`
� + 6 r ' ' F r. + * � � ■SY � ■ + r.i ' _ ' .,. '� �•� �' � ~�� }z �+ t��1c'Mi tiF+� � `#'
* •t + t� _ � r i '� �r L +ram - • i�_ #■'' '� ti k ' �Fi * �� `�• 'L *" A bp { { .i. - i+-A _4r+ z'#�[ X -�•- ; � ~ - 7t 'ti _ ,�; �'' `
' _' a!' � L ■ z �,� r i ` ,, ti _ + = r+ W a+r a 41 r.y r - . * � � � '` - � = -� �
' -+ * - - Y a • 'Irk 1 _ y "Y * - - i+ r i #y •* - + r •+ i . ; _ F ti +•rr,`- -.r ��w +k � _ �wrC � ' y •L
-- i _ , ' - '• ` '' Pr I .a ' . ~ y r. k �y' i. •k,`'; ' Fr _ _ ti• �L �ti ~ _ __- 4 •_- ;
r ;f ■ - y - .. • t +4 . _ f a _ - } ■�Y •■ 7. r 4 �' ' rti i '#' !I. �ti wr" • : y- , .* .���,r�� `L •` +, �
- �a r• �' 3 �s + _- ■ - fi • fr - Tti - rT #' _ •11.` i } _ ,k J��F� y. t• y4i �s ~LL _ +- _ '' ;i _ � �ly+� ■ _ '+ �- } y `+J
r . ' y r r ■'} r• - `� '. W : .. y ~ 'rTt ! ' •• ti '■�__' ti . I i -
r +■i t1 . : - - . {'' .z �+ ■, r ; If rt J,a _ti •� 1 J, ti `i - + ~I�
■ ti f Jr 1 '`;•* + r r+ + + 1 ■ r 3 r ■ r; t 4` _ _ a s = �'•' r i ih9k z �� �.-
�,• � �� iJoe .� + �M1' ' � - t� r - -gar + ~ � -~ i~ �. L -'ti_r. {' �J i t \ #` f`ti k ._ +•.■, ''�WPPter. Y y� -
_ � ' '� y �� r ++r_ � �r ti rti. �i�F-_• * i7'' � .� R 'r '1 * � - _ - - yY .� a + *_t .if i titi•' i #�•i 3ti h ■ �� ;ti~
4 # 'r F ri~'a■ #� 'F w -1 r ■ + ' ti a a + _ r r ice, + ' - ��} _ i' �_ �� ; ? _ +�_ 1p� �TtILr�-4
1ati -`•S ' +_� r• .r t { - 1 �. y - i'�I� }+ •" .MV S - i I ' f.r�_ �. t•.!" �y3�.Y. �':. _ '++ ter- _ i _ �h �'# s-� ; t -i ��• �. _
9.
rF r * 5 } _ L { r r z r ti +■ _ y+ t 4 'i ■ } 3 .�- `tiif�{r�,�h - �+x , Y�I k ra.` •_� r} '� =3� +� tiL _ +' - * s . ; - -
ti. +" �•' '`' '•i■r_ k ' r+ f� 1 y _ -ti - •-r ' �: �. -ti �'rt'y • •� �' rR J *• '`i9.91
9% i .- ; � -
r .� r �, + - r ` - , T - *�' _ + .■ ' y, ` ti ti- .+trjf.• + 4iY � - ` _ _��' * Y r ' - * � `• '
41' _ 1 • + � � _ L~ y rn 'i '�' - . .T. r.�• ,Y r, i r _ F i k y 7, F _ r �.4, +�.*til■I � * •7 t••k :�., - + a, z _ ~ • + ti fy�■•L■ F • f : `
# { - L r r .r - - ri�fi' _� �rt L w� 4 tic
a r# i - k + Tr i. r `.+ - y*" �`} + s Jr• i �/ +� - ` + :#45"` t.. 1i� ` ' �T ' ' r + ' y+LL1 J� ` � � Y+ ti,
} - - ` - •� `� 1 ' 41' F - - F iT r 7{,f� '�' ra k•M 7�r■r ` } + 3`�+-��� �1�, i 'i - - + �■} -16
- ` - ''� # - `: ' ' •
r � L ti P L * _ r' �JY. ' L L * t F ti ' f =! 1 +' � S y Y y y' # ,~ '. ,ram J� L ~' + t+■ x
a IF! r r� ` r ti t r +
I`tiJ. *. �Lr� + h+ rr * r a _ { i� _ r ' ti-� Y J' r ti.� #` #�� 4.
■ r y r { .� ��i 4 i k f r . I r 'f' �_1 _
.#: � 1 � � ti ti '# - _, J � �,• �, ti ,� � � � .� ` ; + - rti i - *+ ' � '. � � _ *dr 1 7
• f r '� r`+' r• - • ,� i .+ , } + �-' "* r -. w,. 'r F 4 _ k �_ # � '- _ tiy y !lam L� _;"�i• 4
%EP
■ +r f s + J" - + , r • . '� ��i�r '+fir4i P. y �� �' - .` r1 - _ - J ++ L' -r},• '� ` r ''' - !4zF•is' ' -- _
h t' i ! ` ■ _ - r �* + - •y tiy' , ' - � hp 9
. •- 1
. 1 ' r 1 +��' �"r �� *. , her _� �* ''`+ a'`�r'. r� r �, .� - r`_ F _ r� .I # �•4 •r +'y- _+F-` 7F+ -{.. *k :r�kr ., N. ti-
;' rt' r r 1 - f 1•' .� + �f - # 1 L } r �r R r w •- +, `� * 'rti,, * i ��r �•? + .A• '"F y _ , _ �'ii i• � .L. '- - ■Yr ti
a �' '�` q r �' 3X ++ C. `. , r1 � -��ti � a - ti � ,rF.
t i ',L •f i - r 'r a., - r 1 5 , ti ; - 4 - a ,z - 1 }- 97
a. _ r' _ L~}.+ ;.� N i* ~ ■i �. �6ti .
d14
Op
MdML
yy r - r t ' + fi. ' ' ti _ H y fti+. .-. 1V �- i + t ` + ' ;' i ~a9 ti-
rL
'+ rVa ' ■ .*•' � ti f �_ - } ry• _ -Y' al y -''� _ r .+x� -' * + Y '� •� .-? + ~ rr {\ - ~ ,L + r. .z _-J� �5y11 `,_`• � X �`
%
'� - - r�• _ r ! r - '# Ar #. }. - +fir + f - ■'.rr +,� y�� I---
~# - # ��9ML ~ ' • ;* ;� • + ' 7.� +- L �i i•IF� + a ti
-L �#�+ ++ � Y t 4r . { .+ }. r r- w k ti _ L r am'- ♦ + iF ti ..1. ti •tii �� ~�
sr 7r - f + , ;r- �•F r �•_. _ _ ,�.• '. �.. �'• ■ _ r _ .i +� } • r r ti� tiw4 - ■+
1pr 'r # _ . f # tr ' * +-, L• i#" - T + r� - ■ } -}•• ; - •`4i 3R + �
■1 _ - r" � Y �+- r � . + Jf• �' - -'+� �� '_ f k. J _ L �••t - ; 4' - : ,+� + + 7R k .' -� 5 + +. •` ,`� �_t 3 %6 ti ,
Er i ��4• r� �► f �- � + `\ y r `i'• - - i b y• - 5 *+ F w +' 'r z
)61
*�" 4 +a M ` _ r r• - _I+J- �� .OF - ,�: + � ■. } f k ,� `y frgi�p # } "� • +*_ ■ ■\ - , } + z a` ,�`• '�4 �k� ; a ' }
4 t.r f' •*f r +�, rr + +` �} _ �'+'J� 1f I L + 1 ;•'k ,* R - ■ �`' � lz• _ .. 'k '+ *` % '� -i 1■ ;} ; a•_ �
'Y ,# 4 �' rr f _r ` y ~ +AP - ` �� �. ,.r` 4 T - ± rti •1�1 -* Y r.T Y k + r� �� �4 { `t� `
' #+� # ~ �` 910' r i t+' ' ' ■rT �� rt. t iA -• 1= X -1 F'' t. ' ' F 3 i\ *�.i {I _ tiy+ ` i. i ; t 1 L +i lip + �• r y } J �
v '+ 'i• - + ! r * r� ' }• - + �JS� } _+ •+ �, y r Lam, ` `--�" - '� ' y � L# � ti t L biL
'a y a { s rt -tea J i JF S w • L- , ;r rt ■ f * _ * r.i ■� i ++ � ._ sex` �•� �t + � _t +� ,. - 4 '* z # ti rr. � 'itir � r,� L
fy Jt' W . T 7•Y _ tii
,• _ � Y y yT ` � +� f ' L },r �• ' ' *_ ;` {~� S•� i +1 t ` �, '.! iL +w + ~ + ' i + _ _+ - `•� _ � 4 r _ f 4a■
r 'Y' y :� r rL r, {r "' yti k Y t t • ti -
ILLf' r't �` + * IN VP 4 . + + r M +.r +� - ti - ,■�� * + w i ti k _ 4,7 mil }� ' -1 ' ~ - L,
i r - ; i i_._. ' �. F'`. r y ' L�''r � f ` :+w .�i �, s t _t ; { 4 + L _''116
�' y `� 91 . L � . 3 a t- ~ Y-- 'k Lr..�
dF
dVA1
+ `,� #rtt• r 4 ti J + 3 r y■ + ■�-� * 7■ r' i + ` + �1ti , h 4,.1 w. t _ 4 '-' , + * ■' +� - `; z
_ •i �- 4_ * t ! ,}` ; -yam r ` � = �•.
1 x *` *•a - J + .` i + _ y �'4 F +� '� + 5R1 +r` i '�'• ' 3' I` L '' ; _ a•_ .` r_+..r �•,k '` .� �+
%
1#+ Fr l + 1• +;fi' ` _ i =t • - ,+ +' ■-:�, '' '{ : ■ i,�- * - 'T L + • ' ` ` • - �''
IJL
+ Y J rrf 4r r r , - r Y• �, r {� �y 11 ,�+� •3 a +' ' �. �a L * �■* ■ iLp _ � :+■
++ ! ■ ' + .■_ fi,, ~ + a _ 11 -�` -rr •� - + y,y { Mr rkr ' ~ Y r �' k 5y+ r31% �k r k� y ■ ; _ ti ` +tom ��� i �� _ �x
r ■�,�1pry - ' ' �• ti ''+ T ~" 71 �. '� i ` r +a a
r:•* r }' r y rt` . - '+ ._F a f -y r -�• - ` r _ 4 + L ; *-� ■ ~• + i a�LM1 pia i ~
116
•�• % � � � � � N � + i •� -�•y � �r' +ti
4 - ` i + ii + r L ' ' + 4 t' L SYF 1 L 7
� a y _ J� •� h raj[kF _ •+ � r ' - 1 �rt' 7 • ; 1 � 1_• ` ' .�r` k
a. F. r• + �y + T ii• r rr 5 ` 4,. r _ �: _ _ _ •,'Y t+ r i- 1 ,y i ' :. += Rr. * 4ti ti - 7`- _ ,� ��
41 ` +* + •' - Mrl+� +In qwp _ }' J + { Jt L i + + +L r �`,9~ ` 1, `� } �~ IL �a
1 # ■ v dw J' rk * + r r ,� iF. _ J■_ "' 3 r- F * ' * 1 �• Y ,,` J, F ' ` .L _ _ +
_ � #• F r f _ � rr ■t ;' _ � ''� r+' ate` tik - �+
� - ". r _ l y 4 r' � I - k + + . r - '�_
r ' f r• - + �+ y f wi *+ '■ .. - ` ■ ■ r'M- r t •' t. r � r F` r + - +i�- ' + �` tiL ,_y. L L ti y 5 r Y= y
' + R r f' ■ r #, f' F T 1 r _r � 4 r•
+ ' * + r r _}• - # # i i '+�# r+ ■ ' �a#' _ri t � r ti Fr - r kr r} ' f■ , 4 tti � " 1 t + wy 4 ' x a z '
M �' Olp~ � r<' F + - _ # ' ~ + ' s tirt 4 k • r - i �5= #' ` 5 '' .�f. t `} X '■ ;y+ r �' rL
+ , •� - ■�, _ ; •� + t, Jr t f• } h .•_ i . F +' •y"F �Y ' -+ �+ : "r � 'rt . I Y `f Y M1 *. 5i • �`� j�:� �� ' _ # k i - __• � aVIM
y+ _ - z - I 3 �• ` yl � : * 7 �}� �f1,,;`� 1+' y � ■�,' I _ ti I - .F Ea �, 'r �+ rti' ti k k 3+ `+R i Y i ti
r - I#■ ;■ r ' t - J�r + F rr 1; a �+ • % 1 +� •' `' - Y r f r ,y��+ _ tiI� j• .i _} L � , ~ i• { *�'� `' - ~ ti
1 * _ r- �r f - .f k �4 ., _ i z i.
YF r # r r _ , # + + + ■ T yi' +y _ F • +, it * ■' iti i •~yr S
r 'r' J Fa / + yY� + • � . 19, + �J 'r- r f� TF' ' al y L 'L� _ +a + 3 �Tk, - : #
r ',� "ice ■ ' r !Y ; , �+ + +
P.
�. * y I t ■f 5_ F +� r r :�'.� +r �+ a t s
t * r �■'_. r . T _ f •r L r * _ r r �* T *� t{'+ , }i�' ti y y } #`` i ti `ice+
+ ' # * L - t * + # * �` L *= y, 7{ Y f ' ` ' t � F , +7: L; '.*4 ti + ti '` i J, +fY }
• a _ '� _ #� �� k ' _ 7• _� �Y , i',r, r�R f +'��f - y f � .*�^�' r �elm a. �'� . � 3 *L `�. ti,�'F +w l �r*�'■'#. � '}
Ir. I
91
! r ,-• � X � !� k ■ �_ r � F � � � _ + 4 *. � ■ f• +Y *i + ti s 'ti y Y +' ti �'h r rt•� k _ L + ~-•- ` t
_ * .f F 'r ~ , ■ �� � r .� + 3 ' I �, F . wt } y R , { ' �k •'■ + ,tti4' ' ia�_r�+..aY• �k _ �• } � '` ~'
r a - ' • . �`+, * i` • +,F `� F !, �+ �_ y r .� • } y y} - R}_i L ' '� '� •; � 6~ i L�1Y.•
• � � a _r R f ,�� t x '� •-1 4L - F
- 1 f + k`� r Y -r iF +r t �; + r + } ■ i:r x F 1• y r tr i 1[-■ + 3�' y }r+l + - i` ■ dkgL;w�: a 1 L ; ` � i# * ■
` + , f ■ # ' f t' } F ' r * f J �'k.`r ' a.� , � _ �zw _ .� ; ; ' *r• 4 -'� ' r ■ } � •�i yty �r '_ ' ' + gk,% ` , ' ;~ _441b, ~ ' �� - - ��
F k � . � - t+ 4 + rr _ ,F . 7 _ * i # �T r� ' _ _ . ti *• +.'' ,� ' 1 k 1 �4, J 1 L+- • ' + + { ' F ~ • 'F. ti
• ' r1 'i �r t - r # �. �'. .r-. 4 + A -� a Li •.: � L y 4 k �� k+ -
yi J•• _ '+��. r �_' M ,•�'� • �'4 �- - '' + #y � '■ �� �• ■�'# a r t. y i kIks F#• ; . . Y r L .; � } a 'T'■~ " �ti } .� � ti
y +' r r + # _ �r r J r#� F +- +r ti r I � i� '' r _� `. �' +. #� ■ r 1lti i ; �.. *tZboo x r Y ' r + ,
r r ~ J PEIy �.. i - *f� r' r + ' # Y - , _ t y{ ` ■Y�� ' qb
- '� �1- " t L { `ti. f, -•'L. � * {� 1 + M� ' ` 4y -
a � fir: k r '� ` ' ' , �, i + r ' •i; t �tl tea: � � �, a ; - ' .yy� y 7{' _ .}4i ■' ay
'+ R L r - i r w Lt �' _ r. - rs al. rt h1XL5 * _
ti +L r ■ - ,i i 1. + F+ .'{ 'Sr +' ■ r r* * r�- y Y y+` *; L +R+" '+' 94P4� ;� y s + ■mollL' F * tz, '* 7 z ` 4 • # .L
r f i 11/I�r **rr '+ * t L+. {R w r t L ~ i • ■- R _ t` ~r }
• + �' 9 or+ +' + .,> .r• ` * ` + ` r4, f r ' •F* • _ Y + `` '' .■ } ` F y �+ �� � "�' , ` yam; yF ' - + r -
,aR _ , r* + f z , ' r _ + r } ,_ ' r - y '• ' _ r r7 4,- '`+ . _ k'9. #• . + .�
` 1 " ' # k # - fr r fir' ,' f •,. a I ` �� + # 1 a �'1 }� 4 * L � 1 ' ~ %L +
�. - + • 1 � _ k rr •a _ * ■9 r ` ' _ F _ ' � _ + =i...Cl" ' l'r k y. � `iCr * i 91L ■L _ + �• lb - ; • i' :: '
90
ti M ! 3 1 # f • # + �lop . � + ` ' y' J i +� � +. �y i r F I' • f# }} �, ,' L�7 r 1� '; r *. ■ . } +r tti` % y
- +. - w-d 1 i, r �r '? r + '� J��" a Y , +; i3 •� Yr. ■; i * ' y,,+ i ■ �4 ' •, y ` - r y ■! L '
fyo+ '�d6lif Y ; r ' .r* I ; Fr *- r +* ' ■ # * ' fL Y''' r. _k �. �.1* * •i �11� 4 i -� F � } �* ' �• . # * } #
` - : r r �, ■ 'f r� + _ ■ �iy,� L 1 .4 a; •` V4 +� 1. 7 -i• .J i
i# ,rF *+ r ' *41L ' 1 ~ � J + r~`i` y+ �' '' � - ti`� y 'y ■ w t � r} � �•'~ r rY r . s + �'� L aIL
L _ - - 't * �+ y�' #YY��• Y .tom r r + 1 r :Y , r '� +. } + *"' #~ r • r,. ' } ;` ~ L ti
' t l ` J { ��r �'- r r � 1 i i+•r L�•, �� rii 2 # , r Y S * �� , �. + t}' y 3 � }' ti
••� � � � a � � � �r*�� * � - �' + � kl� f ,■ r � � •�'■E.• �Y � y�YYrr r� I� �, a .•�� Y� '4 � �'� # � ti + 4 F � �h �r ., ��f �
r'• 'Irk = t i + , {r rt . Wr a +r. �* ;, •!, r_ � {.w4 •� } Jr. ti •* -
r l. ' +F F #A f r..a ar+' �•' p * F � + `+y fir• * L F i' 7i' 9PTF '�� L '\ 3 '.�. ' tomr ++# } r �� `� y ` r #z + L L i
r ,� r + . r �+ ■ # " + # + * ; Y ,�• ram` r _ 3 �, i k #� _ Y
a � , + w - + + � i j* ' ■ , *. # r � r r * + + * t y�� t } _ , ,, , y i Y�■ k Z R,�Y ■ti k 9 • t _� i ti
' •�. F L * tiy + 3 - y : R . + + # ' + . i�,r t { hik; •3. } +. , - yi F • '"`, 4 #x ' L `'~ #+ _ ;•Y �, + � 4
k � I�■ r, : gk
* ' _ * Y �} t' ,1 ~� ■ F ; M_ F ` + F L FF � **Ji Y ` * _ +�`L ,■ }'^f y ` !� Iq 11 c L -
r r r+ F 4� L w� �'''+ �"+ �1 '/ r F ti. L r # i•, 4 1 r �.� y` % R �'r F * Y Y�-• �Y ` + 3 + ~* - �' 9w, 'L' # �ll�ti4 1
i 1 I 1 _ ' R F ■k + ' T i ~ Ri_ ti 1 + ■! ` 4 T �y �■,1 L�f kY. �f --
+ _ + .J4 J• � �. . i F` ■ . . _ r r ` rt� �.trJ r.� Jk. . i .�. RRi,. r + •. Jr�fi . . ■'1 �. .•Yr '� � iaj •i 5. �•�, 'R�7 i . -� ■
EXHIBIT A
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
D. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
This application is for annexation and rezone only. Listed below are some of the site specific conditions
of approval that the District may identify when it reviews a future development application. The District
may add additional site specific conditions of approval when it reviews a specific redevelopment
application.
1. Submit a traffic impact study to ACHD for this project prior to submittal of a future development
application.
2. Obtain approval by the ACHD Pavement Cut Committee prior to permitting for all cuts on Ustick
Road.
3. Construct 'Venable Lane aligned centerline-to-centerline with Venable Avenue to the north as a
36-foot street section, with vertical curb, gutter and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk (or 7-
foot wide attached concrete sidewalk) extending south to the existing driveway on the west. Right-
of-way should be dedicated extending 2-feet past the back edge of sidewalk.
4. Construct Venable Lane south of the existing driveway to the neighboring apartment complex as a
29-foot street section with vertical curb, gutter and a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk (or
7-foot wide attached concrete sidewalk). Right-of-way should be dedicated extending 2-feet past
the back edge of sidewalk.
5. Provide written fire department approval for the reduced 29-foot street section.
6. Sign Venable Lane for"No Parking"on both sides.
7. Construct internal streets as 33-foot street sections, with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete
sidewalk within 47-feet of right-of-way.
8. Construct a public street providing access from Riidgebury Avenue to Venable Lane.
Page 121
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda l3ebmmr e2602Q(l)98--P@ggd6nb8402
EXHIBIT A
9. Provide a minirnurn 45-foot radius for the proposed cul-de-sac, extend right-of-way to the eastern
property line, searing as a future stub street to the property to the east. Install a sign at the
terminus of the stub street stating that,"THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE,"
10. Construct any public street connection to Venable Lane in alignment with Stanhope Street.
11, Note on the final plat that other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct
lot access is prohibited to Ustick Road and Tenable Avenue,
12. Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction, repair,or installarlon of
any roadway improvements(curb,gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening, driveways,culverts, etc_)
13. Payment of impact fees is due prier to issuance of a building permit.
14. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval-
E. Standard Conditions of Approval
1. All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-Hof-gray (including all
easements). Any existing irrigation fanilitles shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-Way
(including all easements).
2. Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibiled from toeing located within the
ACHD right-of-way.
3. In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing
non-compliant :pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant's engineer should provide documentation of
ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review,
4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during
the construction of the proposed development_ Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (vrith
file number)for details.
5, A license agreement and compliance with the District's Tree Planter policy is required for all
landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas.
6. All utility relocation casts associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
bome by the developer.
7. It Is the r+esponsibllity of the appllca.nt to verify all existing utllitles within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cast to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior
to breaking ground vdthln ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits ispare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction,
8. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing
by the Distract_ Contact the District's t.ltillty Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers)for details_
9. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, I PWC
Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable
ACHD Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the Mate of Idaho
shall prepare and certify all improvement plans.
10. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy.
11. No Change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized
representative of ACHD_ The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of
any change from ACHD_
12. If the site plan or use should change in the future,ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan
and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time- Any change in
the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant
to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a
waiverlvarianca of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the,ACHD Commission.
Page 22
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda Del¢arabee9��Bm98--P@ggQ94®b8402
Item 8. L168
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Records Apartments (H-2022-0008) by Brighton
Development, Inc., Located at on the Northeast Corner of N. Records Way and E. Fairview Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of 472 dwelling
units in two (2) 5-story buildings on 10-acres of land in the C-G zoning district.
Item 8. 169
(:�N-VE IDIAN:--
IDAHO
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Sonya Allen Meeting Date: April 7, 2022
Topic: Public Hearing for Records Apartments (H-2022-0008) by Brighton Development,
Inc., Located at on the Northeast Corner of N. Records Way and E. Fairview Ave.
A. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a multi-family development consisting of
472 dwelling units in two (2) 5-story buildings on 10-acres of land in the C-G
zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing
Item 8. ■
STAFF REPORTC�,WEIIDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT .►A H O
HEARING April 7,2022 Legend
DATE:
TO: Planning&Zoning Commission
f PFajeat Lava liar
FROM: Sonya Allen,Associate Planner
208-884-5533 '
SUBJECT: H-2022-0008—Records Apartments
LOCATION: Northeast corner of N. Records Way and
E. Fairview Ave., in the SW 1/4 of
Section 4,T.3N.,R.IE(Parcel
#S1104347005) FM
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Conditional use permit for a multi-family development consisting of 472 apartment units in two (2) 5-story
buildings on 9.95-acres of land in the C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial) zoning district.
Alternative Compliance(ALT)is also requested to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3,which requires a minimum of 80
square feet of private usable open space to be provided for each dwelling unit.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details
Acreage 9.95-acres
Future Land Use Designation Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)
Existing Land Use Vacant/undeveloped land
Proposed Land Use(s) Multi-family development
Current Zoning General Retail&Service Commercial(C-G)
Proposed Zoning NA
Number of Residential Units(type 472 units(apartments)
of units)
Density(gross) 47.4 units/acre
Phases(#) 2
Physical Features(waterways, None
hazards,flood plain,hillside)
History(previous approvals) AZ-07-012(DA Inst.#109009630)
Pagel
1 1 1
• _ . NIIII _ •..
bin
UIEW
� i�•x W' 22' �iii ' Illlllli �fd J.
'P'Aii'ese
:I•�..7+, I'IINIIII1�Nlllll N'Ill II_ �
P I ri E 6,.•III.u53o-.nllril�. l l�llrll�lll __'_' --— —-- 'PIN E._.;
wir
pllluw ��•II fplllum
IWA
.. }Yo • : �•Luuu_I •� iy'';; ' }L=_:Yiil �•,Luml 11 75
_ f NIIII _ :■ IINIIII
-
. s Iir�; �•
I�I I ■■■�� '�I
_S III• I � .I nl....II .S'I'li'u�•
#a _.+`�Ei—'' �I•zl- i I_a_'illlll==� _ ` a '�'xl•! y IIlllli •
55 .O
■iiii"
IMI,, T:
-�yl �•, ,;��rI;,IIII NIIII_ •J on INII 11�= �•, n IIIINIIIIINIIIII NIIII_
SIY■E.III uw177.nllri III 1�IIII•II=—e p� w577+n11 u���C��ullrl111111•II==e
Room ■4
• : : am • •• • • • • 11 . •�
Item 8. F172]
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning
Postin Date
Newspaper Notification 3/22/2022
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet 3/21/2022
Public hearing notice sign posted
3/25/2022
on site
Nextdoor posting 3/21/2022
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN(Comprehensive Plan and TMISAP)
Future Land Use Map Designation:
The subject property is designated Mixed Use—Regional(MU-R)on the Future Land Use Map(FLUM) in
the Comprehensive Plan.
The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide a mix of employment,retail,and residential dwellings
and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,
including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail center
with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses that have a
regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center should have
supporting retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as supportive
neighborhood and community services.
Proposed Use: A multi-family development containing 472 apartment units in one(1) 5-story building with
associated parking and landscaping is proposed to develop on this 9.95-acre site in the C-G zoning district.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND ANALYSIS:
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in all Mixed-Use areas,per
the Comprehensive Plan(pg. 3-13): (Staffs analysis in italics)
• "A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted for
smaller sites on a case-by-case basis. This land use is not intended for high density residential
development alone."
Although the proposed development only includes one use (i.e. residential), the larger MU-R designated
area and surrounding area includes commercial(i.e. retail, restaurant, entertainment, etc.) and civic
(i.e. Kleiner City Park) uses as well as other residential dwelling types.
At the pre-application meeting, Staff did request the Applicant provide some services for the proposed
residential uses (i.e. a daycare, coffee shop, vertically integrated, etc) on this site but the Applicant
declined asserting that a mix of uses already exists in this area to serve the future residents. Staff
somewhat agrees although is of the opinion it would be better to have some of these uses integrated with
the proposed development on this site—however, Staff is not including a condition for the Applicant to
do so. If Commission feels this should be required, a condition should be added accordingly.
• "Where appropriate,higher density and/or multi-family residential development is encouraged for
projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the project is adjacent to
US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69."
The proposed multi family high density development will provide housing options in close proximity to
nearby commercial/employment uses located along SH-55.
Page 3
Item 8. F173]
• "Mixed Use areas are typically developed under a master or conceptual plan; during an annexation or
rezone request,a development agreement will typically be required for developments with a Mixed-Use
designation."
A Development Agreement(DA) exists for this property that includes a conceptual development plan;
however,future development of this site was not tied to that plan. A multi family development is noted in
the Table of Proposed Uses included in the DA as an appropriate use to develop within the boundary of
the DA with a detailed site plan subject to the conditions of the DA.
• "In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed,the buildings should
be arranged to create some form of common,usable area, such as a plaza or green space."
Commercial and/or office buildings are not proposed as part of this development.
• "The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial and
existing low-or medium-density residential development."
There are no low-or medium-density residential developments abutting this site.
• "Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, clinics, churches, schools,parks,daycares, civic
buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments."
No such uses are proposed in this development; however; Kleiner City Park and a Senior Center exist
across the street to the north, which provide community-serving facilities.
• "Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to
parks,plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected; outdoor seating
areas at restaurants do not count."
No such uses are proposed in this development; however, Kleiner City Park and a Senior Center exist
across the street to the north that provides public outdoor gathering areas and open space.
• "Mixed use areas should be centered around spaces that are well-designed public and quasi-public
centers of activity. Spaces should be activated and incorporate permanent design elements and amenities
that foster a wide variety of interests ranging from leisure to play. These areas should be thoughtfully
integrated into the development and further placemaking opportunities considered."
As noted above, the proposed development lies just to the south of Kleiner City Park, which includes a
senior center. The proposed development plan doesn't include any public/quasi-public uses but does
include private open space and amenities for residents of the development. The adjacent Village at
Meridian development to the west includes a large public gathering area with a fountain and seating
and amenities.
• "All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both
vehicles and pedestrians."
The Village at Meridian is directly accessible from adjacent neighborhoods by public streets and
pedestrian pathways. Staff recommends the Applicant work with ACHD's Planning and Projects
group to see if a pedestrian crossing can be provided to the north at the RecordTongwing intersection
for pedestrian safety.
• "Alleys and roadways should be used to transition from dissimilar land uses, and between residential
densities and housing types."
Roadways separate the proposed residential development from the commercial development to the west
and the City park to the north; a shared driveway separates this site from the vehicle sales use to the
east.
Page 4
Item 8. F174]
• "Because of the parcel configuration within Old Town,development is not subject to the Mixed-Use
standards listed herein."
The subject property is not located in Old Town; therefore, this item is not applicable.
In reviewing development applications,the following items will be considered in MU-R areas,per the
Comprehensive Plan(pgs.3-16 thru 3-17):
• Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed-Use
areas.
Staff's analysis on the proposed project's compliance with the general guidelines is included above.
• Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10%of the development area at gross densities ranging
from 6 to 40 units/acre. There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial
uses such as office,clean industry, or entertainment uses.
The proposed residential uses contribute to the minimum 10%required in the overall development and is
the sole use proposed with this development application. The proposed gross density is 47.4 units/acre,
which exceeds the maximum desired. The density should be reduced to a maximum of 40 units/acre.
• Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50%of the development area.
No retail uses are proposed with this development application.
Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,the developer
may be eligible for additional area for retail development(beyond the allowed 50%),based on the ratios
below:
• For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school,the developer is eligible for a 2:1
bonus. That is to say, if there is a one-acre library site planned and dedicated,the project would be
eligible for two additional acres of retail development.
• For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park,tot-lot, or playfield,the developer is
eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area,the site would be eligible for 20
additional acres of retail development.
• For plazas that are integrated into a retail project,the developer would be eligible for a 6:1 bonus. Such
plazas should provide a focal point(such as a fountain, statue, and water feature), seating areas,and
some weather protection. That would mean that by providing a half-acre plaza,the developer would be
eligible for three additional acres of retail development.
This guideline is not applicable as no public/quasi-public uses are proposed with this application.
Based on the analysis above, if the number of units are reduced to a maximum gross density of 40 units per
acre(or below), Staff is of the opinion the proposed high-density urban-style residential development is
generally consistent with the MU-R designation in the Comprehensive Plan and with the general mixed use
guidelines in that it contributes to the mix of uses desired;provides living opportunities within close
proximity to employment,retail,restaurant and entertainment uses,which should reduce vehicle trips on area
streets; and is located near a major arterial intersection(i.e. E. Fairview Ave. and N. Eagle Rd./SH-55).
VI. STAFF ANALYSIS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CUP)
A CUP is proposed for a multi-family development containing one(1)65-foot tall 5-story structure with
podium parking on the first floor and 472 apartment units above consisting of(84)studio, (208) 1-bedroom,
Page 5
Item 8. 175
(168)2-bedroom and(12)3-bedroom units on 9.95-acres of land in the C-G zoning district. The size of each
of the unit type is as follows: 586 square feet(s.f.)for studio units; 680 s.f. for 1-bedroom units; 934 s.f. for
2-bedroom units; and 1,242 s.f. for 3-bedroom units. The gross density of the development is 47.4 units per
acre.A 9,624 s.f. clubhouse with amenities is also proposed.
The project is proposed to be constructed in two(2)phases;the northern portion of the building and the
clubhouse with the first phase and the southern portion of the building with the second phase. The north&
south building will be joined together by the clubhouse.
Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3):
The proposed use is subject to the following standards: (Staff's analysis/comments in italic text)
11-4-3-27: MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT:
B. Site Design:
1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet(10')unless a greater setback is otherwise
required by this title and/or title 10 of this Code. Building setbacks shall take into account windows,
entrances,porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties. The proposed site plan
complies with this standard.
2. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer
and utility vaults shall be located in an area not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened
from view from a public street. The site/landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application should depict all such areas and reflect compliance with this standard.
3. A minimum of eighty(80)square feet(s.f.) of private,usable open space shall be provided for each
unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches,patios,decks, and/or enclosed yards.
Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. In
circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose
statements of this section,the Director may consider an alternative design proposal through the
alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-513-5 of this title.Alternative Compliance
is requested to provide zero or a lesser amount ofprivate open space than required, as follows: 0 for
studio units; 57-82 s.f.for 1-bedroom units; and 60 sf.for 3-bedroom units—89 sf is proposed for
2-bedroom units, which exceeds UDC standards.
As justification for the request, the Applicant proposes what they feel are extraordinary site
amenities, coupled with innovative new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open
space and facilities. The Director agrees with the Applicant's assertions and finds the proposed
alternative means of compliance demonstrates an equal means of meeting the intent and purpose of
the regulation per the Findings in Section IX below.
4. For the purposes of this section,vehicular circulation areas,parking areas, and private usable open
space shall not be considered common open space. These areas were not included in the common
open space calculations on the qualified open space exhibit in Section VIII.C.
5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on
the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. The Applicant shall comply
with this requirement.
6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All
Districts", of this title.Based on the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6, off-street parking is
required as follows: a minimum of 84 parking spaces are required for the studio units; a minimum of
312 spaces are required for the 1-bedroom units with at least 208 of those in a covered carport or
garage; a minimum of 360 spaces are required for the 2-and 3-bedroom units with at least 180 of
those in a covered carport or garage; a minimum of 47 guest spaces; and a minimum of 19 spaces
Page 6
Item 8. F176]
for the clubhouse for a total of 822 spaces with at least 388 of those in a covered carport or garage.
A total of 815 spaces are proposed with 477 of those covered, which is seven (7)fewer than the
minimum required: If the number of units are reduced to a maximum of 40 units per acre(gross)
as recommended, this will reduce the number of required parking spaces which should then meet
UDC standards.If the Commission approves the proposed density(47.4 units/acre), a minimum of
seven (7)additional spaces shall be provided on this site and depicted on a revised site/landscape
plan submitted prior to the Commission's action on this application;or, the number of 2-or 3-
bedroom units could be reduced to reduce the parking requirement.
Bicycle parking is required per the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6G and should comply with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on the minimum number of vehicle parking spaces
required(i.e. 822), a minimum of 32 spaces are required; a total of 30 spaces are proposed, which is
two (2)fewer than the minimum required.A minimum of two (2) additional bicycle parking spaces
shall be provided on this site and depicted on a revised site/landscape plan submitted prior to the
Commission's action on this application. Note:A reduction in the number of dwelling units (and
subsequently the number of required parking stalls) as recommended may result in the proposed
bicycle parking meeting UDC standards.
7. Developments with twenty(20)units or more shall provide the following:
a. A property management office.
b. A maintenance storage area.
c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian
and/or vehicular access.
d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering
the development. (Ord. 18-1773,4-24-2018)
The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application should depict the
location of these items in accord with this standard.
C. Common Open Space Design Requirements (UDC 11-4-3-27C): The total baseline land area of all
qualified common open space shall equal or exceed ten(10)percent of the gross land area for multi-
family developments of five(5)acres or more. Based on 9.95 acres of land, a minimum of 1-acre of
common open space is required to be provided.
In addition to the baseline open space requirement, a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall
be provided as follows:
a. One hundred fifty(150) square feet for each unit containing five hundred(500) or less square
feet of living area. There are no units containing 500 sf or less of living area.
b. Two hundred fifty(250) square feet for each unit containing more than five hundred(500)
square feet and up to one thousand two hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 460 units fall
within this range; therefore, a minimum of 115,000 square feet(or 2.64-acres) of common open
space is required for these units.
c. Three hundred fifty(350) square feet for each unit containing more than one thousand two
hundred(1,200) square feet of living area. 12 units fall within this range; therefore, a minimum
of 4,200 sf. (or 0.10-acre) of common open space is required for these units.
Per this standard, a total of 2.74 acres of common open space is required. Combined with the 1 acre
noted above for the baseline requirement, a minimum of 3.74 acres of common open space is
required that complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27C.Note:Because this site is
directly adjacent to Kleiner City Park to the north and has safe pedestrian access without crossing
Page 7
Item 8. E
an arterial street, this project is exempt from the additional open space requirements in UDC 11-4-
3-27C.3.
The open space exhibit in Section VIII.0 depicts a total of 2.75 acres(or 27.7%)of common open
space for the development consisting of four(4)internal amenity spaces,the clubhouse and
swimming pool area, street buffers along Records (a collector street) and Fairview(an arterial
street), and buffer along the southern portion of the east boundary of the site. Per UDC 11-4-3-
27C.5, common open space areas shall not be less than 400 square feet in area,and shall have a
minimum length and width dimension of 20 feet. The buffer along the southern portion of the
east boundary of the site and the southern portion of the street buffer along N.Records Way is
below 20 feet in width and does not meet this standard.Per UDC 11-4-3-27C.7,unless otherwise
approved through the conditional use process,common open space areas shall not be adjacent to
collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a berm or constructed barrier at least
four feet(4') in height,with breaks in the berm or barrier to allow for pedestrian access. The buffers
along Records and Fairview are not separated from the street by a berm and do not meet this
standard. Staff recommends a revised open space exhibit is submitted that provides a
minimum of 3.74 acres of qualified open space meeting the minimum standards noted above
and in UDC 11-4-3-27C prior to the Commission acting on this application. The reduction in the
number of units as recommended may result in extra area for common open space to be provided
meeting the minimum standards.
In phased developments, common open space shall be provided in each phase of the development
consistent with the requirements for the size and number of dwelling units. The phasing plan
complies with this requirement.
D. Site Development Amenities: All multi-family developments shall provide for quality of life,open
space,recreation and multi-modal amenities to meet the particular needs of the residents as noted in
UDC 11-4-3-27D. The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multi-family development
based on the number of units.
For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, four(4) amenities shall be provided with at least
one(1) from each category. For developments with more than 100 units such as this,the decision-
making body shall require additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development.
The following amenities are proposed: 1)a clubhouse with indoor amenities including a pet spa and
fitness facility, and an outdoor kitchen/grilling area,which count toward the quality of life category; 2)
plazas with picnic areas with tables,benches and shade structures,which count toward the open space
category; 3) a swimming pool; snookball, cornhole and table tennis games; and multi-use pathways
along Records and Fairview,which count toward the recreation category; and 4) electric vehicle(EV)
charging stations,which count toward the multi-modal category. Other amenities are proposed as noted
in the Applicant's narrative. Off-site amenities also exist in Kleiner City Park directly adjacent to this
site to the north within walking distance that consist of a pedestrian circulation system, splash pad,play
structures,basketball court and bocce ball court.Stafffinds the proposed amenities meet and exceed the
minimum standards.
E. Landscaping Requirements: Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord
with chapter 3, "Regulations Applying to All Districts", of this title. Additionally, all street facing
elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation that complies with the standards listed in UDC
11-4-3-27E.2. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application
should depict landscaping along the street facing elevations adjacent to N.Records Way and E.
Fairview Ave. in accord with these standards.
F. Maintenance and Ownership Responsibilities: All multi-family developments shall record legally
binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the
Page 8
Item 8. 178
development, including,but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development
features. The Applicant shall comply with this requirement,a copy of such shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within the development.
Access: Access is proposed from N. Records Way, a collector street, at the west boundary of the site; and
from an existing driveway via E. Elden Gray St., a local street, along the east boundary of the site. If one
doesn't already exist,a cross-access easement shall be granted to the adjacent property to the east
(CarMax)for use of the portion of the driveway that lies on this site.A recorded copy of the easement
shall be submitted with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
Where access to a local street is available,the UDC(11-3A-3A.1)requires the site circulation to be to
be reconfigured to take access from such local street.This standard applies unless otherwise waived by
City Council.Therefore,the access via N.Records Ave.is not allowed and shall be removed from the
site/landscape plan.The Applicant may request City Council approval of a waiver of this provision as
allowed in UDC 11-3A-3 through submittal of an application for City Council Review of the Commission's
decision on this matter.Note:ACHD has approved this access with the requirement of a right-turn lane.
Road Improvements(CIP/IFYWP): Fairview Ave. is listed in the CIP to be widened to 7-lanes from Eagle
Rd./SH-55 to Cloverdale Rd.between 2036 and 2040.No new roads are proposed or required with this
application.
Traffic Impact Study(TIS): ACHD deems the estimated trips from this development is less that what was
estimated previously for this parcel with the 2-to 3-story office and residential land uses conceptually
proposed with the TIS for The Village at Meridian in 2011. For this reason,only a turn lane analysis was
required. Based on this analysis, a northbound dedicated right turn lane on Records Way is recommended at
the site access;no additional turn lanes are recommended at the access on Elden Gray Street. ACHD is
supportive of the access provided a turn lane is constructed as recommended.
Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
Landscaped street buffers are required to be provided as follows: a 35-foot wide street buffer is required
along E. Fairview Ave., an entryway corridor; a 20-foot wide buffer is required along N. Records Way, a
collector street; and a 10-foot wide buffer is required along E. Elden Gray St., a local street,per UDC Table
11-2B-3 and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.3. Some portions of the buffers along
Records and Fairview are below the required widths and should be revised.All buffers are required to
be planted with a variety of trees,shrubs,lawn or other vegetative groundcover and designed to elicit
design principles including rhythm,repetition,balance and focal elements per the recently updated
specifications; the landscape plan shall be revised accordingly.
Landscaping is required within parking lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. The three
(3) "diamond"planter islands between the north& south portions of the building do not meet the
standards in UDC 11-313-8C.2,which require planters to contain a minimum of 50 square feet and run
the length of the parking space; the site/landscape plan should be revised accordingly.Where bumpers
overhang perimeter landscaping in parking areas,the parking stall dimensions may be reduced 2' in
length if 2' is added to the width of the landscaped area planted in groundcover; otherwise,wheel
stops should be provided to prevent vehicle overhang. The perimeter buffers/parking along the south
and east boundaries of the site should be revised to comply with this standard.
Landscaping is required to be provided along all pathways per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C,
which require a mix of trees, shrubs, lawn and/or other vegetative groundcover. Shrubs should be added to
the landscape plan in accord with this standard where none are depicted.
Pathways: The Pathways Master Plan depicts 10-foot wide multi-use pathways along E. Fairview Ave. and
N. Records Way providing pedestrian connections to Kleiner City Park;pathways are proposed in accord
with the Plan. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is required to be submitted to the Planning
Division prior to or concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application as
Page 9
Item 8. F179]
recommended by the Park's Dept. If the pathway is partially located within the public right-of-way,
provide sufficient easement width beyond that boundary to cover the 10' sidewalk plus 2'.
Internal pedestrian walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces
through the use of pavers,colored or scored concrete, or bricks per UDC 11-3A-19B.4b.
Sidewalk: The UDC (11-3A-17)requires minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks along all collector and
arterial streets; and attached sidewalks (or detached)along local streets. Because the Pathways Master Plan
depicts pathways along Fairview Ave. and Records Way, a 10-foot wide sidewalk is proposed in those areas
instead; a detached sidewalk is proposed along Eldon Gray St.; and an attached sidewalk is proposed along
the driveway along the east boundary of the site.
The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8-feet; the planter width may be
reduced to 6-feet if there are root barriers that meet the standards in UDC 11-3A-17E.The
site/landscape plans shall be revised accordingly.
Fencing: Any fencing constructed on the site should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. A
decorative fence barrier is depicted on the landscape plan along E. Fairview Ave. and N. Records Way.
Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed 5-story structure as shown in Section
VIII.D. Final design is required to comply with the design standards in the Architectural Standards Manual.
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review application shall be submitted and approved
prior to submittal of building permit applications.
VII. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions noted in Section IX per the
Findings in Section X. However,prior to the Commission's action on this application, Staff recommends
the number of dwelling units is reduced to achieve an overall maximum gross density of 40 units per
acre; a revised open space exhibit is submitted that complies with the minimum open space standards in
UDC 11-4-3-27C(currently, a minimum of 3.74 acres of qualified open space meeting the minimum
standards discussed above in Section VI is required but will change if fewer units are provided as
recommended); and a revised site/landscape plan is submitted that complies with the minimum parking
standards listed in UDC 11-3C-6 for vehicles and bicycles(currently, a minimum of seven(7)additional
vehicle spaces and two(2)additional bicycle parking spaces are required but will change if fewer units
are provided as recommended). The Director has approved the request for ALT per the provisions
included in Section IX in accord with the Findings in Section X.
Page 10
Item 8. 180
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Site Plan(date: 1/20/2022)
Ul I I I I I I l l r l - PPA B TEU/W!f
Ej41lH911Z
III} [II.. ��I� - SI � _ � -e � �.w�-•z.-..e....:.r.,.� � �n
$ 3
j t
11+ P,W1HG WIG4
Al W IW,P_.
1
ref• - an
- - iRNELT IREW{�O�IIN
_-- -------
Page 11
Item 8. Fl 81
RECORDS
.'�
BR IGHTON
.
(Y)Wr PTUAI,S11R 1 FCT TO(HANrF '
L L
AMENT,MACE Hai AWWTi 1PME NO.
1 gY�L
l`�m ern ea;'rre� •
`� SiE;�ECTl'JN� I• � '1 YIIY�k. • - w�— rr
;r AIAEN N �.
3
h
II IFIIII1111111
�AAAAIEATYPE I. —��� u
LhCORPCft E
UCYCWfMiNl = E"FPXNiPN RVENUE — �m
—- 111A91EW0.YCHUC� fAIANCIN ANENUC— —." _ y
BARRIERTYPC I. BAAAIEBT?PE2.
SE£SECIWH I3 SFE S.T—.
Page 12
Item 8. F182]
B. Landscape Plan(dated: 1/20/22)
4 ---
_L�j4
4
-V
:7---- • Y-1.-75
4;."T�A, -4.2 1 T�,-r N I Y,
:KT;
milli
+
MAITIR VADM5 AND TREE CM=LKMM6[rMEFJ35 LF)
PYAOMULNBUFERTRAUSTEMECMAL CULATI008 G CLCUL
e
km vzh�
PARKING ISLOID TREES(ITREARAP"
TREE 5PECIES MY.
CUP LAIJUSCAPE COVE rla� MTlGATl0N REGLUIREPAENT5
MTV
Page 13
Item 8. Fl 83
w.
T GrR�_ 'CIE
T.i
1 �BCCYR3fi N'kV dbFdiERTY?E1 _ � �E�3WiYR56RIEd T'IPE2
r.II".e w -m•
I I i i w
F�RNEl\'::vE fiAJI BIER T'"E 1 � �iJRrl ESH'kY 2:.iPlEi 1fPE 2
so- --• �C
I n�L y"lPl6
14Fy FY•R ',�,f.
RIX -iY
1 -
I.I
.k I{' `-53ECIPW43TPEEIFtA7{T^i5:.41 S�KXAG CETAJL yYC1�A:T7}E k- 9c� 91:.�PJE31'PE i-CECCX.;71'E F<!JL
krn
IN9iHiilirv4
ME
w
L2.0
Page 14
Item 8. 184
C. Qualified Open Space(dated: 12/8/21, stamped on 1/25/22) NOTAPPROVED
7 7-:,
^IIIIIIU— L
X-1
Uri I I
Y 1' �•i_ .—._ .. 'ol•oe
Rr
A
A'
Ids
M
T
—1ERMEE--
I it X�
o
QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE EXHIBFF
4 FN
Page 15
D. Building Renderings for : Clubhouse(dated: 1
PREUMINARY CONCEPTS
`����� �'1• � ,� 1�� 1llli��r II,,
❑i i �kA L�rr..a:�..a - rr�:�IIIII�� �h 'u��n� 1
�i�Ul' .�� ..I :r 11Tll I i II III ! i I i r 1 n iii "■
ill+ UI � 11II I fl , �_! h fl iiil IIIILI : lii � 1°i1 �
i •I � II
Page 16
Item 8. Fl 86
n
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS
,en,��n� �Ba6mck7 -
nR QIIAQQClQQt7 II II
L U C
PRELIMINARY CONCEPB
mawwer�v�awnmieuiuxnaEs �Hzh...k?.�.
pr
rI
Tni(a�L-1_fl r uLYr —
}1
o f
biIIIIIII�IIII �
r
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT L'N ea6cock oesgr.
Page 17
Item 8. Fl 87
PNEUMINARY CONCEPTS
zoo iewortw�zeauva.nn.s BabcockDesgn
PNEUMINANY CONCEPTS
zoiauua�rz�z iev..�ms.ao.�z=n�_s r Babcock Design
s u.
p 6ill
1,
PRELIMINARY CONCEPTS
zouxuwn '��ewwrwrawiu�xnres Rabco&Desgn
Page 18
Item 8. F188]
IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Conditional Use Permit:
1. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement(David
Kleiner Property of Meridian Town Center AZ-07-012,Inst. #109009630) and all other previous
conditions of approval.
2. A maximum gross density of 40 dwelling units per acre shall be provided in this development.
3. The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use
standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27,including but not limited to the following:
a. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles,boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be
stored on the site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area.
b. The multi-family development shall record a legally binding document that states the
maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including,
but not limited to, structures,parking, common areas, and other development features as set
forth in UDC 11-4-3-27F. A recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the
Planning Division prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the
development.
4. The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised
as follows:
a. Depict the locations of the property management office,maintenance storage area, central
mailbox location(including provisions for parcel mail,that provide safe pedestrian and/or
vehicular access),and a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient
location for those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7.
b. Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations as set forth in UDC 11-4-
3-27E.2.
c. Depict a minimum 35-foot wide street buffer along E.Fairview Ave., an entryway corridor; a
minimum 20-foot wide buffer along N. Records Way, a collector street; and a minimum 10-foot
wide buffer along E. Elden Gray St., a local street,per UDC Table 11-2B-3.
d. Within street buffers,depict a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover
designed to elicit design principles including rhythm,repetition,balance and focal elements per
the recently updated specifications set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C.3.
e. Remove the three(3) "diamond"planter islands between the north& south portions of the
building and replace them with planter islands that comply with the standards in UDC 11-3B-
8C.2.
f. Shrubs shall be added to the landscape strips along pathways where none currently exist in order
to contribute to the mix of landscaping required by UDC 11-3B-12C.2.
g. Where bumpers overhang perimeter landscaping in parking areas,the parking stall dimensions
may be reduced 2' in length if 2' is added to the width of the landscaped area planted in
groundcover; otherwise,wheel stops shall be provided to prevent vehicle overhang. The
perimeter buffers/parking along the south and east boundaries of the site should be revised to
comply with this standard.
Page 19
Item 8. F189]
h. Internal pedestrian walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving
surfaces through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete,or bricks per UDC 11-3A-
19B.4b.
i. Depict off-street vehicle parking and bicycle parking spaces in accord with the standards listed
in UDC 11-3C-6(i.e. currently, a minimum of 822 off-street vehicle parking spaces are required
with at least 388 of those in a covered carport or garage for the multi-family units,guest and
clubhouse; and a minimum of 30 bicycle parking spaces are required depending on how may
vehicle parking spaces are provided—these numbers will change if fewer units are provided as
recommended).
j. All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas,waste storage, disposal facilities, and
transformer and utility vaults shall be depicted on the site plan and shall not be located in an area
not visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street as set
forth in UDC 11-4-3-27B.2.
k. Remove the access driveway via N. Records Way in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A.1,unless
otherwise waived by City Council.
1. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8-feet;the planter width may be
reduced to 6-feet if there are root barriers that meet the standards in UDC 11-3A-17E.
in. Depict common open space that complies with the dimensional standards in UDC 11-4-3-27 (i.e.
shall not be less than 400 square feet in area and shall have a minimum length and width
dimension of 20 feet).
4. A cross-access easement shall be granted to the adjacent property to the east(CarMax—Parcel
#S 1104438755) for use of the portion of the driveway that lies on this site; a recorded copy of the
easement shall be submitted with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.If an
easement already exists, submit a copy of the recorded easement.
5. The Director approved the Applicant's request for Alternative Compliance to the private usable open
space standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-2713.3 for each dwelling unit as follows: zero(0) s.f. for studio
units; 57-82 s.£ for 1-bedroom units; and 60 s.f. for the 3-bedroom units. Floor plans with square
footages noted for patios and balconies shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application that demonstrate compliance with the alternative compliance
approval.
6. Submit a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement for the 10-foot wide pathways required along the
southern and western boundaries of the site in accord with Park's Department requirements prior to
or with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.If partially located within the public right-
of-way,provide sufficient easement width beyond that boundary to cover the 10'sidewalk plus 2'.
7. The Applicant should work with ACHD's Planning and Projects group to see if a pedestrian crossing
can be provided to the north across N. Records Way at the Record/Longwing intersection for
pedestrian safety between the residential and commercial development, as well as the City Park.
8. An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review shall be submitted for the
proposed project and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Compliance with
the design standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1. A geotechnical report was not included with this application. A geotechnical report is required to be
submitted and reviewed with the first final plat application.
Page 20
Item 8. F-19ol
2. 20-foot-wide utility easements are required for all water and sewer mains outside right-of-way.
Easements must be centered over mains.
3. No permanent structures including but not limited to trees,bushes, carports,buildings,trash
enclosures,fences,infiltration trenches,light poles, etc. may be placed within a utility easement.
4. Fire flow was modeled at 1500 gpm. If more than 1500 gpm is required, contact Public Works.
5. Proposed wastewater flow is 47,000 gpd greater than the master plan. Capacity is available at this
time,but there is no guarantee that additional capacity will be available at the time of application
submittal.
6. Ensure no sewer services cross infiltration trenches.
General Conditions of Approval
7. Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet,if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
8. Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains
to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for
infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
9. 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. 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.
10. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source
of water(MCC 9-1-28.C). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water
for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the
culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be
responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving
development plan approval.
11. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible reassignment of
street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
12. 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.
13. 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.
Page 21
Item 8. 991 1
14. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
inspections(208)375-5211.
15. All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of
the structures.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that
may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
19. Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
20. 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.
21. The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that
the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of
the standards can be found at hyp://www.meridiancioy.oMlpublic_works.aspx?id=272.
25. The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20%
of the total construction cost for all completed sewer,water and reuse infrastructure for duration of
two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City.
The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond.
Applicant must file an application for surety,which can be found on the Community Development
Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https:llweblink.meridiancit .00rglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=253274&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCiiy&cr
=1
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=253287&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianQtX
Page 22
Item 8. F192
E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=254097&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City
F. NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciN.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=255743&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
G. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https://weblink.m eridia n c i ty.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=2 5 4218&db id=0&rep o=Meridia n City
H. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE
Not yet received.
I. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridiancioy.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255717&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr
=1
J. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
hygs://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=253285&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City
K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.oty. WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=255187&dbid=0&repo=Meridian City
X. FINDINGS
A. Conditional Use Permit(UDC 11-513-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit requests upon the following:
1. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and
development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds with the number of units proposed, the site does not appear to be large enough to
accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the district. if the
number of dwelling units are reduced as recommended, which will in turn reduce the amount of
common open space and off-street vehicle and bicycle parking requirements and allow adequate
room for the street buffers and common areas to be widened where needed to meet the minimum
standards, the site should be large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the
dimsensional and development regulations of the district(see Analysis, Section VI for more
information).
2. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with
the requirements of this Title.
Stafffinds that the proposed use is consistent with uses desired in the MU-R designation but that the
density should be reduced to a maximum of 40 units per acre (gross) to be consistent with the density
guidelines for the MU-R designation (i.e. 6-40 units per acre). The multi family residential use is
allowed as a conditional use in UDC Table 11-2B-2 in the C-G zoning district.
Page 23
Item 8. F193
3. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the
general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such
use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area.
Staff finds the proposed design of the development, construction, operation and maintenance should
be compatible with the mix of other uses in this area and with the intended character of the area and
that such uses will not adversely change the character of the area.
4. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely
affect other property in the vicinity.
Stafffinds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the proposed use
will not adversely affect other property in the area. The Commission should weigh any public
testimony provided to determine if the development will adversely affect other properties in the
vicinity.
5. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as
highways,streets,schools,parks,police and fire protection,drainage structures,refuse disposal,water,
and sewer.
Staff finds that essential public services are available to this property and that the use will be
adequately served by these facilities.
B. Alternative Compliance(UDC 11-513-5):
In order to grant approval of an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the
following:
l. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR
The Director finds strict adherence to the standards pertaining to private usable open space listed in
UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 is feasible.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and
The Director finds the proposed alternative compliance of providing extraordinary site amenities,
coupled with innovative new urban design with an emphasis on integrated, internal open space and
facilities provides an equal means for meeting the requirement.
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended
uses and character of the surrounding properties.
The Director finds that the proposed alternative means of compliance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties.
Page 24
70
ti � o
70 � mm
rD n ;v
rt name
0
� • O 7 . • •CL
� • M
oq C
O —
a aQ
CD
gv to p
; pIdd 1T
do_ ` At
aS SO
WWFA
Add A Ad A
. I WAD
1 _
Wool
FF
''• ' • +C
MIORF
AJ
I I Food —god
FF
d Woods
A Ad
! �
A.
do 4
iFF
Sul
. 1
: , PS e 1 ( . l` d y z yA o
Y :• 1.
al Ii � • � Y
! - ILE k ECdo A
1- a�
- -w' 1-
l T�AW
_ '• r, 1 - �
s �
Who At
�IF gool
I
FF
, .
Ad
IF A
AAW
OF 1� 6.� , a
Among
l r � ` • , •ram '1 _ .
t :' t I �
Win ,dill
it , go
do
Li
Flow
• •
1
I m
•
•
•
• •
ON
I • � . ,
•
Ln
1
1
1
• •
1
rill
• - rli fI� �- 1 � � .3 �
psi �� . ; =j--, a , —� �_� ❑
■
3
r � �^
Mom
(D
70 ON (OD CL
o • � NO
t 70 �O (�(AT � � N oo � �
mom 0 No) O. o (on
�
oo 0 (ODn �
cn •
70 � N
(D a
M
�' +�
� .
LIs i
le dt
r � , . . 1 �.
it
i
A- wed
R Y*
idd-d' mile
we
lli- f.
s�-I- ' did I'm I li
It
i all
addi
st
so
Off
—
dw-
0 All
it
. j r
t,
aMadow� at
rn } t '
._
ad of a R ' lRmkL ` F� e�
Al i i dive
aw
.: { i + .A
q41 lid,
•
van w
■
r
Y_
adds. war .. A.
mama
n
. . . .— .>_ r
r y iti
al,
70 00 v v v v -p c.n
CD N 0 O
n N w ry cn N a rn CDMMI
ral ` so rML
0 �
� N
Z. Q a
oo o 70 sO
( �
NJ Os 0
n ( •
V) •
70 (D N C
o (IQ
m
/ ' �04
s i 4ito
i00
f i
i
11 . ,
I
r
r v .
s10
. .
pqIlia
1 -
ye ' �* T •1 i '� f � � a t + p ,
1 tv
a S
,y Mile
it
lb
•
• 1
• 1 1 �
• • 1
• • • •
LL
poll
1
•
r �
!R1
� I
�1
— — p
1 �
Lei
l . . • • ."� • L • • • ARNAIF OPNE —
_ itAo
• ■ � • • • • ■ y • • • • • • • • • • • A
■ rn ■ O r
■ � ■ O C
N ■ — r- W ■ r D v C l m n v -i N
• ry ■ O o W rD ■ Q. o D D. 11 . .A 2
'n . to - r/i ' Z rD _ . OU O m
rD CU Q ; _I a c t n p O % <
v D (OD °' � rD O -1 ry to
OZl n� O C (D O a (OD i
n, O {„ Oq ED O :3°' c 3 n) n c ' ' ■
• O cn rt rD "1 O
� rt 3 N r7
Q = ' ocrq o
=3 3
rD m n
v o rD
73
ro 3 rD
Ln
N. RECORDS WAYMEM
`
OEM
Lr� — -
MOW
OEM
OEM
MOM
III1111 : +z � 1�
IIII �' 1p
� T ,' . . . ,
mM ',
� z '
O
71 L
1 r I
� I ' .
P , SIN
a
`
mz
2 I cl = • I - _ -- - - - I C I—y N f N
all
�i 7 1 �' � ! ■ —
{l. IIU,If ILL YI 1 -I I � L �• # ICI •�! ,,,
A I t
I r DPoVATE ORNE
• • • • • • • O • • • to • • • • ■ Z
-v m n (� m m p m cn r— p C cn r- r)If Q r�r n , O ■ � cn ■■
=
D O < :3 � O C d = � O O :3 ■
rr n 0) C r+ ■ v C O ■ _
< lu = D ( n ^� CD. :3
■ n
o r a o ■ O rD a � xm O W Q rD rD O 0- Oo rD rD MR1 ■ C m L - ■ C
(D or Z � rD
O Q -p Co C
— ■ �
cu
(D 1n {n m c Oq ■ D c c(OD ■ D
a N o. fD c , o ■ p rD l , ■ p I
n c rD Q O Oq .� Q O
COO) r y�
+ ■ w C ■O 1�
Qrt , - CU r-r -h _...
O O C r(D C rD
tail m rrt Ott rt
O'4 Ill
•< 6
rD rD
�v o
( D
MON
06)
O cn
CL
Id m
a • �� ��� YF Ii
ITTr: L� _
I Lk
�r•p � 4
zi
cr
- - - � ;, o
to
z _ �
� o
"kill
— a
too
,r
�\
- r
as- d MOM
-
n'
01
to
IF
cis -
V
1
•
4G d3 EDGE OF
. PAVEMENT .
rrl
m "
oa O3 s3 EDGE OF
S I GRAVEL N
y w
Nco
i
d-90Z
T D
Do m
1 •
\ �
{
Ado
did, ir
y : CURB
I I 4 ' 6 '
DECORATIVE
FENCE
4' IS MIN ,
ALLOWED
N. RECORMWAY
of
od
— � r Iffil
— I �
, III m o do _
— m
0 el
r'dis
r
,
tA
. o a r : I o IF
Itt1110
41111
111 T 'I
o•• lip dis
t; Jn nn
11111
I II
t I JG I J 1 IrJ r�' I I I IAda , AF
nd I '�
I r PRIVATE DRNE
i
• • ,
•
•
CD
mom 0
Ln
•
•OUNE
•
mum 0
AR
•
•
- N. AECOPOS WAY _ --
IIII1111 I � _ 'w� �uuO fir' _
i
3
' r • � 1111 ' � ( ) y�
'T' "'�' • � �� � PLANATE DPNE - _ - _
•
� 1 •
O •
'-
Fla
%4'
pp f . 5 Fl FRIO
_.. OF
Ilk IF I ol
hD ; . I
lob
. �n.l
I. y tiIF -
j � Fool
It 61,
� 1-- I Floor� i'
. .� `
oo
oao
so
�.
1 � • • � .
+ ldi � Ia . , . ,
. � ,
� —
Tool a
OF
a Foo
_ Qs .ar ai1� y� a i
OF ; 4� �
Foxj :, v a1 ' ' +�' moo
IF ' IrO
OF
}1 114 , OF rfti OIL . 'LFTO
_ ,�„_ L1 L r **RR
i
O cD Z D
O � n'I O (D CrR n �h to
CD CD O n
rr-
• O 70 7 c � •
n '
' S or'R to
• (D
�h
CD
_ _ .
IN
•
i r,
INN
It t 0 1
%k
j ,
I ' � . , �u I ♦1�7 .1 S,
FINS
Jr
1 +
• ". ,wat{ fog 1 JT 11
,�
1J11�
It . I�� 4
1 INN
IN
i J
s � ,U d +. 1rfMh• � " � k
� o ;a c�
� \ � � •
-n
MIMI
77 c O
-< (OD � ' � 'rtp
rn � (D On)
=• Q (D 3
• O �
O1
O
Q lit li
i
WWI
lootso Imp too
' , � 1 •
LL
1 m lit
1 ' .. �'�� ♦
it
:. -. ritl r
GNP
o
• j�'
In fit
Milk
I ,
•
N70 o � (D
o m •
TI -1 CD n O O ;
06)
� � �
• O < (p mommom
fD N to
CD( . Q no
� n mongs
r-r mommom
<
Osommomme �D
3 CIO
� � f�D tin
-p r+
• O
Coming
12
Milk
INS
all
CIO
Ills
— r �
" Ills — i
- �.
1It
;
1I 4
IT long
' of
LLLLLi11 '
_ - - - - ;=_-- -Lfit
-- =Rag.=- =-- ---- - - --
lllie 0 —
; g 1IS
oil
So. . 3iEi
8OTO
5 6 s
al
'" a a
CD
Z 0
m
nLn � o On
� ' DCD70m
_ .
mo
=3 ° D � O n -�
D n n L = o
O — 3 o Q
cn � O N O� O70 3
=3 O
r+ O
fD < r+ mm% =0
CD O am f D
CD n � N • cn � �
O
_ . 3 � . C �
O
0 pCD
v Cyr+
v v o%
r+
' N
mo
VIM
v r
=� 1 •
O
c--N V) .
r+ (OD
rI it
j6 _
i . �j
CD ° ° CD
n n InO o O
�, • ton o •
ounimmiiiiiiiii •
O
un
O un .
n = +h _ .
C D
70
70
C =3
=0 n QJ
a) C ( D
UP) No
CD
tff
11
N � �
70
- • 70
It
I ItO
CL r+ C
T p y_
* , 1
It 41 1 C1 r � • mod
v
4,46
It. t It
i • V r
V P j A }r iIt
/\
1
V -'l t
V r 1'I t I j
t ` � ; d � t 'f
It
1 t L it r1
1:1
v
o '
it
I
I
V W
n
o occ2 rn � `!1coa — # OF BEDS
{ v- AAc� c� q
D C' y D � D m V) m m o AT. D Pawl FLUN I—+
A
n 00 c
rD D AM zA � -. Na r M M
T O
A ;u O O VI A Ui O C C C
A C) z z D r A Mu
m N •
G) G7 mroA >
mho
Ln
omm
O D g
O rM rA m z
< O � ZA N 00(ni Pb O ,
mCC47C
� z z = v M
jg z � O O
=1
m > �
rD C
z N
N N N O O < Ol A N W O T
O MalD
N V � V ON O) =
VIDVf DrFFF UI � UI N 7C
� Z —
D N � IFFFFF D z O
N N � UI VI .ZA1 0DD
v < 0 0 W I j O A rrt V I✓ On O z Z
0 A A O v am N NJ
r� � raw
V M W v
A m m j
A A
m
m Lai IMA an
.ZWI o OQ N 0) 00 o f�
O A 0 \ z
D
T D
m0
m
KRfCOWSWAYPRO
ab
f�
dam
111110
Bolt
i Au .
} r
1• ; —
;� € = 1 � ' ■
kkk
° 1
i PC
nOF
lj . .
P .
^ it
31
0
41
F — jl . -
wj
FIR
UF
Palme-
It ff t I A
06 'JSAS v ey �3fi�ls � + I
, ` .
Mo
� y` FitIL
All
JAI . �tcJ I»L.:ft'
CL
l/ ti Y
% F b
i
c E
1 rt
i
- h
s�
ii O
lk
>< , i;. l L
_IaC'
1
i
pip
oaf � � >
If
wd
1 r
AF
.� Pr
did
/ T"� 1
..
' r ,
104 '
4
did
1 1 of
do
11
1 oddLr
did
r
didd ;;. '`: ,
,1
` �,
i
IF
n
O Sot
}� � rT, � < 9�� n Leo,LSt
A'
1�
mill
8
- C
3,
CD
O or .
All
CL
to I
LI
I.Flow dome,
IMF a led
APENIF
-t 0 w Indeed IMF
1 - - - Y 1 P ff
Impro
I� ..
''^
y t 4 y • !
- = i r ` /
i _ 1 ,
41
ep
ol IA
4y, YI
ti.
time
IJA I Id dam
at I
did,
ILL
� k
- � 5f_dot I .
-
1 • ± • �,
c `f�.� ". 1 14 `IN
IF
forlit
low All
low
let, 4L
_ • yJ •' raj _ �` � 1 ��� - �J " � 'a
• IN 16 Or ell
Oil
i't fill
tote
DI If
6 It
KlidA
� 1 pw v .
It it, ill
^' r .y - W �. 1 s �_
N
W
Y !
RR
it
t . . . 1 ' •�
APOP
awr p I
IF
it ' I dll " � ' too .'`'
it
Not I t LLt. ( 1. t • i
i •1 , . . .
1� �, � . • IGI.1
e Z.
� rIffit1to
11
1 . —
N ow,N MML SOME
/ ( -
it
r /y OIL
ik
( •
r 1
( : . � - i i
.. -
No All
_ t 1 : 14
'f
` ` sojonsi
loot
- • �,
Ar 1 Poll
too
{I • I . b 1. t
r
A
•
I
p Fir
1 .` AN
wi>r= r
s
' 1
fill — ' lotodr4j ,
' I 1
AT�rh
I �
— n ' �a �� 'I 07 ,�L • e
p,.
err P - : ■ r • R . 4, F 5
_ IF
T — LI. 11
rl
FFL
For 4,
•ty;Z,. - - fir - - - ' � - - - ' - -� i►+ _ _ —��
L')AYAf( fMeYF
lb
_40
y
k .
Win
s _ _
.%nA : 1ft yJ f
"Dowa
,.J4 rRmAmm
.�
- nN
ts
AM to
WD
. r �... ri , _ _ � ..
;P .
u t �
•
r
Mk,
1 '
war, All
AN
�a s ► tfill
At
w
glaa amp
41110
fall
fills
199
„ y k 11 : f ti3
NOR
iNO
fillalls
fail I
f Art
ramasia
fills
t ^.. rip,
qq !
�!1 �1! { � . 1 rr ti• ! H!H !� 1 t.
� . !
•
1
• " It
II = > mnnrmmnm � mm.r.
II —,
R HIIHHIHNONN�IWNIINIIFiHMIfFHHIfi , � _
I� �� ;� i �;
II t _ a111P I.0Y
11
11 �; fIIIRI91 m -
it
HIIItN I !lHHIH iHX IHIHHINH aNWt�IHN N � . aMt191N
!� N�w++xllNf aHltwl�+lo
A
m ■
H!N _o plc ■3
it it !1 !t Poll
pHlllflflllWFq • I _ _
I' �� •� INN pIHtMN; ! = m n �
I ' HflNtHl s! - _ !1 pIIIH81di ! ; __Q — Httl
U II c
it
I 11 - �
a , bill ( pNHtH lolls
II 'I IINN Rt '_. ! - Il pNfllt I , j p � IIHIIIIINIIIi
IF HONIIIHiMN
nM N Id I , 1T-0 n Iam 5
j
z
PIP PRO. . I .
Pam
It k+NIfnIBit
OHB�MI i tg @ 63 Ib I
It I I
it
- - MCik
{ — `it
it
V � D
III
FF
it 101 Pk
it
if
of
0000000
li !fl IF b
aNNNN i8
ty �
lMIHBD -- i—�
II I lflfll4! �v mnrJra r A
I I
sr q�fH54r„ O
II dfH 1 �fI&N MI,
I
_ ` XR �Inuu.a„
IIso
ap II is
It
x II II
6 II I x
f
II 11
11 II -
II
II IIl! l
II It POP�f�lH .
It II !ItLLYllll
it
E , l� l
•
1
•
Ll
0 � m
/3 � a �'
3 3
N
lo 4 T Mot!
in in �
�U
/3V� �n
\ Y U
ML
y, NORrY
N tJ V C9
w r� r r� t� •
0 Moo, Moll
T o
c
s LQ
N '
U)
• M
n
wo ti ih a O
N
r +
ti i a h, C
m
0LU
fA v
Ate .
W A O n C N Gyi
V
R ; b
3
APPLICANT RESPONSE TO RECORDS APARTMENTS STAFF REPORT 4 . 7. 22
IX. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
Conditional Use Permit :
1 . The Applicant shall comply with the provisions in the existing Development Agreement (David Kleiner
Property of Meridian Town Center AZ -07-012 , Inst. # 109009630) and all other previous conditions of
approval . CONCUR ( hereafter C )
2 . DELETE
3 . The multi-family development shall have an ongoing obligation to comply with the specific use standards
listed in UDC 11 -4-3 -27, including but not limited to the following :
a . No recreational vehicles , snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the
site unless provided for in a separate, designated and screened area. C
b. The multi -family development shall record a legally binding document that states the maintenance and
ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not limited to,
structures, parking, common areas, and other development features as set forth in UDC 11 -4-3 -27F . A
recorded copy of said document shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to issuance of
the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development. C
4 . The site and/or landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be revised as
follows :
a. Depict the locations of the property management office, maintenance storage area, central mailbox
location (including provisions for parcel mail , that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access), and
a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the
development in accord with UDC 114-3 -2713 . 7 . C
b . Depict landscaping along the foundations of all street facing elevations as set forth in UDC 11 -4- 3 -
27E. 2 . C
c. Depict a minimum 35400t wide street buffer along E . Fairview Ave. , an entryway corridor; a minimum
20400t wide buffer along N . Records Way, a collector street; and a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer along
E . Elden Gray St. , a local street, per UDC Table 11 -213 -3 . C
d . Within street buffers, depict a variety of trees, shrubs, lawn or other vegetative groundcover designed to
elicit design principles including rhythm, repetition, balance and focal elements per the recently updated
specifications set forth in UDC 11 -3X 7C. 3 . C
e . Remove the three (3 ) "diamond" planter islands between the north & south portions of the building and
replace them with planter islands that comply with the standards in UDC I / - 3X8C. 2 . C
f. Shrubs shall be added to the landscape strips along pathways where none currently exist in order to
contribute to the mix of landscaping required by UDC / 1 -3B- 12C. 2 . C
g. Where bumpers overhang perimeter landscaping in parking areas, the parking stall dimensions may be
reduced 2 ' in length if 2 ' is added to the width of the landscaped area planted in groundcover;
otherwise, wheel stops shall be provided to prevent vehicle overhang. The perimeter buffers/parking
along the south and east boundaries of the site should be revised to comply with this standard . C
h. Internal pedestrian walkways are required to be distinguished from the vehicular driving surfaces
through the use of pavers, colored or scored concrete, or bricks per UDC 11 -3A- 1913 .4b . c
i. Depict off-street vehicle parking and bicycle parking spaces in accord with the standards listed in UDC
11 -3C-6 (i .e. currently, a minimum of 822 off-street vehicle parking spaces are required with at least
388 of those in a covered carport or garage for the multi-family units, guest and clubhouse; and a
minimum of 30 bicycle parking spaces are required depending on how may vehicle parking spaces are
provided — these numbers will change if fewer units are provided as recommended) . c
j . All on-site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and
utility vaults shall be depicted on the site plan and shall not be located in an area not visible from a
public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street as set forth in UDC 114-3 -
2713 .2 . c
k. Remove the access driveway via N. Records Way in accord with UDC 11 -3A-3A. 1 , unless otherwise
waived by City Council . APPLICANT REQUESTS COUNCIL WAIVER
1. The minimum width of parkways planted with Class II trees is 8-feet; the planter width may be reduced
to 6-feet if there are root barriers that meet the standards in UDC 11 -3A47E.
in. Depict common open space that complies with the dimensional standards in UDC 114-3 -27 (i .e. shall
not be less than 400 square feet in area and shall have a minimum length and width dimension of 20
feet) . Given the project' s proximity to Kleiner Park, the applicant shall submit an Alternative
Compliance application for the baseline open space requirement. MODIFY
45 . A cross-access easement shall be granted to the adjacent property to the east (CarMax — Parcel
#S1104438755) for use of the portion of the driveway that lies on this site; a recorded copy of the easement
shall be submitted with the first Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. If an easement already exists,
submit a copy of the recorded easement. c
66. The Director approved the Applicant' s request for Alternative Compliance to the private usable open space
standards listed in UDC 114-3 -2713 .3 for each dwelling unit as follows : zero (0) s . f. for studio units; 5742
s .f. for 1 -bedroom units; and 60 s. f. for the 3 -bedroom units. Floor plans with square footages noted for
patios and balconies shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application that
demonstrate compliance with the alternative compliance approval. c
67. Submit a 14400t wide public pedestrian easement for the 10400t wide pathways required along the
southern and western boundaries of the site in accord with Park' s Department requirements prior to or with
the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. If partially located within the public right-of-way, provide
sufficient easement width beyond that boundary to cover the 10 ' sidewalkplus 2 '. c
48 . The Applicant should work with ACHD 's Planning and Projects group to see if a pedestrian crossing can be
provided to the north across N. Records Way at the Record/Longwing intersection for pedestrian safety
between the residential and commercial development, as well as the City Park. c
99 . An application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review shall be submitted for the proposed
project and approved prior to submittal of building permit applications. Compliance with the design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual is required. c