HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-05-25 Regular
City Council Regular Meeting
City Council Chambers, 33 East Broadway Avenue Meridian, Idaho
Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 6:00 PM
Minutes
VIRTUAL MEETING INSTRUCTIONS
Limited seating is available at City Hall. Consider joining the meeting virtually:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89230681562
Or join by phone: 1-669-900-6833
Webinar ID: 892 3068 1562
ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
PRESENT
Councilwoman Liz Strader
Councilman Joe Borton
Councilman Brad Hoaglun
Councilman Treg Bernt
Councilman Luke Cavener
Mayor Robert E. Simison
ABSENT
Councilwoman Jessica Perreault
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Adopted
PUBLIC FORUM – Future Meeting Topics
The public are invited to sign up in advance of the meeting at www.meridiancity.org/forum to
address elected officials regarding topics of general interest or concern of public matters.
Comments specific to active land use/development applications are not permitted during this
time. By law, no decisions can be made on topics presented at Public Forum. However, City
Council may request the topic be added to a future meeting agenda for further discussion or
action. The Mayor may also direct staff to provide followup assistance regarding the matter.
ACTION ITEMS
Public Hearing process: Land use development applications begin with presentation of the
project and analysis of the application by Planning Staff. The applicant is then allowed up to 15
minutes to present their project. Members of the public are then allowed up to 3 minutes each
to address City Council regarding the application. Citizens acting as a representative of a
Homeowner’s Association may be allowed up to 10 minutes to speak on behalf of represented
homeowners who have consented to yielding their time. After all public testimony, the applicant
is allowed up to 10 minutes to respond to questions and comments. City Council members may
ask questions throughout the public hearing process. The public hearing is then closed, and no
further public comment is heard. City Council may move to continue the application to a future
meeting or approve or deny the application. The Mayor is not a member of the City Council and
pursuant to Idaho Code does not vote on public hearing items unless to break a tie vote.
1. Public Hearing Continued from April 27, 2021 for Compass Pointe Subdivision
(H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of
E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd. Denied
A. Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15
zoning district.
B. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 residential building lots and 10 common
lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
Motion to deny made by Councilman Cavener, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener
2. Public Hearing for Gramercy Commons (H-2021-0022) by Intermountain Pacific,
LLC, Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 S. Wells Ave. Approved
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai
Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the purpose of
amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age-restricted multi-family
housing units.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Borton, Seconded by Councilwoman
Strader.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener
3. Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason & Associates,
Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd. Approved
A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district
commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for
the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000-square-foot office building
in lieu of residential development.
B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to replace the existing
agreement (Inst. #111024535) and enter into a new agreement to develop the
site consistent with the proposed development plan.
Motion to approve made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by Councilman Borton.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener
4. Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of
Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd. Continued
to May 26, 2021
A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning
districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots
and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot
for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning
districts.
Motion to continue to May 26, 2021 made by Councilman Hoaglun, Seconded by
Councilman Cavener.
Voting Yea: Councilwoman Strader, Councilman Borton, Councilman Hoaglun,
Councilman Bernt, Councilman Cavener
ORDINANCES \[Action Item\]
5. Ordinance No. 21-1929: An Ordinance (H-2020-0046 – Gateway at 10 Mile) for
Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West ½ of the Southwest ¼, Section
11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as
Described in Attachment “A” and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in
Ada County, Idaho, and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City
of Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the
Land Use Zoning Classification of 41.284 Acres of Land from RUT to R-40 (High
Density Residential)(17.273 Acres) and C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial)(24.001 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing
that Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and
Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the
Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date Approved
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
ADJOURNMENT
10:22 pm
Item#2.
Meridian City Council May 25, 2021.
A Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:05 p.m., Tuesday, May
25, 2021, by Mayor Robert Simison.
Members Present: Robert Simison, Joe Borton, Luke Cavener, Treg Bernt, Brad Hoaglun
and Liz Strader.
Members Absent: Jessica Perreault.
Also present: Chris Johnson, Bill Nary, Bill Parsons, Joe Dodson,Alan Tiefenbach, Jamie
Leslie, Joe Bongiorno and Dean Willis.
ROLL-CALL ATTENDANCE
Liz Strader _X_ Joe Borton
_X_ Brad Hoaglun _X_Treg Bernt
Jessica Perreault _X Luke Cavener
_X_ Mayor Robert E. Simison
Simison: Council, the meeting will come to order. For the record it is May 25th, 2021, at
6:05 p.m. We will begin this evening's regular City Council meeting with roll call
attendance.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Simison: Next item is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you would all rise and, please, join us
in the pledge.
(Pledge of Allegiance recited.)
COMMUNITY INVOCATION
Simison: Our next item is a community invocation. Do we -- is Mr. Hanke here this
evening? If you -- go ahead and come forward and if you all would like to join us in the
invocation or take this as a moment of silence and reflection on your own part.
Hanke: We come before you now and we pray the words that Paul taught us when he
said may the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the
Holy Spirit be with you and we pray those words now, that the grace that you have given
us would be with us now in the decisions we make, in the way we treat each other, in the
way we speak. That the love of the Father, that we as a community would show that love
to one another as you have shown love to us, that the fellowship of the Holy Spirit would
be guiding to us, that we would judge our actions and our words and our thoughts by what
you have called us to and I pray that this great city, Lord, would reflect the grace in the
love in the fellowship that you have shown us. I pray that every day our decisions would
Page 15
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 2 of 7,
lead this place to a greater understanding of these three things and that every day, God,
we would make these decisions paramount in our life as we judge how they impact others.
May you use us this evening, in your name we pray, amen.
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Simison: Thank you. Council, our next item is the adoption of the agenda.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: There are no changes to the agenda, so I move that we adopt the agenda as
published.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as published. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye? Opposed nay? The ayes have it.
Motion is agreed to and the agenda is adopted.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
PUBLIC FORUM — Future Meeting Topics
Simison: Mr. Clerk, anyone under public forum?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, only signups under there were for tonight's public hearings and
future public hearings.
Simison: Okay. Then there will be nothing under public forum this evening.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Public Hearing Continued from April 27, 2021 for Compass Pointe
Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at
the Southwest Corner of E. Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the
R-15 zoning district.
B. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 residential building lots and 10
common lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning
district.
Page 16
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 3 of 77
Simison: So, we will move right into our Action Items for the evening. First item up is a
public hearing that was continued from April 27th, 2001, for Compass Pointe Subdivision,
H-2020-0100. I will turn this over to Mr. Dodson.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Not sure if you want me to go
over the whole project, but I can. Your purview.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I know that we have continued this item multiple times, but we have got a -- I
think a large amount of the public that are here tonight and if -- if Joe is willing and able
to and Council is amenable, I think it's probably best to have staff kind of go over this
project again for us.
Dodson: Sounds good to me.
Simison: Okay.
Dodson: All right. As mentioned, this project is for Compass Pointe Subdivision. It's
been through -- I think I have had it on my desk for over a year now. So, it's been a while
between Planning and Zoning and a remand and, then, Council and our continuances
here. So, it's been a long time coming. The site is located at the southwest corner of
Victory and Locust Grove. In total, it consists of 7.69 acres of land, which is currently
zoned RUT, which is rural urban transition within the county. It has county residential to
the north that does have an application in process for low density single family residential
and R-8 zoning directly to the east and south southwest. The project as noted was heard
by Planning and Zoning Commission in December of last year. The Commission
recommended denial and following this recommendation the applicant made a request to
the City Council to be remanded back to P&Z. With that they revised the plat, removed
the request for a planned unit development and revised the open space pursuant to the
comments made within the staff report and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. City
Council agreed with this request and remanded the project back to P&Z. The main
changes were related to the number of units, which are down to 37 from 48, the overall
road layout, and the amount of usable open space and the applicant is no longer
requesting a PUD, which is a benefit. This is the planned development map and ACHD
map for the road widening projects that are in the vicinity, which is the intersection directly
adjacent to the site, as well as the road widening of Locust Grove north of Victory. Part
of the roundabout project will also widen this area of Locust Grove directly adjacent to the
site on both sides, which includes sidewalk and widening around the -- I guess you would
call it the culvert for the Ten Mile Creek there. I will get into a little more detail with that
later. Again, this is for annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land, with a request for the
R-15 zoning district. A preliminary plat consisting of 37 residential building lots and ten
common lots on approximately five and a half acres within the R-15 zoning district. So,
to be clear this is for attached and detached single family. This is not for multi-family.
Page 17
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 4 of 7,
This is -- these are not apartments as has been misrepresented. So, I just want to make
sure that's very clear. Private streets are proposed throughout the site and there was a
request for alternative compliance to connect the private street directly to an arterial,
which would be Locust Grove. The proposed uses are all single family residential, but
within multiple types, which would be attached townhomes and triplexes, which is better
seen here and detached duplexes, as well as four single family homes. As you can tell
here there is single family, duplex, triplex, duplex, duplex, single, so on. The project is
proposed with a gross density of 4.8 units to the acre, which is lower than the previous
proposal. The gross density of the closest subdivisions, which are Tradewinds to the east
and Tuscany to the west, are 4.4. So, it actually is in line with that density. If you remove
the Ten Mile Creek area, the density bumps up to 6.6, which is still well within the medium
density residential. Not a high density project by any means. The applicant is proposing
to construct private streets as noted. They are 24 foot wide and are proposed with five
foot attached sidewalks on both sides throughout a majority of the site, which is not
required by code, but is appreciated by staff. The applicant is proposing an emergency
only access to Victory Road, which is required if more than 30 homes are to be
constructed. The proposed access for this development is to South Locust Grove and
lines up with East Coastline Street on the east side of Locust Grove, which is the access
to Tradewinds Subdivision. The access point into the development does not mean ACHD
district policy, but they have to modify their policy to accommodate the access into the
site, because this is the best possible access for development to the site, because it is
the furthest access point away from Victory and Locust Grove, because it's a triangle
shaped parcel. ACHD will not allow an additional access to Victory or any other point in
the site. The site as discussed has major development constraints. It is a triangle shaped,
bordered on two sides by arterials, and on one side by the creek. It has no possibility for
future road connectivity for public roads, which is why ACHD recommended private
streets and why staff has approved the private street request. City code requires that
private streets to be used in either a MEW or gated development and this -- the applicant
has proposed a gate at this location here to meet UDC requirements. There is no existing
sidewalk on Victory or Locust Grove, but both are scheduled to be widened as part of the
roundabout project as noted. The applicant is required to dedicate additional right of way
and provide for a road trust for the sidewalks that will be constructed with the roundabout
project. The applicant is proposing open space in excess of code, but a large portion of
it is the Ten Mile Creek, which does qualify per UDC, because it is a natural waterway.
There is now more usable open space throughout the site and has been improved overall
from previous layouts. Staff appreciates the pedestrian connections to and from the
central open space and to the adjacent arterials. The applicant submitted conceptual
elevations for the proposed attached single family homes, both duplexes and the
triplexes. The center elevations show all two story structures, two car garages, and
finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition to the elevations show modern
architecture -- architectural designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass
railings and stone accents that go from ground level to the top of the second story, which
is actually pretty rare. Detached single family homes do require design review approval
prior to building permits submittal. So, staff will analyze these in more detail at a future
time. At the Commission hearing after the remand they did recommend approval of the
subject applications. The public testified, as they will tonight, regarding the density of the
Page 18
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 5 of 7,
project, the additional traffic at the intersection of Locust Grove and Victory. Discussed
whether or not the project complies with the Comprehensive Plan, because it is a different
type of residential use than the surrounding residential and the proposed density. They
noted that it was high density when the adjacent subdivisions are not and as noted this
falls within the medium density residential. Commission discussed the density, traffic,
clarification on how the private streets meet the required findings. Staff's concern with
some of the recommended changes at the time and the timeline of ACHD roundabout.
Commission modified a few of the conditions, which has been taken care of and the only
outstanding issues for Council were regarding some of the conditions of approval for the
pre-plat and landscape plan, but they actually have revised those and have been shown
here with some of the revisions noted. So, there are no outstanding issues. Now, since
the Commission hearing -- sorry. Since the Council hearing a month ago there have been
-- at least as of this morning there were 22 pieces of testimony. I'm assuming more have
been input since then. But they all discuss the same issues that I presented previously,
so I won't go into many detail with that, but, again, regarding density and traffic mostly
and, again, they represented it as multi-family, which this is not. So, after that I will stand
for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions for staff?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Joe, either a question for you or for the applicant when they get up. I know at
some points in the staff report it talks about place sidewalks on both sides, but in other
parts it talks about just one side. Can you maybe walk Council through where there is
sidewalks on both sides and where there is only on one side?
Dodson: Absolutely. Yeah. The -- some of that might be from Commission and prior to
an older layout, but as you can see here the darker gray is going to be the sidewalk, which
is shown on both sides of the road everywhere except this portion of the loop.
Cavener: Okay.
Dodson: And I believe in older layouts they did just have it on one side, but they are
proposing the five foot sidewalk on both sides of the road in I would say 90 percent of the
site.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, follow up?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Joe, apologies. I recall -- no on-street parking would be allowed, then, in this?
Page 19
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page6of,,
Dodson: That is correct, sir. Because it's only 24 foot -- feet wide and minimum for one
side would be 27 or 28.
Cavener: Thank you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: With signs, Joe? No parking with signs?
Dodson: It was not one of my conditions, but you are more than welcome to add that,
because there are private streets.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Bill is nodding his head yes.
Dodson: I will default to him then. I would say that they -- more than likely they would be
signed and signed that no parking, because they are private streets and will not
accommodate on -- any on-street parking.
Parsons: Mayor -- Mayor, Members of the Council, the code requires there to be signed
no parking per the private street standards and that's what the condition is in the staff
report.
Bernt: Perfect.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Then I will invite the applicant
to come forward. You are recognized for 15 minutes.
Arnold: Thanks. Mayor, Members of the Council, for the record it's Steve Arnold,A-Team
Land Consultants, 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise, Idaho. 83709. And I will ask pretty much
the same question that Joe asked. I mean we -- we have presented our stuff here before.
If you would like a full presentation of it or abbreviation or a combination I can do both.
But I do kind of want to go -- hit an overview of-- of what we feel the main issues are and
kind of address those and I think Joe did that really good. The main thing is this has been
misrepresented I think to the surrounding neighbors and the community as multi-family
and apartments and it is not. It's the farthest from that. We are -- we are actually -- we
have the marketing team in place. We are going to end up marketing the subdivision. It
is a for sale unit and that's why we are doing a subdivision plat. On townhomes, you put
them on their own lot so you can sell them as -- through conventional selling practices.
So, again, these aren't apartments, they are townhomes. I will hit real quickly on the
traffic. As you -- probably most of you know, I used to work at ACHD and ACHD has
approved this at -- I believe 50 lots or 48, 1 can't remember, but it -- since, then, we have
dropped it down from 40 -- 50, 48, to 38 and now 37. So, what we are essentially putting
Page 20
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 7 of 7,
out for a traffic count is approximately 37 trips in the p.m. peak hour, which that equates
to one car coming in every minute and a half or leaving. Either way. The -- even -- even
as the intersection stands that is bad right now, this project is not attributing much traffic
to this -- to the area at all. One point -- one trip every 1.5 minutes is pretty minimal. I do
agree that that intersection needs to be approved -- improved. Right now -- I have been
out there during the -- the peak hour traffic and it's bad. It's currently stop controlled and
they are not timed and it -- at those commuting hours it backs up significantly, but by the
time that we actually are generating trips that intersection will be improved and the traffic
won't be an issue there. It is now -- and I get that's why there is a lot of people that are
scared of the project, frankly, because it -- it does add to that problem currently, but it will
be fixed. Joe I think hit on the density pretty good. Yeah, if you count in the Ten Mile
Creek, because it is -- we are rezoning a 7.69 acre site, you are at 4.8 units per the acre
and neighboring properties are 4.4. So, the density on this is pretty minimal. It's not a
high density project. You have seen me here a lot of times doing multi-family and those
are, you know, anywhere between 16 to 20 units per acre. So, 4.8 is not much at all. You
know, since -- as Joe stated, we have been working with him for over a year. Our client
has been really amenable to all the changes that have been requested. We made I think
every change that has been and I will go through those changes shortly, but, you know,
the -- the developer is also going to be the builder, so they have got a lot of stake in this
in building a nice product or project from the subdivision side. I will go through some of
the changes that we have done since the beginning. Again, we have lost significant lots.
Our density went from 6.24 to 4.8. We eliminated the PUD. There was some -- I know
at P&Z -- I don't know what the City Council saw, but we had some pretty odd shaped
houses, because we had odd shaped lots. So, with the modifications we nixed -- got rid
of all of those. We did add more single family to it to create more housing variety. Again,
the open space went from 35 to 44 percent. We added two pocket parks to the site. We
eliminated the dead ends and put the lollipop in, which I think is a better design -- and
when I say lollipop, it's -- it's the circle at the top, essentially. We added the gated entry
and we attached pedestrian crossings and added sidewalk throughout. I think we went
from two thousand linear feet of sidewalk to almost 2,800, so we made significant changes
and, truthfully, I think it has made a nicer product -- project and in the long run it will be a
good site. I can go into specific design things on the buildings. One thing to keep in mind
with these buildings -- I mean the modern look was my idea and I have heard some
pushback on it. We are not married to any of that. I mean we can go with a more classical
style or a Craftsman style or whatever direction the Council likes. I just -- there is nothing
out there like it, so I thought I would throw it out there. But the footprint of the home and
the square footage of the home isn't going to change. We are going to try to be in that
sixteen to two thousand square foot range. What we submitted was right around 18,000
and I think one was 19,000 --1,900 square feet. Sorry. So, if -- if it's the desire of the
Council to modify the exterior look, we can do that. And like Joe said, it does have to go
back through design review. So, this isn't the last shot at it. Some of those colors that
you have seen -- my designer told me they weren't fully rendered, so I probably shouldn't
submit them. Some were kind of orangey looking and that was my mistake. Our intent
to submit here are earth tones. So, more like what you are seeing in these pictures with
the fly throughs and I can go through those if you want to see them again or I could just
stand the questions.
Page 21
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 8 of 7,
Simison: Council, would you like anything more or do you have questions for the
applicant?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I would like to look at his pictures.
Arnold: Okay. If you can start from the top, Joe, and I will just kind of go -- so, this is the
picture at the entrance off of Locust Grove Road looking north and if you can see when
we took the staff's advice on making the road changes, we were able to undulate it, so it
helped break up a lot of the -- the massing along the front of the roadway. So, I think that
was good. This is at the north end looking south. Kind of gives you another idea. And
this is the main north-south road. It gives you a good idea of still kind of the undulations
that are created by meandering road. And as you can see also we have put in raised
pedestrian crossings as well. We have been doing that in other subdivisions. We think
it's a nice way of getting pedestrian safety across and then -- next screen. This is on the
east side of the road looking at our pocket park. Again, it just shows you how some of
the buildings will fit and, then, you go to the next one, Joe. And this is in the pocket park
looking at the -- on the west side looking at the other pocket park on the east side and it
also gives you an idea of the pedestrian crossing. So, those are the pictures. If there is
any other questions I can --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Steve, would you mind walking through just so we have a good understanding
of the timeline for this subdivision if it's approved and the timeline for the ACHD projects,
the roundabout, the widening of the road and those types of things.
Arnold: Sure. So,ACHD planned to have the roundabout started now. They are currently
redesigning it. So, their original plan was to start it roughly now and, then, complete it in
November. So, my guess is, you know, it's -- it's going to be in the spring to early summer
of 2020.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor. Do you know why?
Arnold: Why they would change it? No. No, I don't know. I just know that we are currently
negotiating right of way with them right now and they have put that on hold while they are
doing some redesigns.
Bernt: Okay.
Arnold: But it's still a high priority for them, but --
Page 22
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 9 of 7,
Simison: And they wouldn't be doing it now with the work going on Eagle Road. Until
Eagle Road is completed they won't start this project. But that's also --
Arnold: You would hope.
Simison: No, they won't.
Arnold: No. And I guess I was going to finish up on your question there. What was the
other --
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor. Steve, yeah, roundabout, the widening. And I suppose that's tied
to that. And, then, your project timeline.
Arnold: So, as soon as it's approved it will take us about two months to do the civil design,
probably another month and a half to get the design approved and, then, we are hoping
that we can get a contractor on there and, then, it's probably a good five, five and a half
months for the contractor to go in and build it. Our plan is to build one phase. So, we are
going to be lucky to get it on by the end of the year, first of next year.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: When you say first phase, how many -- how many units is that?
Arnold: Thirty-seven units.
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, that is for the end of the year? Of this -- of 2021?
Arnold: And that's hope -- yes. That's a hopeful schedule.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Steve, you have been doing this a long time. Nice to you see back here. I
think you are -- you are winning the top prize for many times before Council this year.
Appreciate you being here. On the private streets, the piece that I always wrestle with is
you put in private streets and roads and we put up no parking signs, but if somebody
parks, Lieutenant Leslie is not going to come over or send one of our fine men or women
from the Meridian Police Department coming in and force that, so how do you -- how do
you enforce that in your neighborhood?
Page 23
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 10 of,,
Arnold: Mayor and Council Member Cavener, what we have done in the past is you have
the HOA and you assign a -- a tow truck company and the -- the HOA police are the ones
that usually chase it and when you sign it it gives you the authority to get towed. The
other option is that we could look at pulling the sidewalk off one side and widen it out to
29 feet or I can add some additional parking in here. Each unit has a two car garage with
a two car pad in front of it, with the additional parking that we have provided we are not
assuming too much of an issue, but if it's the Council's direction we can take it off one
side.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Steve, can you walk the Council real quick through the amenities? You talked
a little bit about the pocket parks and those illustrations are helpful, but -- I mean there is
a lot of young families in Meridian and when I see a little gazebo that looks nice, but I also
wonder what there are for terms of engagement for kids and maybe walking the Council
through that.
Arnold: Mayor, Councilman Cavener, actually, Joe's recommendation -- and they are kind
of aesthetically pleasing is climbing rocks was one of the things that we put in here. You
know, I -- personally I don't see a lot of kids using the tot lots, but I mean we could add
that to this if that's the direction. The main thing that we are putting out was the climbing
rocks in the common areas. So, if you come in off of the main entrance we have got a
gazebo there that is more of a sitting adult area. Yeah. Right next to the parking lot and,
then, we have got the -- the climbing rocks next to it and, then, in the center part up by
Joe's hand right there, that is another little climbing rock area for kids to play in. If it's the
direction of the Council to add play equipment, we can certainly do that. I just haven't
seen it used very much.
Bongiorno: Mr. Mayor? Over here.
Simison: Deputy Chief.
Bongiorno: If I can --thank you, Mr. Mayor. If I can continue with --to answer Councilman
Cavener's question on the parking. When I first became the fire marshal one of the things
that Ms. Kane and I did was we put in city code that no parking fire lane signs are
enforceable by Meridian PD, even on private property. So, they can go in and they can
write a ticket against that sign. So, that's why I now require on all that you have to use
this sign, so that way we can enforce it.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Thank
you very much. Mr. Clerk, I saw a long -- long line of people signing up to testify this
evening. Help us -- walk us through this.
Page 24
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 11 of 7,
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We have probably three dozen signed in, about half
wish to testify, and, first, representing an HOA is John Buckner.
Simison: Mr. Buckner, if you could state your name and address for the record -- and if
everyone can do that when you come up, then, you will be recognized for ten minutes
representing the HOA. If you could state the HOA that you are representing.
Buckner: John Buckner. I live at 3877 South Picasso Avenue in Meridian. Council,
Mayor, thank you for the time and opportunity to be here. I want to ask you to reject the
application and instead to approve a rezoning of R-8 or lower, with 14 or more units less
in a comparable design that matches the surrounding neighborhood. The Meridian vision
reaffirms the desire to preserve Meridian's character. The vision reinforces the core
values of guiding strategic growth and being good stewards of the public trust. I see in
this paragraph two chief values, character and being good stewards of public trust. The
comp plan action item 0307 encourages compatible use and site design to minimize
conflicts and maximize use of land. The public sentiment is clear. The current
development clashes severely with the surrounding neighborhood and there simply is no
precedent for an R-15 in the neighborhood. According to the housing and the comp plan,
high density housing must be strategically located to public transportation, community
services, and employment areas. If we look at Locust Grove and Franklin, for example,
we can see that this R-15 here is located next to light industrial and commercial. Over at
Locust Grove and Fairview, again, we see that R-15s are located next to community
businesses, commercial, and light industrial. And, again, Locust Grove and Chinden we
see R-15 again located near general retail, community business and limited office and, of
course, over here to the right is Eagle, which is notorious as we all know. What about our
neighborhood? Well, you see in this lovely red triangle here in the middle it is surrounded
by low to medium density R-4s and R-8s and, then, there is this small nonresidential area
which is just the church. Up in the corner we see R-15s and R-40. Again, following the
pattern of limited office, commercial, and community business and, again, off wonderful
Eagle Road. Comp plan 05-01-02 says to support and protect the identity of existing
residential neighborhoods. Now, answer this question. Does this development support
and protect the identity of the existing neighborhood? Oh-oh. Can I get it back? The
comp plan describes urban and suburban character. For example, the urban character
is marked by higher land use intensity and higher lot coverage. Suburban character is
marked by more building separation and lower lot coverage also according to the keys,
urban character, housing is small newer, single family lots, multi-family dwellings and yard
and landscaped areas are reduced. Let's look at an example. The existing Tuscany
Lakes Subdivision, which is R-8 right across from the planned developments, is, for
example, the Brennan Family Trust, what do you think is here? You see a property with
narrower, smaller size and higher lot coverage. What do you see with something with
lower lot coverage and higher landscaping? Or, for example, what about the
development? Do you see a house that is larger in size or more small and narrow? Or
take, for example, one of Mr.Arnold's little private parks or pocket parks, which is basically
the size of the backyard of the property right across the way. It's basically the size of my
backyard. Does this seem to mark the same characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhood and does it protect the identity of the neighborhood? What you see here
Page 25
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 12 of 7,
is an accident that occurred on Sunday, May 16th. The comp plan action item 05-01 is to
sustain, enhance, promote and protect elements that contribute to the livability and high
quality of life for all Meridian residents. Now, you have heard time and again from written
and verbal testimony that there is a major traffic problem on these streets and at the
intersection. Let me just stop right here and say I was not driving this fast. The playback
was just sped up. I was obeying the traffic laws. But when you have heard time and
again the traffic is a problem, do you consider it a stewardship of public trust to just simply
dismiss the problem as being an ACHD problem. We all know here that the city is not
responsible for ACHD and vice-versa. But you are responsible for your decision to
approve so many lots and zonings today and what you do today will affect our community
tomorrow. So, again, how will you be a good steward of the public trust in the situation?
Now, safety and traffic are not the only issues of quality of life. As Mr. Arnold pointed out,
our housing market right now is kind of scary and because of this we are actually pricing
out all of our local people. This is a fair point. And it would seem that Mr. Arnold has the
product type is ideal for local residents. If we do a quick search on realty websites we
can see that the average price of houses currently in this zip code is 480,000 and the
average income is 30,000. Compare that to the 500,000 dollar price tag that he showed
us back in March. Back in March. Whereas the current price is 400,000 for 30k earners.
And using a simple calculation that even I can understand, 129 dollars a square foot,
which is the average price back in March, times the average lot size of 2,700 square feet,
comes out to 355,000 dollars back in March and the price back in March for Mr. Arnold
was 500,000, which is 1.5 times the price for a house and it's half the size. And answer.
Who does this really benefit? Does this benefit the local residents who make 30,000 or
does it benefit the realtor or the California developer who is not even here today to
represent this case? I'm afraid that this development will hurt public trust and, in fact, it
already has in my case. According to Planner Dodson and applicant Steve Arnold, zoning
is mainly so that we can create smaller lots and still have an open field, but go down to
those reduced dimensional setbacks. So, it's a setback issue. Or at least it was. Zoning
is mainly so that we can get this product type. So, it's -- it's really about the product type.
The duplexes, triplexes, everything. Well, they also said that they eliminated the need for
the PUD. Mr. Arnold claimed confidently they removed that. So, that means that you
eliminated the setback issue, which begs the question why the R-15? Mr. Arnold also
said we are not tied in any way to the design, which he just restated today. So, it's not
about the product type. According to the unified development code zoning is -- oh, I'm
sorry. As you can see here the setback requirement for the R-8 and the R-15 is actually
the same. Without the PUD, then, you don't really need the R-15. So, why the R-15?
Well, Mr. Arnold said so himself. It's so that we can create smaller lots. As you can see
the R-15 requirement is half of that of the R-8. So, you can fit twice as many homes in
an R-15 as you can in an R-8. Again, who does this benefit? Now, Mr. Dodson likes to
point out again and again that the density is tied to future land use and not zoning. I think
this is a verbal sleight of hand and a misrepresentation to the community. Zoning is what
we are here for today. It's what the applicant is here for and it's defined by the Unified
Development Code, which is referenced, as you can see, by the future land use zoning.
So, let's talk about density. According to the Unified Development Code density is the
ratio of the total number of dwelling units divided by the total whole area, which does not
include resident areas that are not residential lots. I took Mr. Arnold's plan and I counted
Page 26
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
up all the square feet which comes out to 100,000 square feet and when you divide that
by 37 units you get, as Mr. Dodson claimed previously, high density. So, we have a
suburban area being plunged in -- or an urban area being plunged into a suburban area.
We have R-15, which it has no precedent in our neighborhood, and you also have high
density. Is it good stewardship to approve this? Here is my proposal. We use an R-8,
which is the on the high end of the existing neighborhood, and with that I did a rough
drawing -- I'm not a drafter, but I did a rough drawing, which basically comes out to 23
units, at a 500,000 dollar price tag or the market value, that's still not pretty bad in my
opinion along with all the income and all the impact fees that are going to come from that
and since Mr. Arnold is clearly not tied to the development or the product type, he should
see no problem in changing the design to at least match the surrounding neighborhood
character. Just some final thoughts. On the way here the hearing notice still showed that
the hearing was scheduled for April. Last month. And according to the Clerk he said he
was going to change it by Wednesday. He also called me personally last Tuesday to
discuss the application. Me alone. And when I told him that I couldn't speak on behalf of
all these people who are here today, his response was, well, we will just wait until the
hearing on Tuesday. That was a week. Even if you tried to gather the whole community
you would have only done so in a week. He waited until the week before the hearing to
contact me. As you can see in this little clip, there are five Oregon counties that have
voted to secede from Oregon and to join our great state of Idaho, for many of the same
reasons that many Californians, like myself, are here today. We want more
independence. We want more freedom. We want more control over our lives. We also
know that our planner Mr. Dodson comes from San Diego. He has his training and
education there. San Diego is one of the most progressive cities in the country and most
Idahoans want nothing to do with that. So, let me ask you. Is it stewardship of public
trust to start implementing urban policies that are driving many people here and out of
their hometown? Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton. Not a question, just a comment. I thought that was a lot
of great content, good information to consider. I think some of it was somewhat ruined
by a critique of our clerk and our planner, which wasn't probably what you intended, but
not the most constructive way to -- to present that part of it, because I think you got a lot
of good valuable content.
Buckner: Thank you.
Cavener: Thanks for saying that, Joe.
Simison: Council, any other comments or questions? Okay. Mr. Clerk.
Johnson: Next is Todd Ebeling.
Page 27
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of,,
Simison: Does Todd represent an HOA or himself?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, no.
Simison: Recognized for three minutes.
Ebeling: Todd Ebeling. 3536 South Lamone. Mayor and Council Members, thank you
for allowing us to testify and I'm speaking for we the people, the people behind me, as
well as myself and my wife. So, I have been pondering this project for some time now
and, you know, when something doesn't seem right or is out of place there is usually a
reason; right? And thus the phrase follow the money. So, I asked my developer friends
and builder friends their thoughts on higher density of all levels over putting a handful of
houses on that property and, of course, I already knew the answer, I just wanted to hear
them say it. You know, they say don't talk politics and religion with your friends and family.
Well, you can add to that don't talk Planning and Zoning with your builder friends and so
that makes for awkward conversations at times. Already knew the answer. It was all
about money and higher profits in the end. So, the question to the Mayor, Mayor Robert,
Council Members, and Planning and Zoning, is should maximum profits be at the expense
of those who already live there and have to put up with the decisions that are made today
that affect us tomorrow and so on. And, you know, why can't a lesser amount of homes
be built on that property? I have lived in a big city for quite some time and had to put up
with the negative effects of higher density housing, traffic congestion and gridlock and
higher -- higher crime, to name a few. So, in conclusion, we the people of this four mile
square -- square mile area that centers on what's going to become the new roundabout
at Locust Grove and Victory, so no thanks to this plan and I would respectfully request
that you deny this and have it reviewed to a lesser amount. Thank you for your time.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I do have a question, if you don't mind, Todd. Do you know how much the
developer paid for that property?
Ebeling: I don't.
Hoaglun: Do we know how much the cost of those units will be?
Ebeling: Well, isn't that beside the point?
Hoaglun: It is beside the point and that's my point.
Ebeling: Uh-huh.
Hoaglun: We don't know what it is. We don't -- so when you say follow the money, I get
that from that one sense -- we cannot deny it based on their making too much money.
Page 28
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 15 of 7,
Ebeling: Right.
Hoaglun: That's -- that's the hard part for us. We have to have some basis to make that
determination whether deny or to remand back to Planning and Zoning Commission to
redo it. So, for -- and this is more for everyone when you come up here -- we need to
deal with the facts and understanding of what's going on in the area. So, just --just so you know, I'm using your example to get a message out, so I hope you don't mind, but --
Ebeling: No. I understand. That's --
Hoaglun: I understand your point about if the money follows -- yes, we understand
developers and they come from out of state and it is definitely changing what we have
had here for a long time and so, yeah, it's -- it is difficult, but I -- it just -- for -- for us to
make a good decision that will stand the test of law, because state law is very clear on
how we have to do things, that we just need real substance here. So, if you -- if -- that
would be very helpful, so -- but thank you. Appreciate you coming.
Ebeling: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Joe Hess.
Simison: If we can keep the clapping -- we don't need to clap. We are all here. We
understand. We appreciate what everyone is saying, no matter what they say. Let's just
keep it respectful and keep the meeting moving along, please.
Hess: Mr. Mayor and Council, thank you. Joe Hess. 3093 South Gold bar. I have a
degree in geophysics and worked ten years as a geotechnical environmental engineer in
the state of Ohio. I want to review some brief facts about the water and the
Comprehensive Plan, the USGS information, and, then, we will discuss how this relates
to Compass Pointe. In the water master plan that was created in 2017 -- and that is to
be updated in a five year plan prior -- or as conditions dictate -- the city's primary concern
is radionuclide contaminants and uses numerous engineering strategies to address the
elevated levels of uranium in the water. I mention this only because I recognize the
ongoing extensive engineering and budget resources required by the city to bring us
drinking water with all the development that's occurring. In 2016 the USGS, in
collaboration with Idaho Department of Water Resources, had been working toward an
improved understanding of the Treasure Valley Aquifer System with the groundwater
model that was to serve as a tool for water resource management and planning and that
five year study was to conclude in 2021. So, we should have some data either soon or
within the next year. But how does all this relate to Compass Pointe? So, with residential
wells recently going dry at the Five Mile and Amity area in Boise, reported from
development that's going on, data suggests that residential groundwater and aquifer
systems are being impacted now. Currently talks in the Five Mile and Amity area aren't
ongoing regarding a class action suit against developers. However, this is Boise. But my
point is aquifers are not respective of different boundaries and there is a report of a well
going bad just east of the Compass Pointe area. By zoning R-15 this greatly increases
Page 29
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
water usage and a large budget tied to that use. The point being is a small development,
such as Compass Point, worth the effort and risk to push R-15 or be better spent where
there is more conforming with less impact to the quality of life of the existing residents. If
traffic infrastructure is behind how do we know that the appropriate resources are being
allocated to the water delivery infrastructure or aquifer system, since we cannot see it in
the subsurface beneath their feet. I want to ensure if Council is planning to approve
Compass Pointe to meet an agenda for available land space, that they are working from
the most recent available data and have contacted all pertinent valley agencies that this
will not tax our current available resources now or in the future. Currently the City of
Nampa is considering a pause on future development to review infrastructure in place
and what makes sense for their future. Should Meridian consider that same smart
planning scenario? And in my opinion Compass Pointe is an opportunity to show trust
within the community, given all the feedback. Thank you.
Simison: Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Just to -- if you don't mind staying for a second. Just so I can understand your
concern, is your concern specific to the wells -- the private wells in this area being
depleted? If you could just maybe hone in on your specific concern there.
Hess: Okay. My -- my concern is that that is just a small portion of what could occur. So,
when groundwater goes it goes from the tap down. So, we don't have the modeling that
I know of -- at least it's not published from USGS on the groundwater model of Treasure
Valley, but when that groundwater goes that's a signal. So, that's -- that's the first step
that we need to recognize. And the city already knows historically the deep -- deep wells
in the area had been pretty stable, but we know the shallow wells are impacted and we
think that they are on the same aquifer system or that smaller aquifer feeds it.
Residentials are governed by code. They can't go down under 200 feet. We can go down
roughly 700 feet with the city wells. So, that's just a sign that possibly there is some
impact. The other thing is we are taxing resources to do this. As far as the city water
through a blending process -- not to be confused with mixing. Filtration, reverse osmosis,
all this is resources and there is a great budget that we understand goes into that. So,
this is a small -- Compass Pointe is a small development, but it's part of the picture and
my concern goes for all development. Are we considering resources we have now and
where are we going in the future?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Yeah. Just to -- last year I was the liaison for the Public Works Department and
just to comment a little bit on that. We sit in a little bit of a basin geologically with our
Page 30
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 17 of 7,
aquifer and I know that our Public Works Department puts a lot of resources into
monitoring our water supply and also not only the supply, but the quality of the water as
well, which was something that you touched on and so I -- you know, I think that perhaps
it might -- aside from the Compass Pointe development that perhaps you should follow
up with the city individually. But just to comment that, you know, we take the water supply,
both availability and the quality, very seriously and it's not something that is a new issue
for us or that the city hasn't, you know, been aware of.
Hess: No. I don't dispute that at all. I have drank up to six cups of water a day for the
last 24 years and here I am. I would rather drink that than where I came from in Cleveland.
It's safe. I only brought it up to mention that the amount of resources and budget that go
into that to get us that good water. Some of the best water in the country -- or pretty pretty
large.
Simison: Thank you. Yes. Water is more valuable than gold.
Hess: It will be the currency someday.
Simison: Yep. Absolutely. Thank you.
Hess: Thank you.
Simison: Appreciate it.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And being from Ohio I can say Lake Erie was on fire
quite a few times and so -- we will talk about that later. Next is Susie Link.
Simison: Okay. If you can state your name and address for the record.
Link: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Susie Link and I live at 4252
Rangewood in Meridian. I have been here for a couple years now and I'm still acclimating,
so forgive me. I'm here to oppose the Compass Pointe project as last submitted in March
and hope the Council will take into consideration the community's arguments made to
reduce the density to R-8. Even with that adjustment I believe this project will not enhance
my neighborhood. I like the open spaces where I live. It means a lot to me. The
Cambridge English Dictionary state's high density building consists of a lot of buildings
close together. That is Compass Pointe. The 33 townhomes are referenced as duplex
and triplex style on less than five acres. This triangular piece of property is in a flood
area. The applicant has not submitted a land use change application with plans to the
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, but staff stated that the applicant would likely be
responsible for a new pump station, when I spoke to them on the phone. I confirmed that
the property would be part of the district's service area. Having said that, the irrigation
district with its five cities that it services is unable to keep up with the growth. They have
not measured the existing wells in years. The city has not updated its water conservation
plan since 2011 and Ada county is abnormally dry in a drought right now. For all these
reasons the development as proposed should be denied. Thank you.
Page 31
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? All right. Thanks.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Rhonda Unruh.
Unruh: Good evening and thank you, Mayor Simison and City Council Members. My
name is Rhonda Unruh. I live at 3246 South Murlo Way in Meridian. Again, I would like
to respectfully communicate my objection of the proposed R-15 rezoning and the current
plan of the new Compass Pointe Subdivision. When reading through the Comprehensive
Plan I have seen that one of the outcome measures under public health and safety is
improvement on how well the city is ensuring public safety. I have also read that one of
the city's goal statements is to prioritize investment of city and infrastructure and
encourage road and school facilities in identified areas to grow responsibly and maximize
the delivery of city services. Improvement on how well the city is ensuring public safety
and growing responsibly needs to be discussed. Building 37 housing units on a piece of
property that is unusually shaped and cannot be fully utilized due to Ten Mile Creek
running through it is not responsible growth. On top of that, this property is situated on
an intersection, as we have all talked about, in such a manner that any proposed
development cannot plan for more than one exit or entrance for its residents. So, has the
developer thought about how in the mornings all these vehicles will be lined up inside on
the street as people are trying to navigate a locked gate and, then, enter traffic on Locust
Grove? How does the developer or applicant propose those exiting onto Locust Grove
turn left towards the intersection when traffic is backed up in both directions north and
south? This proposal does not offer any improvement of quality of life for any current or
future resident, plus the daily commuters, is not demonstrating responsible growth, nor is
it ensuring public safety. With Meridian being one of the fastest growing cities in the
nation I believe it is time to push the pause button, take a deep breath, take a critical deep
look at what we are becoming. It is time for us to reevaluate if we are still working towards
our outcome measures and our goals. Are we growing responsibly or just reactively? In
other words, can you say that you truly believe that this project is modeling responsible
growth, ensuring safety for all the residents in this area, and improving quality of life? Are
we willing to continue this rate of growth at the expense of losing the dream of being a
premier community? Please hear our input, your constituents, and carefully consider
what Meridian is becoming. By continuing to approve new subdivisions like Compass
Pointe we are only adding to the complexities that our citizens must navigate each and
every day. I have talked to my neighbors about this situation and there is deep frustration
building. Frustration because many have moved here and not to Boise because of the
feel of our community and open space. I could go on, but I won't. So, we are just asking
that you listen and that -- we are asking for rezoning -- lesser rezoning to an R-8. Thank
you.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Deena Weber. Mr. Mayor, Ms. Weber indicates she's
representing Caven Ridge Estates.
Simison: Okay. You are recognized for ten minutes.
Page 32
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
Weber: Pardon?
Simison: You will be recognized for ten minutes.
Weber: Thank you, Mayor Simison and Council men and women. I appreciate this
opportunity to visit with you. Again, my name is Deena Weber and I live at 514 East
Claymont Court, Meridian, and I am an interim board member of the new HOA that we
are developing and it's located right below Reflection Ridge. I'm here to object to the
Compass Pointe development as it's currently proposed and planned and I'm not anti-
development and I'm not anti-growth and, on the contrary, I don't think we can live in the
Treasure Valley actually and be happy and be anti-growth. I have lived here since 1996.
In fact, the city planners and government officials and residents should all be responsible
to ensure that we have sensible growth that adds value and contributes to a premier
community. What we do today we will have to live with in 20 years and it will be our
legacy; right? So, as our city grows it is a great opportunity to plan thoughtfully and build
our community in ways that are unique and appealing. This includes ensuring a well
thought out road infrastructure, expanding school system, and just as we just heard the
irrigation water volumes through the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District and I can speak
to that as -- as I lived in Los Alamitos off of Locust Grove for 21 years and moved at -- a
mile and a half up the road and so we have been involved with the Meridian Irrigation --
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District for that many years, 24 years, and it has been
interesting to see how the pressure does go down a lot more than it ever used to. We
just had another pressure issue and, in fact, all the water stopped for one whole day. So,
it does happen quite often, I just don't think a lot of people hear it. It doesn't last a long
time. We just make one call and it takes care of itself. The neighborhoods surrounding
the proposed Compass Pointe development are well described in the city's
Comprehensive Plan. They are unique, yet traditional. They have their own identities,
yet they don't distract or detract from one another. They enhance each other and bring
value to Meridian and they contain amenities for the enjoyment of residents and visitors.
We ride our bikes all the time, my husband and 1, and we go through all the subdivisions.
We go through Reflection Ridge, through Tuscany, we come back out through Roaring
Springs and we go out -- or Thousand Springs and, then, we go out through our old
subdivision and down Overland and through the Meridian Greens and through
Observation Point -- we ride all through the neighborhoods and we love it. We love being
able to see and enjoy all the neighborhoods around us. In contrast, the proposed
Compass Pointe is quite different from any other of the neighboring areas. It's vertical
housing in the midst of horizontal housing. The design appear starkly modern and I
understand that Mr. Arnold is willing to change some of the design stuff. I -- I understand
that and I appreciate that. But right now it looks very different and the proposal doesn't
appear to contain any real shareable amenities and even if it did it's a gated community.
So, the rest of the community around us are locked out of Compass Pointe; right? So,
we can't really enjoy riding through and visiting and getting to know our neighborhood.
The development contains one entry and exit that is located on a road that is getting more
crowded by the week as people use Locust Grove to bypass Eagle Road; right? It's not
because Eagle Road is under construction, not going north or -- yeah, north from Victory;
right? It's all going on -- going south. That's where all the -- the construction is going on.
Page 33
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 20 of,,
It's increasing -- the traffic has been increasing for a while and is likely to continue
increasing. When we moved here in 1996 it was two lanes. Seen a lot of development
since then; right? So, we are not against it, but we just want to see that we are thoughtful
in going forward with it. Compass Pointe may be suitable development and a suitable
design along one of the city's more urban corridors. I think that John explained it well,
that that kind of development is usually in areas where there is more commercial, there
is more, you know, ability to get the -- the busing and all that other kind of stuff. So, it
may enhance the city in a different location, but it does not enhance the city's jammed
into a highly visible -- and I guess I thought I understood that they had lowered the
acreage on it, that it was going to be more like three to four acres and now it's back up to
the full seven acres. Am I mistaken on that? But, anyway, on the corner of Locust Grove.
We can accomplish the city's goals of building cross-sections of housing types, but
location really does matter. As I said earlier, I have been here since 1996. My husband
and I moved here from eastern Oregon and I have observed Meridian evolve into a very
sought out area by out-of-state land speculators that purchase plots of land and, then,
hire locals to represent their development to our city councils and not just in Meridian, but
Boise or any other city. I mean you see Star, Eagle, all of them growing exponentially.
While private business and landowners have a right to invest and profit has been well
stated earlier; right? We understand that. They don't tend to be as committed, since
some don't live and work in our community. So, they are not as tied to a legacy as we
are who live here and retire here, which is what my husband and I are doing. They make
their money and they move on. They are not as committed to detail -- committed to detail
as residents and, hopefully, our elected representatives. So, I ask the Council to please
object to the application as it's been submitted. I just asked that we, please, uphold --
respectfully uphold the standards and goals of our Comprehensive Plan, so that Meridian
is, as the plan describes, a livable, vibrant, premier town with distinct engaging places
that are appropriately located and that preserve our historic charm for future generations
and that corner lot, it's nice to have that open. I don't know who owns it exactly. I don't
know all the details, but there is a lot of very mature trees there, a lot of habitat there, it's
nice to have that open space, especially with so much traffic right there. Maybe a better
use of that property might be a park or something. I don't know. But it just seems so -- it
would be so much traffic caused by having all those homes there and the left-hand turn I
don't think I will ever be able to make. Not during traffic hours, because it's -- it's incredibly
busy and even with the roundabout it's going to be a continuous go and there is no busing
for the high school students that are in that south area. They all have to ride their bikes
or they have to ride their -- or drive their cars and I personally had a very close friend of
mine -- if you recall on Locust Grove right in front of the LDS church, there is now a light,
because my friend's son was hit there and had a traumatic brain injury and, then, there
was a hit and run girl on Locust Grove and, then, there was a killing -- a young boy that
was killed on Eagle. Now, granted, that was Eagle, but it was a five lane road. It doesn't
matter whose fault it was, there was still a death and one death is too many. So, I'm really
concerned about the five lanes. I don't know what the plan is, if it's going to go further
south from Victory, but I can imagine that it probably will eventually. Five lanes is a lot
and it's going to -- it's going to be just be increasingly -- and the other point on the traffic,
I have seen this personally through our subdivision. Reflection Ridge people come
through our subdivision, through Caven Ridge, to go out onto Victory or they go on that
Page 34
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 21 of,,
private road that's behind there or they go out Standing Timber, so they can make a left
on Victory, so they can bypass Locust Grove and Victory; right? So, they do a lot of that.
And they also do a lot of traffic through Tuscany to -- to bypass a lot of the need to go
through Locust Grove. So, I really think that the subdivisions in the local area around are
starting to really take a hit to the traffic, because we are finding other ways to get away
from the traffic on Locust Grove and on Victory. So, we are having a lot of that happening,
too. So, we got a lot of traffic, more so going through the subdivisions. So, anyway, that's
all I have for you this evening. Thank you. Do you have any questions?
Simison: Council, any questions?
Weber: Thank you for your time.
Strader: Mayor, I do.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. Just so I can understand -- and -- and from your perspective as a
representative of multiple people in the neighborhood. So, the surrounding
neighborhoods have a density of like 4.4 dwelling units per acre. They can't, obviously,
develop on the creek, right, and there is the rub. But, you know, this works out to be -- if
it was that same density as the surrounding neighbors it would work out to be about 34
units; right? And so I -- is the concern really the -- the traffic and do you think that could
be alleviated by the timing of this project? Like would you feel better about it if it happened
after the road improvements took place or is it the aesthetics and it not blending in with
the neighborhood or help me really understand the it doesn't fit kind of comments.
Weber: Like I said, I'm not against growth or development and I think if we can get it -- if
-- if this piece of property is seen fit to be developed, then, I would ask that it would be
lower density. So, the 20 some units would be better, because by having less density you
are going to have less people trying to get out on that road and what happens, you know,
when there is, you know, an emergency in that time frame and the road is completely --
during -- during busy hours there is -- it's going to be very hard to get emergency traffic
through there. In fact, I had a friend do a drone video just last week on a Thursday
between -- I think it was like at 5:00 o'clock and it -- did the drone and there was literally
traffic lined up on Victory from Locust Grove almost to Eagle. It was crazy. And, then,
from -- from Victory almost to Standing Timber or Observation Point and where we turn
in to go up to Caven Ridge and, then, on Locust Grove it was incredibly built up. So,
what's going to end up happening is even if they put a roundabout in there it's -- right now
it stops traffic with the stoplight, so it makes it even harder and with the roundabout it will
keep it going, but it's going to be a continuous going, especially in the mornings and in
the evenings, because I worked in Boise for quite a few years until February of last year
and I retired and going to work -- there was no way I was going to take the Meridian
freeway exit, because there is three lanes of merging traffic onto the freeway, that scared
the crud out of me, because it was three lanes going into one, so I would refuse to do
that. So, I would go all the way down Victory, go up Eagle, to get onto the freeway there,
Page 35
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 22 of 7,
because at least I felt like I was safer getting on one -- one time -- one at a time, instead
of three of us trying to get on at the same time and a lot of other people are starting to
see that. They are starting to figure that out. So, what are they are all doing, they are all
going down to Eagle and getting on the freeway there and, then, you get back up on Eagle
in the morning. So, it's definitely traffic. Part of it is definitely aesthetics and the density.
The safety issues. And I do know that the Meridian Nampa Irrigation District is starting to
see some struggles with them being able to keep up with everything and this is too small
to really make that much of a difference, I get that, but it all starts to add up. It all starts
to add up. You're welcome. Thank you.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Real quick, Deena. One question, though, because it might be a question for
the applicant to -- to talk about when he comes back up and that's -- you talked about,
you know, riding your bike and whatnot and it's a gated community and being locked out,
but I think -- are you concerned about the pathway being something that you can't
access? Is that the -- the concern?
Weber: I just think that what's been very fun for us is that from living in Los Alamitos and
I -- we go -- we have friends in Tuscany and we -- we ride our bikes and we have the ditch
banks with -- with the -- the pathways and stuff, it's been really fun to interact with our
neighbors and our neighboring neighborhoods to be able to ride bikes through there and
just enjoy ourselves and when you have that triangle piece it's -- they are just going to be
cut off from the world, so to speak, because there isn't any way to really get in there or do
anything and share their -- their little area with everybody else as well.
Hoaglun: Okay. Thank you. We will check on that.
Weber: You're welcome.
Simison: Thanks.
Weber: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Dwight Pond.
Simison: Good evening.
Pond: Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. My name is Dwight Pond. I live at 2699
South Bayou Bar Way. I am impressed with this crowd behind me. They came way more
prepared than I did. The only thing I bring to you is nothing new. I was aware that we
have been through an incredible growth spurt in the last ten years and I was Googling
Page 36
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 23 of 7,
this morning and it turns out Meridian is about seven percent growth over the last ten
years and we have had bigger numbers in Boise. The only percentage one that was
higher was Star and I got to thinking about that and I was thinking about our Locust Grove
expansion, because we live off Timezone right where the traffic light is getting ready to
go in and so we weren't super keen on the expansion anyway, because it would just mean
for us more noise, more traffic, just, you know, more stuff. But at least with the traffic light
people can at least make access into Locust Grove and so we thought that would -- that
would be a benefit. But, then, when I heard about the project and I just learned about it
in the last couple days, my biggest concern is when Locust Grove is already a problem
that you are addressing or ACHD is addressing with expansion, I don't understand why
we would be even considering adding a higher density to put even more flow into a
problem that we already recognize exists and that was why I decided I would at least
come here tonight and express my opinion. It's like when you have a problem -- I'm in
business, I work at a hospital here, we don't typically make the problem worse by just
simply adding more to it and so I would hope that we could maybe come to a better
compromise with the developer. I'm certainly in favor of smart growth and I don't think
the Treasure Valley is slowing down anytime soon, but it just doesn't make sense to me
to put even more pressure on an artery that seems like it's already jacked up as it is and
so I would respectfully request that the project as planned be adjusted at least to a smaller
footprint and maybe we can find a common ground with the development organization.
But Locust Grove, in my opinion, is not going to be well suited to take on additional --
additional traffic. Thank you for your time.
Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Chris Groll. Okay. He did sign up, so we will go to Jared
Smith. Is there a Jared Smith? Next we have -- oh, Jared is online. One moment. Jared,
you should be able to unmute yourself.
Smith: Can you hear me? Awesome. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the
Council. I'm here tonight because I recently received multiple flyers containing very
frightening reasons to oppose this rezoning. One thing that's interesting to me about this
flyer was Mr. Buckner's phone number at the bottom listed with the Area Code 562. 1
thought it was really interesting, because that's also my area code and if you are unaware,
it's an area code for Orange and Los Angeles counties in Southern California. Yeah, I'm
one of those dang Californians. Just like the California realtor being derided tonight and
exactly like Mr. Buckner himself. Since moving to Idaho from California I have had plenty
of people say things like welcome, we are glad you are here, but remember why you left.
I have also heard some less kind versions of that as well. I personally, though, think it's
valuable to discuss why I left, because I think it's relevant tonight -- to this hearing tonight.
I personally left California because my now wife and I were concerned about being able
to afford a home. As a young couple our combined salaries would leave us unable to get
a leg up and prepare for our futures and the high house prices in southern California left
my parents unable to retire anytime soon and after working in the state legislature on
housing issues, it became clear to me that housing in California is so expensive because
it is so dang hard to build, mainly due to the efforts of existing residents trying to stifle
Page 37
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
development in favor of things like, quote, smarter or, quote, more reasonable growth and
things were never going to change and so we moved and, yeah, don't get me wrong,
love my neighborhood and I think my neighbors are some of the most kind, generous and
caring people I have met, but I think the approach is misguided. I remember why I left
California and I'm frustrated to see the same conditions here that made me unable to start
a life in my hometown. In my experience the common refrains when people are
concerned about this type of housing is the traffic will spike, the design clashes with
existing buildings, housing prices will decrease of our existing homes and, you know, to
the first I have to say that the ACHD study and the -- you know, the numbers provided by
staff, it doesn't show a significant terrifying growth that, you know, is -- as --that's reflected
in the flyer that was passed to me. And to the second, anyone about, you know, design
clashing, anyone who walks from Tuscany to my subdivision in Bellingham Park or, you
know, further down to Wells, will see that there are different designs ingrained in each of
these communities and they change from community to community and that's not a bad
thing. It adds character and it adds flavor to our communities. I think we all, though,
ought to be less concerned about the character of our homes and more concerned about
the character of their inhabitants. What does it say about a developer who has worked
tirelessly to accommodate concerns, offered to completely change the designs of his
homes and reduce the number of lots, only to face the same unchanged opposition as
before. Just as some are opposing this -- this development based on, you know, a
concern about traffic and differing design standards, I know that someone just opposed
my home on the same grounds when it was built in 2011. 1 know that beneath plenty of
these arguments lies the reality that many are concerned about the value of our homes
where much of our net worth is stored, but what worries me more is the fact that one day
my son or daughter will be in the same position that I was in and will be unable to afford
a starter home in the place they were born and raised. Lastly, I -- you know, I echo Mr.
Buckner's view, that people are moving to our great state and to our city because they
want freedom, but what, then, does it say about the efforts of a president of a neighboring
HOA to use the city as a cudgel to limit the ability of others to build and live in our great
city, even after the Commission and staff have approved it? I don't mean to cast
aspersions, but this inconsistency is glaring and at times frustrating to me. Mr. Buckner
is right when he says your actions today will impact our future of our community and I
hope that the impact they have is one of fostering a welcome community and not one
where we climbed the ladder before hoisting it up behind us. Because of this, because
of my respect for my neighbors concerns is outweighed by a greater concern for my
children's future -- my future children's future at that, I respectfully request you approve
this application and I'm happy to answer any questions or -- you know, I know you guys
have limited -- limited time, so feel free to move on to the next.
Simison: Thank you, Mr. Smith. And, unfortunately, I have got to ask you, much to maybe
the chagrin of the people in this, for your address. Hopefully no one is going to come by
your home later, but --
Smith: You know, I'm always happy to have these conversations. I'm actually neighbors
with Ms. Link. I am at 4259 Rangewood Way.
Page 38
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 25 of 7,
Simison: Thank you.
Smith: In Bellingham Park.
Simison: Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Annette Alonso with the Southern Rim Coalition. Annette,
you can unmute yourself.
Alonso: Good -- good evening, everybody. This is Annette Alonso at 2204 East Hyper
Drive in Meridian and I'm representing the Southern Rim Coalition. I have kind of -- I'm
very neutral on this development. You know, I just -- I think part of what's aggravating
people is they are -- you know, let's move to Idaho, but let's shut the door kind of a thing
and that's not realistic. You know, we all come from somewhere else at some point and
-- and I think our -- our community is growing. It's growing very rapidly. You know, we
have approved R-15 south down on -- on Lake Hazel off of Eagle Road. So, I think -- I
think saying R-15 should be -- you know, it says that it should be by commercial and
housing and things like that, but in reality that's going to come eventually and in this area
especially it's going to come. So, you know, the only -- the only thing I might have a
problem with on this is, you know, the R-15 zoning and an R-8 -- and -- and that worries
me only because if this development -- they end up not doing this development and they
end up selling it to somebody, then, we have an R-15. Granted, they would have to come
back to the City Council and Planning and Zoning and do some things again, but that's
my -- really my only concern is we are changing the FLUM right after we have done it
again and we said we are not going to do that. So, you know, the road thing -- if the road
thing is the road thing, I think the roundabout will take a huge pressure off of this
intersection. I mean I go through this intersection all the time. I live in this area. As you
know I have been pretty much involved with every development that's happened in this
area and -- and when it's an in-fill, you know, the Southern Rim is trying to -- it sits back
and go, you know, in-fill needs to happen, we need to in-fill, it's the far reaching stuff that's
more of a concern to us. So, that's my two cents worth.
Simison: Thank you, Annette. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next I -- I'm not good at reading the writing, but I believe it's Kent
Gale? Is that -- great.
Gale: Mr. Mayor, Councilmen, my name is Kent Gale. I live at 4680 South High Cliff
Avenue. I'm opposing this development due to the fact that the City of Meridian is growing
extremely rapidly, as everybody here is aware of. However, the road systems here have
not been keeping up pace with the population growth. The traffic circle at Victory and
Locust Grove may be great for that portion of the intersection, but the entire length of
Locust Grove from Overland all the way down to Amity is a two lane road, a lot of traffic,
no turn lanes. I ride a motorcycle every day to work and I have been hit almost three or
four times on that road to begin with, because people get impatient with the traffic flow
and they will just try to dart out in front of anybody and everybody. Adding higher traffic
Page 39
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 26 of,,
density to that road is very concerning to me and like was said earlier today, ACHD is not
planning on doing Locust Grove until maybe next year, but they are already talking about
building -- starting the construction on it the end of this year. What happens if that project
gets delayed on Locust Grove to a later date? We have just added more traffic to a
congested area already that just does not make sense for the citizens who live in that
area and try to use Locust or Victory as an alternate route. Again, appreciate your time.
Any question?
Simison: Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Gale: Thank you.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you. I understand that -- the traffic concern, but I guess really what we
come to is -- it's that question of are you going to kind of pull up the ladder behind you? I
get there is the infrastructure concern, but do you think that the City of Meridian should
stop all development? I mean why this development particularly? It's 37 units? Help me
understand. I mean do you think we should just stop growing for a period of time? What
-- what's your view on that?
Gale: Personally, ma'am, I think that the city needs to stop all growth until the road
systems are upgraded to accommodate the growth rate that's going on in this city. I mean
because without a road system and the infrastructure, then, where are we going?
Strader: Thank you.
Gale: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, next is Mike Bierman.
Bierman: Good evening. Can you hear me okay?
Simison: Yes.
Bierman: Great. I'm a retired educator and I want to compliment you guys on your focus,
seeking to understand where everyone's coming from. You have a tough decision. I'm
not anti-growth, although I do we like open areas. I have lived in this area all my life,
where I used to hunt pheasants, not even close to where I can do now. But my main
concern with this project is the one entrance and one exit on Locust Grove and until -- I
mean if it were me until I had an understanding of how it's going to work, I would be a
little concerned and I drive and ride my bike in that area and if I lived in this new
Page 40
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 27 of 7,
development and I came out on Locust Grove, I would not try to turn left, I would have to
turn right would be my only shot and, then, I'm worried that they are going to take another
right into Tuscany Village, which, I'm sorry, I didn't tell you where I live, but I live in Tuscany
Village and that is a road -- on roads that just have parking on both sides and lots of
children. So, that's a real concern of mine. It's a safety issue and I would just hope that
you can look into that concern. If that can be answered, then -- then great. But if it can't
it's a safety thing for me, because there are a lot of kids in that subdivision, there always
will be. That's the type of subdivision it is and if people are going to come through there
and, then, turn left on Victory, they get to that Meridian -- it would just concern me a great
deal. Have any questions?
Bierman: I live at 1204 East Pienza Street in Meridian.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, just a comment.
Simison: Councilman Cavener -- or, sorry, Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: That's okay. It's a compliment, actually. I feel for you in regard to the hunting, you
know. I'm not going to lie, but if I could walk out my back door in county property and
shoot a couple pheasants in the morning, I think I would go for that ten out of ten times.
Bierman: No, I'm not expecting that, by the way.
Bernt: I know -- I -- I know you are not, but what I'm saying is I miss -- I miss those --
those times as well.
Bierman: Okay. Thank you. And you have a tough decision. I appreciate your time.
Simison: Thank you. If I could ask a question maybe to Joe or Bill or-- do we have ACHD
-- is Kristy on the line this evening?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, she is not.
Simison: Okay. Just out of curiosity, was it ever explored -- I know we have an emergency
access off a Victory. Because with the roundabout one of the nice things -- I am going to
say something about roundabouts. Everyone ready? One of the nice things about a
roundabout -- if you had a right out onto Victory it would allow for easier left-hand turn
movements at the -- at the roundabout. ACHD is already diverting from their policy for
one. Do we choose the wrong one to divert for their policy for a left-hand turn movement
or is the other one already in and the roundabout is so close that it's not plausible? Just
out of curiosity, if that was ever explored.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, those conversations that I know of were not had specifically. The
best I can say is that from the beginning ACHD was adamant about these being -- the
Page 41
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 28 of,,
Locust Grove access as being the only access and the subdivision having private streets.
That's the -- unfortunately, how part of this conversations went, because they were pretty
much at a hard stop.
Simison: Mr. Clerk, continue.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Next is Chris Paul.
Paul: Good evening. My name is Christopher Paul and I'm at 3823 South Como Avenue.
I know a lot of these points have been touched, so I'm going to try and hit the ones that
haven't been touched. So, in response to Jared, he mentioned, you know, his kids future.
I guess he didn't read that Mountain View High School with the report is 109 percent to
capacity. Victory Middle School is 105 percent to capacity and Hilldale Elementary School
is 132 percent to capacity. So, Jared sounds like a young guy like myself and it is a
concern of mine that the nearest schools are already overcapacity and I do have concern
about education, putting more homes in there. Another thing I will mention is no parking
in the gated community. When you are not able to park in those areas I am curious what's
going to happen on holiday weekends, you know, if people are having parties and events,
they can't go park in their neighbor's driveway. Are they going to be parking in our
communities and walking over to the -- to the gated area -- or to the gated community?
So, that's a real concern of mine with parking and, then, also I know traffic's been touched
a lot, but I noticed that the traffic widening -- and maybe someone can clarify it for me --
is that the widening and the roundabout only goes up to a certain point and it almost looks
like the -- where the one exit is that is not widened. It might be in the future. I just was a
little bit confused on that. And also I truly believe that the traffic -- the current issue -- we
are solving for the current issue, not the future with --with this roundabout. We also have
a lot of communities or subdivisions going at-- on Locust Grove south of Amity. So, those
homes are also going to continue to cause traffic and I also had another question. Was
the report done with ACHD in regard to those subdivisions that already have been
approved? And how about the 41 homes that are going in across the street? And, then,
lastly, from a safety issue I know that there is that access point from Victory. That's an
emergency access point, but, still, I know he is -- I know it was mentioned that it's only
1.5 cars a minute, but, really, it's -- in a 24 hour period when you take that out when people
are sleeping, it's everyone's going in and out at the same time. So, what if there is a fire
truck that's trying to come in, even through the emergency access point, where -- and,
then, there is cars lined up, are they even going to be able to get to the emergency in that
situation? And, lastly, I know it was mentioned four point -- 4.8 homes per acre or -- in
terms of density. I know that technically it's near -- okay.
Simison: You can finish your thought.
Paul: Okay. Yeah. I was just going to say technically it's near that and other communities,
but, really, you can't build on the -- on Ten Mile Creek, so it's really much higher and I
would like everyone to just consider that.
Simison: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Thanks.
Page 42
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, that was the last of those that indicated positively they wished to
testify.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to provide testimony
on this item? If so you are welcome to come forward at this time and state your name
and address for the record and be recognized for three minutes. Or if you are online and
would like to provide testimony, please, use the raise your hand function and we will work
you in appropriately. Go ahead, ma'am.
Allen: I didn't come prepared either, because I just found out about this. I just have a
couple questions.
Simison: If you can state your name and address for the record.
Allen: Doris Allen and I'm at 2624 South Inglenook Place. So, I'm off of Locust Grove.
Have a hard time -- have had a hard time getting on and I don't think that the roundabout
is going to fix it, because I wait for the traffic light to stop traffic so I can get on, so -- and
I have been at-- at roundabouts before, but the roundabout is going to just keep on letting
traffic keep coming on the busy -- at the busy times and it's not going to stop traffic, so
that I can get out there, especially when school's on and people are going to work,
because when I was working I could not get to Overland and once I got to Overland I
couldn't get to Eagle to get on the freeway to go to work. So, if you were a few minutes
late off your time schedule you were a half hour late or more -- 45 minutes late getting
downtown and that was 2012. So, now combine that -- I don't do an 8:00 o'clock or a
7:45 or even a 7:00 o'clock meeting now, so -- but I recently had a leak at my house,
found out that the psi inside my house was a hundred and Meridian water came over and
said that is what all the houses was a hundred. I had to put a pressure valve -- pressure
reducing valve in my house to reduce the water pressure in my house, so that it didn't
blow out all my plumbing. So, if we continue to put more projects, more housing
developments out, they have to increase the water pressure to get water to those
developments. What does that do to the existing developments that we already have?
And when you talk about Nampa Irrigation, I have had to put in a new -- a new pump --
or not a pump, but an irrigation site with a filter -- with a triple size filter, because it turns
my water system off. I can't leave a day without having to clean that filter. So, I don't
know -- and I have had Nampa Irrigation down there. They don't -- my -- the person
putting it in says so much dirt and everything is coming through there it would clog up my
-- my drip lines, so -- schools.
Simison: If you can --
Allen: Who is going to pay for the schools, who is going to pay for the sewer, who is going
to pay for the roads, who is going to pay for all the infrastructure that we don't have in
place to put these in. Where that -- the only thing I would say where that Compass is at
is -- is a bad -- it's a bad location where the structure is. We talk about one -- one car, it's
a two car garage and, then, if they have friends they must be going to have like a parking
structure for those friends to go and park at. So, you are going to have a lot of parking.
Page 43
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Simison: Thank you, Doris. Council, any questions?
Allen: That's why I oppose it.
Simison: Thank you.
Lambert: Mayor and City Council, my name is Debbie Lambert and I live at 3698 South
Arno. I -- I would reiterate a lot of things, but I won't waste the time. I think one thing that
we haven't talked about is the wildlife in the area. I'm very much a bird watcher. I'm a
lover of birds of prey and all those trees that they are cutting down on both of those
corners house a ton of birds. I count birds for the bird society. We have seen a decline
in the kestrels. We have a lot of hawks in the area, a lot of birds of prey hawks. They are
losing their homes. One of the questions I would ask is what is the plan for the trees
along Ten Mile Creek there at the back of that subdivision that's going in. I do oppose the
subdivision at the rating that is being asked to be put in at. I would ask that it be declined
for all the reasons that other people have brought up. Thank you. Questions?
Simison: Thank you. Council? Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony
on the item?
J.Lambert: Good evening. My name is James Lambert. I live at 3698 South Arno in
Meridian and I really basically have a comment, even though I -- I totally opposed this
project. I bring up the fact that at the corner near Overland and -- and Meridian Road
there is a Dutch Brothers Coffee located there and I know Luke's been on NextDoor
neighbors often about the problems it's generated there and people are scratching their
heads on what to do to correct that traffic issue there and I think that's the exact same
issue we are looking at with the left-hand turns coming out of this subdivision. If we
approve it is what are we going to do down the road, because it's going to be a problem.
Like the gentleman said, it's either going to go through his neighborhood or something.
But we need to do that now. Don't scratch our heads like we are for the Dutch Brother
issue over there. That's all I have.
Simison: Thank you. The good news is there is a solution coming for the Dutch Bros.
soon. ITD and ACHD are working together on a light for that intersection. Is there
anybody else that would like provide testimony? It's look like we have got a couple more.
Toledo: Hi, Mr. Mayor, Council. My name is Aaron Toledo and I am at 4323 Rangewood
Way. So, hopefully, I don't come across too -- too crass. I will try to refine it in my head.
First of all, not sure if you guys have been on these roads lately, but there is a reason why
I was late today. Now that -- with the whole COVID thing getting done -- over and done
with, we forget that a lot of these folks were tele -- teleworking; right? So, you're just
seeing -- and I mean everyone here's seen it. We have seen these -- these lines that are
ridiculous and, you know, for all the reasons that we mentioned; right? The traffic. The
gentleman with the degree in geophysics that talked about the aquifer system. You know,
all these reasons -- we could go in circles all day, but I think what it boils down to is, you
know, we got to ask ourselves like what is the function of government; right? At all levels.
Page 44
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 31 of,,
To further the will of the people. And just judging by how many folks are in favor of this,
we have, what, that one gentleman Jared so far. One lady was neutral after him. So,
that doesn't really count. That kind of equalizes. And, then, all of us that have, you know,
come to show up. I think it speaks for itself, that we do not wish for this proposal to
continue as planned. You know, I'm -- I'm very pro business. I'm -- you know, I'm not
anti-business. I'm not anti-growth even. But as everyone has reiterated here, smart
growth -- maybe we can revisit this and just alter it somehow. I mean I just -- I would say
why complicate this issue, you know. My son loves math. If I could ask him, hey, if there
is one person that spoke in favor, one person neutral, and all these numbers, which one
do you think you should listen to? I think he would come up with the answer. So, let's
just keep it simple I ask and -- and, please, consider voting in opposition of this proposal.
Thank you for your time.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions?
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Not a question, but just a comment. Thank you, Mr. Toledo. I -- I think it's
important to keep in mind that when we are making land use decisions we are in a state
with very high emphasis on private property rights and so to Councilman Hoaglun's point
earlier, when we make land use decisions we are not making it by taking a poll of the
room of how many people are in favor or how many people are against. We can make
lawful decisions about what's in the city's best interest. We can take into account
comments about the traffic, about whether this fits for the zoning or for our future land use
map, but certainly it's not a popularity contest and I just want to make that comment.
That's just not how -- how this can work.
Toledo: Understood. But I mean the traffic already is bad. So, it doesn't make any sense
to make it worse.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions? Okay. Thank you.
Toledo: Thank you.
Paul: Mr. Mayor, City Council, thanks for your time. My name is Walter Paul. I live at
563 East Piazza Drive and that's in Caven Ridge. I just wanted to share some thoughts
with you, maybe beyond this development. I have had -- spent most of my life in New
York and 14 years in the state of California. I have seen growth beyond all of this
completely. Explosive growth. And the one thing that government has struggled with,
you know, through everything that I have witnessed is they do not keep infrastructure up
with the development or the growth of people and housing and I know this is a tough
decision for you, but when -- what I find is is that sometimes we have roads that are 20,
30, 40 years old and we have an influx of people. Tremendous amount. When we look
at Locust Grove it certainly is not -- from Overland south it's not capable of handling what
Page 45
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 32 of,,
we have today. We continue to see developments going in it's just going to continue with
the problem. Water was a problem in California. Where I came from they continue to
build and they just told people to keep using less. So, what you are doing is government
is putting pressure on people to do less with -- have lesser quality of life. You can't use
water, you can't drive on your street. Should I go to the lake today, because I may not
have -- you know, because traffic is bad. I would second guess going to a beach in
California because of the traffic. So, it does dictate and it does really ruin the quality of
life. So, going forward my -- just my -- my thoughts that I'm sharing with you tonight is
just, you know, this is beyond just this development, because I think we are starting to
see the stresses and strains of this and, again, this is bigger than just this development
going on over here.
Simison: Thank you, Walter. Council, questions?.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. Just maybe a comment. I think there is a question here. We will see.
Walter, you know, you -- you raise a good point, you know, that -- that infrastructure
doesn't keep up and just like our schools -- we had a good meeting with the school board
here a couple weeks ago and found, yeah, they don't start building schools if they are
below capacity. They wait until we are capacity and above before they build the next
school and it's -- unfortunately, our tax structure for our road system is kind of the same
way. Impact fees are paid by developers who come in and we get impact fees for police,
fire, parks and -- and Ada County Highway District. So, you need those fees. You know,
we want growth to pay for itself. But, unfortunately, we have to have that growth so, then,
the money can be there. Now a couple years ago ACHD tried to raise registration fees
on vehicles and the voters turned it down. So, that means there is not more money for
roads. We haven't had a gas tax increase, which is a state legislature thing, for many
many many years and so -- and the cost of maintaining roads goes up. So, I guess if we
have a solution to have funding to do that in advance, I would love -- love to hear it,
because it is difficult.
Paul: Yeah. If I have one comment to that I would say sometimes in life -- and I know
most governments struggle with this. Sometimes you have to take a pause. Sometimes
you have to step back and say we need to pause. Where are we at? What's it doing to
our -- our environment, our community, our roads and are we now ready to continue on
or do we have to take a pause now and, then, see where we are at and, then, step and
go forward at that point of time. So, I think everything is always a rush and that's what I
have seen in all these other places on business. I traveled a lot. I have been to Seattle.
I have been to Portland. So, all the mistakes that I'm seeing in those places, as well as
where I grew up and as well as the 14 years I spent in California I'm seeing now you're
faced with those same problems and those same issues and a lot of times they just don't
stop and take a pause and, then, that's why everybody is running here. But we are
running out of places to run to, because, you know, basically, you know, we were going
Page 46
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
to become them and, then, it's going to be what's the next, you know, big city or state to
go, so -- so just some observations for your -- for your consideration.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, if I might follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Those are good observations, Walter. I appreciate that and -- and it's also
involvement for you and others in this room to be involved in the legislative elections,
because some of the tools they give us is to widen Eagle Road The Village was going to
pay for that widening and that's how Eagle Road got widened. Chinden Road, we needed
it to be widened 20 years ago and to do that you have to approve development, like a
Costco, so, then, they will pay for the road improvement and widening of it and, then, the
state allows them to collect the revenue back over a period of time. It's called the STARS
program and, then, collect the small amount to repay them to widen that road. So, I find
it ironic that we have to approve development to get the roads widened.
Paul: Yeah.
Hoaglun: It's just --
Paul: And I knew that about Costco and Chinden, which was -- was tremendous and I
think because this is becoming more of a destination point and is growing, I think you can
lean on these businesses that want to be here and make money, you know, for the long
haul to help maybe all of us in terms that we shouldn't be bearing all of this, because they
need to be sharing in it with us. You know, they want to be sharing it with us. You know,
if they want to share in the profits from us, which they can share in some of the costs, too.
Hoaglun: Yeah. And Mr. Mayor. To your point, Walter, that's a great point and I think in
this case the developer is -- is giving ACHD land -- or I don't know what the arrangement
is, but we require that of developers all the time. They have to provide those easements
for future widening. If they want to develop you are going to have to contribute and we
do have some really good developers who provide school sites and whatnot. So, yes, to
your point, you are absolutely right that they have to have skin in the game and most of
them do, so -- I appreciate you speaking tonight and the dialogue. Hopefully -- hopefully
it was educational for everybody.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I really appreciate the comments that have been made in regard to
smart growth. I couldn't agree more and I won't -- I won't get into it too much, but there
has been a couple of comments that have been made in regard to taking a pause and
just stepping back and watching and analyzing -- and I'm now -- I don't necessarily think
that that is a viable option as well. I travel on -- we all travel on the same roads you guys
Page 47
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
do. You know, we -- I live near here, this -- this -- this development and I do a business
in a development that's nearby. So, I'm always on this. I totally get it. We all get it. The
economic consequences of putting a pause on growth would be catastrophic. Would be
absolutely catastrophic and I think that sometimes as a community we have short term
memory loss when it comes to this, because I was involved in the great recession that hit
our country 12 years ago and the amount of people who lost their jobs because growth
stopped -- now I get that wasn't local government that made that choice, it was -- it was
because of different circumstances for sure, but -- and I'm not saying that I -- I empathize
with you. I -- we all do. But I'm not sure that a pause right now would be the answer.
Smart growth for sure. And I really appreciate the comments that have been made and
brought up with regard to smart growth. I really appreciate it. But pause, I -- I think that
would be enormously catastrophic to our -- our community.
Simison: Councilman Bernt, we did take a brief pause as we were waiting for the
legislature, but the word I have heard people use is moratorium, which has -- and that's
the city's official way to do things, but there are sideboards that limit that only for a brief
period of time, so --
Bernt: Right.
Simison: But, again, I think going back to the point of understanding the state law and
getting involved with your legislators is how you can help us address issues perhaps in
the future. With that we are still open for public testimony on this item, so if you have not
yet testified -- yes, ma'am. Come on up. If you would state your name and address for
the record.
Alexander: This one?
Simison: Either one.
Alexander: Thank you. My name is Linda Alexander and I live at 1650 Susan Drive,
which is south of Amity on the rim. I came here 26 years ago from Montana and we chose
to come here. We had options for when my husband was going to be transferred. We
had the option of staying in Montana or come here. We came here because we were
whitewater rafters and skiers and so this area appealed to us for our kids. They were in
high school at the time and Idaho is awesome. It offers -- it has so much to offer all of us.
My concern about this growth is -- and I'm not opposed to growth by any means. I -- my
parents were in the Air Force. I moved all my life. I can't -- this is my home, because I
have lived here the longest, but -- and I have experienced a lot of growth in various places
that I have lived. I'm opposed to this growth, because it's too much. I know that he did
calculations and says it's not high density, but it is considering the surrounding areas.
actually think it should be R-4 and I do admit I had a mistake, I thought this lot was the
one north of there with the -- that was backing up to Cabella. I did not realize it was the
small little -- and it's small. I mean it's six acres. But if it were R-4 that would be 24.
homes and they are talking 37 lots. How many people -- how many families are going to
be with -- you are talking triplex -- or no. Yeah. Triplex and duplex. That's a lot of families
Page 48
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
in that tiny -- and that's rather small. I -- I live on an acre and so it's -- it still looks small
to me for 37 lots with triplexes and duplexes. That's just way too many people in a small
area that's only going to have two entrances and it's with a private gated area. It's just
too much impact we already have and someone mentioned -- the earlier man mentioned
all the housing that's approved going in already, it's being built. They are putting in the
sewers south of Locust Grove and how many homes are going to be there? You guys
approved it. I do not know. Many. Many. And that's -- they are not going to travel south
when they are commuting, they are going to go north and make the roads worse. When
we moved here 26 years ago we were told that Locust Grove was going to be three lanes
within five years. It's still two lanes and it's still the quality of a farm lane. That is Locust
Grove to the south and so I think it should be actually changed to R-4 and go with the
growth, but reduce the number of houses per lot. It's just -- per acre. Just -- it's absurd
what -- what's going on here with -- with the roads especially. It took me 50 minutes -- 50
minutes to get from the West Y down to south of Amity today because of the traffic and I
don't normally drive at that time, but I was able to work out -- you have to sign up and so
that was the only time available for me to work out.
Simison: Ma'am if you can --
Alexander: So, please, consider changing it to R-4, not R-8.
Simison: Thank you.
Alexander: Thank you. Thanks for all you do.
Simison: Council, any questions? Appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would like to
provide testimony in this application?
Hess: Good evening. My name is Linda Hess. I live at 3093 South Gold Bar in
Sherbrooke Hollows. It's about a quarter of a mile east of the proposed development. I
won't repeat a lot of what you have heard tonight. One thing I will say and add on to what
has been said is that I was at the last hearing and my husband and I have looked at all
the plat maps. I have worked for developers. I have worked for builders. I lived in the
state of California in the Bay Area for ten years and came back. I was born and raised
here and so I have been a witness to all the growth. I have gone outside of the state. I
have seen the growth and what happens on the other side of the scene, okay? There is
a lot of work and there is a lot of money and time invested in putting together these
developments and master planned communities. I get that. I know what it's all about and
I know that you guys have your job to do. I think what I would like to say is that I would
like to see a balance of what is going to happen on this property. I would like to see the
density reduced. I am a mom. I am a grandma. I am a wife. I am a lot of different things
every day and my daughter could not afford to live in this community as it is. My daughter
probably will not be able to afford to live in that community even if it is reduced. If I was
able to live in this community and I was babysitting my grandma, I would be scared to
drive out on -- out of that roundabout onto Locust Grove. I understand why ACHD is
requiring it to be private. I understand why that roundabout -- not that roundabout, but
Page 49
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 36 of,,
that round entrance in and out onto Locust Grove -- that is a huge concern for me. So,
the density, the housing within that property, I would like to see it reduced, because it is a
safety issue and I understand that Locust Grove is going to be expanded and that
roundabout is going to continue the traffic. That is not going to -- that is not going to
reduce the safety there, because if you are trying to pull out of that subdivision onto Locust
Grove, even if we put off building this subdivision after the construction has been done, it
is still going to be and exist a safety issue, because the amount of people and the way
you have to pull out. That traffic is going to be continuous. That traffic there is not going
to be a stoplight. So, I think from my perspective, living in that community, I walk my dogs
in the community, I bird watch in the community. I don't pheasant hunt. But -- but -- I
don't. But, you know, again, just being part of the community and a concerned citizen, I
would like to live there with my granddaughter and pull out and feel like I was safe and all
the other kids that are coming back and forth from Mountain View and all the nearby
schools, I guess what I'm saying, please, consider reducing the amount of residents.
Simison: Thank you. Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I got a question. Ma'am. Just one question. There has been a lot of
comments tonight in regard to affordability and it's a really interesting topic and trying to
wrap my arms around that. Can you walk me through how you think us denying this
project would -- is going to make affordability with housing going forward?
Hess: I am not requesting or suggesting to deny the project, what I am saying -- I think
that we should reduce the number of housing units that we are putting on this property. I
am not anti-growth. Again, I work on the development side. I have worked for the best
home builders in the country when I lived down in California. I know what goes on behind
the scenes. I know what happens when you have to approach city councils for approval
of your master plans and your developments. So, I am not saying to put this project -- or
cancel the project --
Bernt: Right.
Hess: -- I'm just saying let's wait until this -- let's wait a little bit until this Locust Grove is
complete and maybe do a little bit of more investigation or future studies on it.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: So, if -- if -- just hypothetically if we were to approve this -- this project at a lower
density do you believe that that would affect affordability?
Hess: I don't know at this time. I don't think anybody can say what is going to happen.
We don't know what's going to happen next week. Again, you know -- you know, I would
like my daughter and my family -- I would like to -- you know. Yeah. Could I afford to live
in there? I don't know that.
Page 50
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 0, of,,
Bernt: I get it. I was -- interesting you're the first person to mention that tonight. I just
wanted to --
Hess: Oh, you know, I -- I haven't really talked to anybody else about that.
Bernt: I get it.
Hess: But, again, you know, coming from the -- living in the community, being a grandma,
working on the development side -- and, again, I appreciate all the money that the
developer has put into the project. I'm just saying from the other side of things -- and
sometimes we have to step back and put ourselves in other shoes, our shoes and theirs,
and what is the best for all of us --
Bernt: Sure.
Hess: -- combined and that's definitely finding a balance.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone
else that would like to provide testimony on this item? State your name and address for
the record, please.
Zarate: My name is Helen Zarate. I live at 3440 South Murlo Way. Excuse me. It's
allergies I believe. And I have lived there for -- since 2005 when the houses were new
and I have watched, you know, the cattle, the sheep, the birds, the trees, you know, all
disappear. So, my backyard faces the development. This is Locust Grove and I have a
new tenant. My niece lives with me now. And she's noticed since she's been there all
the traffic accidents in the -- on Locust Grove near the -- near the intersection and so my
main -- I -- and I have grandchildren who go to Mountain View High School, but they are
almost through it. They are almost graduated. But they have had trouble getting to
school, too. So, I know the high density of the area. I mean it's concerning, but -- so my
concern mainly is -- I don't know. Losing the natural habitat and the peace and, you know,
all the traffic that's been added and all that it's like -- but it's still a beautiful place. I still
have -- I mean they didn't cut down all the trees, but I was -- I -- there has been a lot of
trees cut down recently and -- I guess I'm getting nervous. Excuse me. So, where was I
going with this? So, I have seen a lot of change and I was hoping that that land would
eventually be parkland, because, you know, it -- but, you know, that's what -- way back
when people talked about, oh, they will never turn it into -- you know, because of the odd
shape and the triangle and triangles and in the location and everything. But so it was
disheartening to find out, you know, 58 units were planned. I went to the first meeting on
that site and talked about the trees coming down and all that and now it's -- it's, you know,
good to hear that those -- it's been reduced to 37, but still, you know, it's a natural -- it's
like a natural creek in there. So, you know-- it is a natural creek and it's beautiful. There
is irises growing and I'm concerned about how they are going to alter that, too, as well.
But I guess my main concern is safety, the traffic. I'm retired now. I don't go -- when I
went out the other day there was -- am I done talking?
Page 51
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 38 of,,
Simison: If you can finish -- if you can finish your thought.
Zarate: Okay. When I went out the other day there was -- I had never seen it that way
before from the intersection of Locust Grove to Eagle, all lined -- all lined of cars and,
then, hearing testimony they are saying it goes on and on the other way. So, you know,
I mean adding more traffic in there -- in those left turn, right turns, those issues and
rerouting traffic -- I mean I'm like -- I don't even go out in those hours, but I know what
they are talking about. And my street is -- has a lot of children on it. So, the rerouting
through my street, my areas, my community is a concern. So, thank you for listening.
Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there
anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item?
Prumers: Hi. My name is Emily Prumers. I live at 2230 East Horse Creek Court,
Meridian, Idaho. Public speaking is not my thing, so as I stumble through this, please,
bear with me. I did -- I know that everybody's made a lot of these points and I don't want
to be redundant, so I'm going to try to be quick and I talk fast anyway, so if I'm talking too
fast, please, tell me and I will try to slow down. I did want to say just in general, not
specific to this intersection, I understand that our infrastructure is just not keeping up with
the growth and I understand that pausing is not a viable option, it would have very bad
consequences on the area and I understand that, but I think smart growth, like you said
earlier, is definitely the way to go and I don't feel that this high density development in this
area is smart growth. I'm sorry, I have a couple points. Locust Grove -- I know a lot of
people have talked about traffic and the issues, but I want to throw some numbers at you
really quick that I actually got from the agency responses that were out on the website.
So, the acceptable level of service for a two lane minor arterial is E or 575 vehicles per
hour VPH for short. The ACHD rating for Locust Grove Road right now, not including all
the growth that's going on south that's already been approved and all that jazz, right now
it's F at 676 VPH. Victory is also an F at 651 VPH. And I think it's really important to
consider the timing of these ACHD improvements that are happening to the road. You
know, I have seen them get it delayed a couple times. We are talking about end of the
year here for this development. What happens come February when these -- these
improvements to the road are still out, you know, a year or two years, we just can't sustain
this amount of traffic and I think everybody would agree with me. I think we have all sung
the traffic song. I would also like to point out -- I know that somebody mentioned this,
again, and I apologize, the area schools are already at max capacity. I'm going to stop
hitting that. The area schools are already at max capacity. What I haven't heard anybody
mention is the fire station and MFD's response was that this development is closest to
Station No. 4, which the current reliability is only 77 percent and the targeted goal is 80
percent. So, we are already under what we want to be performing for the fire station and
I haven't heard anybody talk about that. And, then, again, I just want to reiterate the high
density housing, it doesn't align with the zoning of the surrounding area, which are RUT,
R-4 and R-8. So, I am, obviously, opposed to this and I would request that it's R-8 or
lower and I also just want to -- on a personal note I just kind of want to make the point
that I feel like every time I hear about Idaho it really prides itself on recreation, you know,
we promote outdoors and the beautiful -- you know, all these things that they explore
Page 52
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 39 of,,
Idaho and overcrowded high density housing does not enhance that image, it destroys it
and that's all. Any questions?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: No question, just a comment. Emily, I know public speaking isn't always
everybody's favorite thing to do, but I thought you did a great job of presenting your facts.
I think it's -- Mr. Mayor, can we let -- give her a quick round of applause.
Prumers: I'm going to go have a heart attack now, so --
Cavener: You did a great job. Thank you.
Prumers: Thanks.
Simison: Is there anybody else that would like to provide testimony on this item? Go
ahead.
Crandall: My name is Richard Crandall. I live at 1319 East Observation Street. That's in
Cabella Creek Subdivision, which is like about a hundred yards west of Locust Grove on
Victory right across from Tuscany. So, it's pretty close to the intersection. So, I -- my
work is only like five minutes away from me and -- on a good day, but trying to get out --
I actually take Lake Creek, which is about a couple hundred yards north of the intersection
on Locust Grove to turn out onto Locust Grove and get there. So, if there is no traffic it
takes me like four minutes to get to work. Lately in the morning it's like 7:30, 7:35, it takes
me like 15 to 20 minutes. So, that just -- and all that time is pretty much spent trying to
turn out onto Locust Grove and I see the line just going all the way back to the intersection.
That's just personal story. I know we have all talked about traffic and stuff. But another
thing is -- just a note as far as the density, I think Cabella Creek seems to be pretty -- a
pretty average neighborhood in the area. I mean at least from what I have noticed and I
don't have all the specific numbers, but it seems to be three and a half, four times bigger
than the -- the lot that is in this proposal and there is only 47 homes in that subdivision,
so I don't know if that kind of gives a good idea of the density of the area or whatever if
that's helpful. Obviously, I oppose the proposition, but I just thought some of that personal
input might be helpful in you guys reconsidering this.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thanks, Richard. Anybody else that would
like to provide testimony on this item this evening? Okay. We are going to go ahead and
take a recess before we ask the developer to come up and make your final comments
and go into our conversation. So, we will take a ten minute break. Before we officially go
on a break I just want -- I'm going to do a self plug, sorry, Council. Next Wednesday is
the State of the City address at 3.29 it will be broadcast live and also be put up on our
website, but I think a lot -- you can at least hear a lot of my comments on these issues
that you have brought up this evening if you want to go in and watch it live or after the
Page 53
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 40 of 7,
fact regarding transportation, education, growth and infrastructure and services,
especially in southeast and northwest Meridian. There is your preview for the -- on my
portions of the State of the City. With that we will take a ten minute recess.
(Recess: 8:15 p.m. to 8:26 p.m.)
Simison: All right. We will go ahead and come on back from our recess. So, we have
finished up with the public testimony. Joe, I'm going to turn this over to you to help us go
through a few things before we ask the applicant -- applicant to come forward.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate it. I just want to touch on a few things that
Steve may not be able to answer quite as well, because not knowing the code as well.
I'm not going to touch on density. I have beat that dead horse. I did want to note that the
site was not required to be posted again, if there is questions about that, it's because the
Council continued it, so the only way that would be required to be posted again if Council
made that specific decision, which was not part of the motion. The other part of the zoning
and -- not just the density, but is also the private streets. R-8, which is what I keep hearing
is what would be preferred, requires public street frontage. R-15 does not. Therefore,
private streets can only be used with R-15 and up, because they do not have the required
street frontage. Private streets are, therefore, not just tied to the -- I guess ACHD's
decision regarding the private streets, but also what zoning you can request with that.
So, it's kind of a convoluted circle where we go in here with ACHD doesn't want public
roads, so, then, we have private streets, so, then, we need a zoning that doesn't require
public road frontage, so, then, you have to start with R-15. So, again, it's not just to get
50 units on or 80 units or anything like that, it's -- it's also -- there is other pieces to it that
I haven't touched on. So, I just wanted to reiterate that, that it's not just the setbacks.
That's one piece. It's not just the lot size. That's another piece. But it's also that private
streets can't be proposed within R-8 because of the requirement for a public street
frontage. I just wanted to make that clear for Council.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for Joe on those points?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: One quick question. Is the ultimate source of the private street requirement one
that comes from ACHD or from the applicant's request?
Dodson: It can vary.
Borton: In this case though.
Dodson: In this case it was largely ACHD. They pushed it immediately, even in our pre-
application meeting they said that they did not want public roads, because the public --
the use of public roads is for interconnectivity. This can't have any interconnectivity.
Page 54
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page— of,,
There is no stub street from the west because of the creek. The -- this access to Locust
Grove already doesn't meet their policy for access to a double arterial intersection, not to
mention with a roundabout. So, then, the other length along Victory is even shorter, so
no access would meet their policies there. So, it was really pushed by ACHD. They --
they have noted in their staff report that if the City Council prefers public roads, then, it
would be drastically -- take up a ton of the space on the site and would render it a sea of
asphalt in large part.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for Joe at this time? Okay. Then I will ask
the applicant --
Bernt: One question, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Just for the -- just for the public interest, are you saying that if it weren't for the
recommendation from ACHD to have this be R-15 for private roads, it would be an R-8
given the density?
Simison: Well, again, with the density it's not tied to the zoning. Granted with the
dimensional standards -- if you put public roads you are never going to get this many
units, because of the site constraints. So, it would automatically reduce the density, but
that could be with RA with R-8 with -- I mean it -- it's not only because of the private
streets, no. But if the applicant did request or want public roads, the density would be
reduced. Note that that was a circular answer. I apologize. It is my understanding that
there is no desire to have the public roads by either the applicant or ACHD, because there
is no interconnectivity. We would -- you know, tax dollars would be expended for roads
that only serve this one community which is a tertiary component of private roads.
Bernt: Got it. Thank you, Joe.
Parsons: Mayor and Council, I would like to also add that the private street approval is a
director level decision and so staff's -- the director's already approved the private street
layout for this particular development. So, I just wanted to share that information with you
as well.
Simison: All right. Ask the applicant to, please, come forward for comments.
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Members of City Council, again, it's Steve Arnold, A-Team
Consultants. I think I will hit on some of the biggest concerns which -- oh, I'm sorry. I will
hit on some of the biggest concerns which was the traffic and there has been a lot of
discussion about density, number of units, traffic, impacts to the adjacent roads and
intersections. If we reduce down to what has been suggested tonight down to the 20
units, that's 17 units down, and although that impact is minimal, the reduction on the
intersection --we are minimal right now with 370 trips. Now, you drop it down to 200 trips,
the p.m. peak hour is not reduced by anything respectively, but the reduction in the
Page 55
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
number of units greatly affects our developer's ability to build this. So, the -- the -- the
impact loss is greatly skewed, because the impact to the neighboring community is
minimal in the reduction, but huge to the developer. There was -- Mr. Bruckner brought
up the fact that I -- I tried to meet with him a week before. I know it was one of the
Council's questions -- I think at several of the hearings that have we met with the
developer and when it came down to it, you know, I didn't hear anything -- I -- I was
proactive and reached out and at that time it was told to me that it didn't make sense.
Annette Alonso did reach out to me and we had, you know, quite a good conversation
with it, so we have -- we have tried to be good stewards out there, as can be seen with
the 58, 50, 48, 37. We are -- we have got a lot of faith in your planning staff's abilities and
I have taken a lot of direction from them and I -- again, I will reiterate I think we have
gotten it down to a very nice project. There was talk about geotechnical stuff and
groundwater. I have probably got one of the best soils engineers. No relation to me, but
it is Bob Arnold and he does a lot of the work for me and the -- the best management
practice is along with the city's stormwater pollution plans and stuff, we will make sure
that our stormwater doesn't affect the drinking water and, again, the --the drink-- because
we are not using any wells, you know, we are connecting to city potable water, we are
connecting to city sewer, we will be adding a pressure irrigation station, so -- because this
is, basically, an enclave with the city surrounded by it, we are using all existing city
services. So, there really should be no impact to wells and water and drinking water
quality. There was one discussion about the pathway and whether it's going to be open
to the public. There is a pathway on the west side. We are adding a pathway on the east
side adjacent to the homes. We are fencing that property boundary off with a four foot
visible fence. There is not going to be -- although the whole subdivision is private, we are
not blocking anything from the public use. That's nearly impossible and a lot of times you
will see HOAs that try to make their -- their parks private and that's not -- not feasible and
it does not work. So, there is nothing that we are going to physically do that blocks the
public. However, you know, my guess is that people use the new sidewalks along Locust
-- on Victory and Locust, you know, and most likely they -- they can get onto our sidewalk
along the Ten Mile Creek. There was a discussion tonight about pausing growth. I just
wanted to kind of take a sidestep about what is going on in our housing market. My wife
mainly deals in the new construction --
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I think -- I don't mean to interrupt, but I think that they were referring to
a moratorium. I think that's different.
Arnold: Moratorium or pause. I think it -- either one. It's got the same impact to the
housing market. We are -- our median house right now is -- in Ada county I believe at
480 and that was probably three weeks ago. It's probably changed since then. You know,
the affordability of our homes here in the valley -- it's going out the door and, you know,
my kids, although Mr. Bruckner seems to think that I'm making bank, I drive an old pickup,
but I mean they are not going to be able to afford homes and it's going to become a
problem here and not that this is going to be -- automatically reduce the housing costs,
what it's going to do is provide more -- more products, more homes on the market that
helps keep the house -- the prices from inflating as they are. So, that's a side note. I
think stopping or halting would just exasperate our current problem. I know -- is Annette
Page 56
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
still on? If she's listening, one of her concerns is that we zoned it R-15 and that, you
know, potentially our client could sell it and now we got another developer comes in with
R-15. This project will be subject to a development agreement and that development
agreement will run with the land. So, when it's approved and the development agreement
goes in play, even if it is sold, the development agreement trumps the zoning and I learned
that lesson from a project I worked on in Meridian, so --there was discussion about Locust
Grove Road between Overland and -- and Victory. That is still slated to be widened out
to five lanes. That's the main reason why ACHD came and designed the roundabout for
the Locust and Victory. That has not been delayed and as -- as far as I know the delay
on the roundabout, it -- it has been minimal, although it could be pushed. This project,
before we get any traffic on the road, you know, it will take me until the first of the year '22
to get the site improvements done and, then, right now we are about six to nine months
on construction. So, you know, the timing -- the intersection will be well done before we
get any houses there and/or people moved in. There was a discussion about other traffic
and has ACHD taken that into effect, the growth south, and as a part of all the traffic
studies on those projects, they do take into account additional traffic. So, ACHD has
looked at this and the -- the growth in the area and has approved it at a staff level. So,
the -- that is in their-- their traffic report and they have got numbers and projections. So,
the people at ACHD have already approved it. There was some discussion about the
continuous flow of traffic at a roundabout. Well, actually, a roundabout does stop it and
put a -- oh, I forget the -- a gap or a section where there is the ability that people can get
out, just like a traffic signal. Traffic signals, the way the traffic engineers design them is
so that they do put breaks in traffic, so that the side streets can get onto the arterial. So,
there will be breaks where people can get out. Eventually Locust Grove will be widened
from the Victory -- Amity is three lanes. So, we will eventually have a center turn lane
there, too. We did -- as we are on the ACHD topic, we did push originally to try to get a
public road out to Victory Road and connected it to Locust Grove. What I had drawn at
that time is I had drive aisles coming off the public street that served a cottage type
product and that's when ACHD denied us and said, no, you only can have the one access
on Locust Grove, but, then, they granted us a fire access onto Victory. So, we went with
that design and there was some discussion of the trees out there. These are
cottonwoods, so they are not terribly safe and they are not considered a tree of value.
will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, questions for the applicant?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Just going to use the question to say if there was a final comment you needed to
make to close up your remarks?
Arnold: No. I -- yeah, I guess I will reiterate the project itself. You know, I think we have
done a lot of work with Joe over the last year and I think four months. I think we have
honed this in and -- and got something that the city will be proud of. I mean out in the
Page 57
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
area, you know, it's -- people talk to like, you know, I'm a one and done. I have been
doing this in the valley for 26 years. We have done -- let's see, Observation Point, Glacier
Springs, Tuscany. I think those are all nice projects. When this is said and done I think
it will be as nice as those. It's going to be unique. We want to bring a unique product
type on. You know, we are going to be in it for the long haul and you will see me again at
probably another project in Meridian with this exact group. So, that said I will stand for
those questions and thanks for the additional follow up.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Had a couple of questions that folks had kind of brought up I thought you could
touch on. One, you know, Ten Mile Creek someone mentioned that it's a flood area. I
don't think it's in the flood zone, but can you touch on that? Is that a -- I don't think you
need flood insurance for your project, so --
Arnold: So, Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, yes, there is a flood way down in the stream,
but we are -- everything that we are developing is out of the flood way or floodplain. We
are going to leave it in its natural state, so we are not disturbing it at all, so it will, you
know, still be scenic and nice. We are just getting rid of the -- the scrub trees that are out
there.
Hoaglun: Okay. Follow up, Mr. Mayor.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Yeah. And one of the people testifying -- concerned about the lock gate and a
left turn onto Locust Grove. Can you give us how many-- how much distance is between
the gate to the opening? You know, if traffic backs up it's, you know, morning rush hour
and people are going out. I think that was a good question and -- is there enough room
for everybody? How does the gate operate?
Arnold: Yeah. Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, what we could do is -- some of those gates
you put timers on them, so during the rush hour they are fully open and, then, they shut
and during the -- you know, in the evening commute. But between the gate and the right
of way I think we have got 150, 175 feet and we have got areas for people to either park
-- turn around right before the gate. So, I don't expect any -- any backing on it and, you
know, going to the traffic, one -- one car every 1.5 minutes, we won't see any backing on
it.
Hoaglun: Okay. And last one, Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 58
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of,,
Hoaglun: And this is something that you raised and you have kind of addressed, Steve,
is that at Victory that right-in, right-out type of -- especially the right-out to come out on
Victory so you can make a left on -- onto Locust Grove makes sense, but is that definitely
a no go with ACHD?
Arnold: It-- yes, it-- we were told no. It's something that we could potentially pursue, but
I got to assume I'm going to hear no again. They were fairly adamant about only taking
access to Locust Grove and -- yeah. So, I -- I can't tell you that I would be able to get that
approved.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: To piggyback on -- on Councilman Hoaglun's questions in regard to the entrance
to your subdivision, one of the concerns that I have is the traffic -- you know, the times
during the day in the morning commutes and the evening commutes, what that will look
like trying to go from your subdivision, taking a left going north onto Locust Grove, giving
the huge amounts of traffic that are over there during that particular time.
Arnold: I guess to address that right now, it -- you know, it backs up past that. So, you
know, it -- but I -- once the intersection is completed we are going to see a whole different
traffic pattern out there and we will see a -- not the continuous flow, but it will -- it will be
a broken and, you know, ACHD, who is our traffic expert, are the ones that reviewed it.
They wanted us to line up directly with the place across on the east side. So, we are just
taking their lead.
Bernt: Right. Mr. -- Mr. Mayor, follow up comment.
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I get this -- you know, this is not on you. I get that, you know, ACHD is the one
that's driving this boat, but it is a concern for me, knowing that area well and knowing the
amount of traffic that is currently on that road, it's -- it's going to be tough to get out of that
subdivision, you know, in the morning. So, just bad timing. I have no idea. I think this
would be a much different -- I would have a much different approach or -- but certainly
would alleviate that concern. If that roundabout was already installed. I think it's going to
make a huge difference with traffic in that area, especially widening the roads and such,
so --the only concern that I have -- I just wanted to put that on the record before we close
the public hearing.
Arnold: Yeah. And I -- Mayor and Bernt -- or Councilman Bernt, yeah, I get that. Traffic
tends to take the -- the direction of the least resistance --
Bernt: Right.
Page 59
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Arnold: -- and what will likely happen is if -- if it is a problem or it's backed up, people will
make a right turn, go to Amity and, then, go eastbound if they need to go.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Just to follow up on Councilman Bernt's questions regarding that, there -- the
-- and I don't know if we have the slide that shows the roundabout with extra lanes, Chris
or Joe, whoever has that, where you match up with that entrance across -- across Locust
Grove, it looked like to me on the diagram that the road narrowed right there, so there is
not even a center turn lane going to be put in? Is that correct?
Arnold: Correct. There currently is not a center turn lane, but ultimately there will be.
Hoaglun: That's -- yes. Mr. Mayor and Steve, that's -- that's my question. Will there be
a center turn lane with the improvements made to that -- that roadway at that point where
those -- that intersection is.
Arnold: Yeah. The -- the plan from Victory to Amity is a three lane minor arterial with a
center turn lane all the way between Victory and Amity.
Hoaglun: Okay. Mr. Mayor, follow up.
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: So, then, my question is will that center turn lane at that point, just prior to Ten
Mile Creek, will there be a center turn lane upon completion of the roundabout and the
widening -- because it looks like it narrows down --will that center turn lane be there upon
that completion or will it be when they do the improvements for the rest of the way up to
Amity?
Arnold: Mayor, Councilman Hoaglun, I don't know that question. I don't know the timing
of that. Like I said, I got to rely on ACHD and them telling me where --where my driveway
approaches go. There is a center turn lane coming south from the roundabout, I just don't
know how far south ACHD has it planned. You know, I -- ideally we would have them
extend it at least down to our entrance and that's something I could work with ACHD or
the -- the city could accelerate that, because they are going to have the right of way to do
that turn lane from us and from the subdivision to the east of us.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Page 60
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page— of 7,
Strader: Thank you. You don't have to comment on this, but I wanted to give you an
opportunity if you choose to, to comment on the prices you think -- or the price range you
think you would be offering these units at?
Arnold: Yeah. Unfortunately -- Mr. Mayor, Councilman Strader, unfortunately, prices are
going up as we speak. New construction is between 305 and 310 a square foot right now.
These being 1 ,700 square feet and 1 ,900 square feet, we are definitely, you know, in the
higher end of the medium price for Ada county. But that's everywhere right now. The cost
of lumber right now is high. Material -- all the building material is high. Trying to get
contractors is high. So, I don't know where the price will be in a year and a half from now
when we are ready to start building. I'm hoping the price has come down and lumber
comes down. We have seen some lumber reducing over the last couple weeks. You
know, I'm hoping that now that they have freed up the COVID restraints that the supply
chain starts getting things to the suppliers and hoping it gets more affordable, because
it's expensive right now to build.
Strader: Mr. Mayor, additional question.
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: If you could comment on -- you know, we have seen ACHD delay projects in the
past and it's a concern of mine as well, the traffic. I don't think that the two Council
Members that have voiced that are the only ones that -- I certainly share that concern,
you know, on balance, if that's a major concern. Are -- are you open to some type of a
delay as a possible solution or how would you tackle that or --just wondering if you have
been thinking about that at all in the context of this conversation.
Arnold: Mayor, Council Woman Strader, no, I have not thought about that much. I know
that the five -- the five lane from Overland to Victory on Locust Grove has not been
delayed. So, I'm fairly confident that this is still going to occur before we get our -- our
building permits and, again, right now building is taking between -- you know, I'm lucky at
six months, but it's closer to nine months to turn a new home around. So, I'm fairly
confident that that roundabout will be done prior to any of this adding traffic to it. My
understanding -- the only delay is they are really looking at right of way. It's not the
roadway design itself per se or the roundabout, but it's just right of way width.
Strader: Thanks for the comments and I guess maybe just to check back if ACHD has
joined the meeting it might be worthwhile to hear from them.
Simison: I still don't see anyone from ACHD joining us this evening.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Page 61
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 4v of,,
Cavener: Steve, I want to make sure that I heard you correct in kind of the opening party
rebuttal. We heard it was suggested by a number of the residents tonight about -- they
seem to be more supportive in a reduction of units. I recognize from where this project
started where we are tonight, a lot of units have been reduced already. But did I hear you
correctly that any further reduction in units would make this project unfeasible for you and
your client?
Arnold: Mayor, Councilman Cavener, I have not had that conversation with my client, but
I -- that great a reduction I guess it would.
Cavener: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Arnold: Thanks.
Simison: I assume we will leave the public hearing open for a few minutes while we talk
amongst yourselves -- ourselves.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I'm happy to least get the -- the conversation going and I think it's a challenging
spot for this applicant, because the draft of problems he did not create, this is kind of the
fly that's breaking the camel's back and you all know I -- I live right over here, I'm right off
of Victory and Locust Grove. So, when I hear folks talk about the challenges there, I'm
with you. I changed my schedule at my job so that I could avoid that intersection at 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. So, I sympathize. I hear what you are saying. But those challenges
weren't the applicant's doing, it's -- we are all to blame. We are the ones who moved
there. We are the ones who have -- have clogged up these streets and roads and so I --
I was somewhat challenged to hold the persons before us accountable for the decision
that we have all made to live there. But I am sympathetic that we don't want to add
anymore traffic to that particular intersection. I voiced some real concerns about this
project from the get go. I really tried hard to do my due diligence and go back and look
at both the historical from before we remanded it back to P&Z to where we are today and
applaud the applicant for trying to take necessary steps to reduce this to try and meet the
intention of the Council. I -- as I was sitting here kind of debating this, Council Member
Borton, Council Member Strader really brought up kind of I think where I have landed,
which is that this project very well may fit in this part of Meridian, but I don't think that I
feel comfortable with it fitting in this part of Meridian until we figure out what Victory and
Locust Grove is really going to look like. When we had this before us in March I -- I voiced
some concerns about the design. It was a little out of whack with what we have got over
there in the -- in -- in that part of Meridian. I have come to kind of appreciate it. It is a
little bit different and anything that's different and new it takes me a little time to wrap my
head around. I think these could be cool, I just don't know if they would be cool in this
Page 62
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 49 of,,
part of Meridian. So, I think that's kind of where I'm at, is that I'm not supportive of this
project moving forward. I don't know how we could continue it out or limit it until the
roadway improvements have been completed and we can look at it. I'm open to
suggestions on that. I appreciate keeping the public hearing open if there are suggestions
or ideas around that, but -- I have tried really hard to convince myself that this would be
a good fit and it very well may be, it's just not I think a good fit right now.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I just a comment. I just feel like I don't have enough information from ACHD to
really know if this is workable or not. I think if it's a definite no on right-in, right-out, okay,
that's a piece of the puzzle. Center turn lane, what is the length of that right of way and
the expansion going to be when that roundabout is constructed? How does that work
there? And also the overall timing of that roundabout. I really think -- I mean this choir
was well prepared, they all sang about traffic in one voice. It sounded pretty good, too.
Didn't even rehearse I bet. So, to make an informed decision I just -- I just think I need
more information before I'm ready to say yea or nay on -- on this project. There is a lot
of good elements to it for a difficult site and I know for you folks who -- who live in R-4 or
possibly R-2 neighborhoods, to see those types of neighborhoods in Meridian now for
what we see, they are rare. This is what we are seeing throughout our community now.
It's just the way it is. We are trying to lower the price point or at least keep it reasonable
and I am sure a lot of you are like me, I cannot -- I would not be able to afford the house
I live in today to purchase it now at its value. I don't make that much money. So, the
value has skyrocketed. It's great, you know, on paper, but -- yeah. And so it's -- it's that
balancing act for my kids and future generations, how do we make everything fit? We
also have a comp plan that talks about -- and staff reminds us from time to time that don't
forget we need a diversity of housing. We don't want everything to look the same and we
just -- well does it fit here, does it fit there. So, I guess my bottom line is I would like to
get more information from ACHD and have a discussion -- whether it's at the staff level
for them to get some answers on a definite right-in, right-out, a timing of the roundabout
and where does that road narrow down? Is there a turn lane? That --that to me -- I would
like to have that before I make a decision.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Somewhat of a pivot off of -- off of Councilman Hoaglun's comments. It's an
annexation application with a zoning request. The applicant's presented this. The
question for us -- it's just an exercise of discretion, if this is in the city's best interest to
approve this at this time as presented and the materials and preparation for today and all
the public comment has highlighted some of the -- the well stated concerns with this
application as presented and the comments about reducing zoning or reducing density
isn't something that the Council can do as part of the decision making process. The
Page 63
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 50 of,,
application is accepted or it's not as presented. The applicant can choose to apply how
they -- how they see fit. With that mindset that's how I looked at this in preparation and
in hearing today's comments. I'm comfortable making a decision tonight. The way I look
at a situation where there is -- if there is incomplete information to make a decision, then,
it's not something that I'm comfortable approving. One of the challenges I have with this
application here and to the earlier comment of is it in Meridian's best interest for this
application to be on this site at this time, I don't have sufficient information that makes me
convinced that the answer is yes and some of those comments I don't think it remedied
with more information. I think this -- there is a reason why ACHD would prohibit access
even as presented and there is a reason why ACHD has to make an exception to their
policy just to allow this access to exist. It's the furthest they possibly could get, but it is
-- it is from an engineering perspective too close to the intersection. It could still be
approved, but it begs the question is it the right decision. Just because you can doesn't
mean you should. The fact that this is extremely busy highlights that concern. The fact
that there are -- as has been pointed out -- unanswered questions as to the ultimate
design and timing of this roundabout at this extremely busy location, compounds those
concerns. The fact that ACHD doesn't perhaps want to put public streets in here, does
not move me much. That's their job. That's what we pay taxes for and they very well
should fund it themselves. If ACHD permits public streets that, therefore, might allow
much less intense use at this very tricky location, that -- and that's the best decision for
Meridian long term, then, let's do that. So, I don't think we are there and, quite frankly, I
don't think time gets us there. I think it's a beautiful project. Steve always does great
work and he's a straight shooter, I just think it's the wrong spot for a great project. So, I'm
comfortable making the decision, but it's not something that I would approve as
presented.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: You know, I -- just looking at this I share a lot of my fellow Council Members'
comments and thoughts and considerations. You know, I think it's important, though, to
keep in mind -- we really do need to keep building housing, so I want to make sure that
that message is clear. I don't think that a moratorium on building housing is in Meridian's
best interest at all. I have just heard that comment a lot tonight and I think that would
devastate our community and we have had a huge housing shortage. That being said,
the traffic situation right now is very acute and that's coming through loud and clear.
Clearly this is a very tricky piece of land in that context and so I -- I'm not there on this
project tonight. I would be open to seeing it in another -- after a period of time if ACHD,
you know, can further clarify their concrete plans and we had more definitive guidance
from them that -- that these road improvements were going to happen, I do believe that it
would seriously help this area. So, I'm not against this project at all. I -- I like this project
in the sense that it's -- it's contributing housing -- hopefully additional supply will help keep
prices reasonable, but at this time I do agree that the traffic situation is not -- not at a level
that can handle any additional housing. So, that's where I am at.
Page 64
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 51 of 7,
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, you are looking at me like, Councilman Bernt, are you going to say
something or not?
Simison: I will if you won't, but I want to give you the opportunity first.
Bernt: I have already -- I'm good. I have already explained my thoughts, so --
Simison: Okay. Well, like Councilman Cavener, I live in this part of the community and
drive down Locust Grove and I come out and I drive through this intersection every day
on my way to work. So, very familiar with -- with the challenges. I do think that when the
road improvements are made we will see a change in the traffic in the area for a while.
But there will be other problems, too. But as it relates to this specific application, you
know, specifically I think the best thing for this property is to find out what happens when
the road improvements are made, so that we actually see what it looks and feels like in
this part of the community.
Bernt: Perfect.
Simison: Because it is -- I'm not -- you know, I am no fan of roundabouts, but I have told
ACHD I'm not going to oppose this one, because there is a place and time for
roundabouts, how they interact and how people can move in and out of them effectively
can help determine whether it's -- and I am concerned when ACHD starts putting a lot of
restrictions on the property and, you know, I'm going to be as transparent as I can be on
this one, you know, if there is -- if there is restrictions to access on this property I can see
this being a lawsuit at ACHD. I can see this being very expensive for all of us taxpayers
that we are going to have to pay, which, guess what, your road improvements are going
to be made in other parts of our community, perhaps in south Meridian. You know,
because when this -- this is a very tricky, difficult piece of property with its location and
proximity to a roundabout in this -- in this case. So, I may be a little further than from
where Council is of I don't think we should really consider annexation of this property until
we see how the road network changes with the -- with the Locust Grove improvements
and the intersection improvements right there. That's where I would be before I would
hope that an application would come back, including all the issues that Councilman
Hoaglun raised about other issues from that standpoint. Those are my comments.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I think we are in agreement that, you know, if we were to vote on this tonight
and based on the information that I have available I could not support this application,
because of -- you know, the information is not there and I can't hope it's going to work
out. We have got to be fairly certain of some things. I guess it's a matter of do we -- you
know, deny or is it something that we bring back? Do we remand to Planning and Zoning?
You know, I don't think we have closed the public hearing, so I don't know if the applicant
would like to speak to that, knowing the sentiments that have been expressed on how
Page 65
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 52 of,,
that process moves forward, because it does -- how we go about that does impact if they
do make changes in a timely fashion and where the timeline is, I don't know, but I look to
others to provide guidance on that as well.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Unless they want to come up and speak, that's fine, but I think that -- I think that
-- I think that tonight I think we are in a position where we can make a decision and I think
that I have heard my fellow Council Members and what they have said and what they are
ready to do, so I think that--to answer your question, Councilman Hoaglun, I think tonight
I think we are in a position where we can make a decision. But, Steve, if you want to
come up and -- I guess, Mayor, If you are -- if Mayor is --
Simison: Absolutely. It's not closed.
Arnold: I guess from the developer's standpoint, obviously, we would prefer not a vote
tonight and to get further information from ACHD. That would be our preference. But,
you know, it's your vote.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Steve, you have heard the comments from Council tonight. Do you think the
highway district could provide greater clarity to us about our concerns in a timely manner?
Arnold: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Cavener, yeah, when you say timely, you know -- you
know, if we can maybe delay it to a date uncertain, but -- or delay it for a month. I think I
could probably get answers from ACHD within a month about -- because I have heard
right-in, right-out. I have heard timing on the intersection improvements and some other
questions about the widening of Locust Grove Road and I think having a person here
from ACHD would be of benefit to the Council.
Cavener: All right. Thank you.
Simison: Council, what's your pleasure or thoughts?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I think your comments with regards to timing are -- are well stated here.
Sometimes continuances make sense. I think we are in a spot to make decisions and I
think we have to make a decision tonight. Otherwise, you are continuing it to 2026, right,
Page 66
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 53 of 77
in essence, to sort of see how this builds out and that doesn't help you either, so to be
honest to you and in this application, I think it's incumbent upon us to decide it tonight. I
do.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I move we close the public hearing H-2020-0100.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The
ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to deny file
number H-2020-0100 as presented in the hearing on May 25th, 2021, for the following
reasons -- as has been summarized by all members of the City Council. There is a variety
of reasons, but most specifically this project does not -- just does not meet the best
interest of our community at this time.
Borton: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and second. Is there any discussion on the motion?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: I just -- I think this is, again, a high score in terms of public involvement.
Appreciate the applicant and the community being here tonight. Had a little bit of a rough
patch at the start, but I appreciate everybody's willingness to be respectful and neighborly.
You guys are all good examples of our community and I appreciate you all being here.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Page 67
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 54 of,,
Bernt: Just to highlight what Councilman Cavener mentioned about how -- about the
rough patch at the beginning. Just -- and I know there is a lot of eyes and ears that listen
to these meetings, but those who are providing testimony, it never helps to disparage any
member of staff or -- or any employee that works for the City of Meridian. If you truly do
have concerns about how we do business, I think it's way more effective to have those
conversations offline and, honestly, they do nothing to my opinion, whether it's for or
against. It's just emotion and it's not needed.
Simison: Any further question -- or any further comments on the motion? Clerk will call
the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is denied.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: So, with that let's take a five minute recess while we let the room -- for those
that need to -- that aren't sticking around for the rest of the meeting.
(Recess: 9:14 p.m. to 9:20 p.m.)
2. Public Hearing for Gramercy Commons (H-2021-0022) by
Intermountain Pacific, LLC, Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 S. Wells
Ave.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai
Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the
purpose of amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age-
restricted multi-family housing units.
Simison: All right. Council, we will go ahead and come back from recess, so we can try
to move through the rest of our evening agenda. Next item is a public hearing for
Gramercy Commons, H-2020-0022. We will open this public hearing with staff comments
to turn it over to Joe.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As noted this is for Gramercy Commons. It is for a
development agreement modification. The site consists of 6.9 acres of land currently
zoned C-G, located across three different parcels on west of South Wells Avenue. It is
adjacent to the east boundary of Mountain View High School. It was annexed and zoned
in 2006 under the Kenai Subdivision. Has an existing DA as noted. It's platted, final
platted -- and why did I put -- okay. The Comprehensive Plan out here is mixed use
regional, which contemplates looking well beyond the existing sites for not only different
land uses, but also interconnectivity and how all the land uses work together and integrate
with each other-- complement each other if you will. The request before you is to modify
Page 68
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 55 of,,
the existing development agreement for the purpose of amending the concept plan, which
really is, essentially, just the preliminary plat. Didn't have any other development other
than this shown, which was just the zoning and the three lots. It is for the purpose of
amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age restricted multi-family housing units,
instead of general commercial. As noted the existing concept plan is just the plat with the
C-G zoning. The new development plan depicts a singular building that is a multi-level
age restricted multi-family apartment complex that is wrapped around a parking structure,
something we have not seen here in Meridian. The parking structure is proposed to
contain a majority of the required parking spaces, which you can see the parking data on
the right-hand side and they actually did include our future requirement of one space per
ten units, which they did not technically have to do. There is a concurrent conditional use
permit application, which, depending on their decision tonight, will be heard next
Thursday. So, some of this data has not been analyzed for this specific presentation. In
addition to the building, the new development plan depicts multiple areas of open space
and amenities located along each side of the building to include a pool and other
amenities within a south courtyard, an entry plaza along the east side of the building, fire
pits and lounging areas along the west side and a community garden and pickleball court
along the north side. All of the open space and amenities appear to meet --or they appear
to be connected with sidewalks and easily accessible for future residents. The submitted
elevations are for illustrative purposes only and further refinement is necessary to comply
with the architectural standards manual, as well as the additional design elements within
the Gramercy development overall. As seen on the proposed development plan, the
applicant is proposing to connect to three adjacent drive aisles to provide access to the
apartment complex, which would be one to the north and two to the east. The two to the
east are currently existing, the one to the north exists at the north side of the northernmost
property and they will be constructing this segment of it. ACHD does not act on
development agreement modifications, but has provided a response letter with the
concurrent CUP as noted. In the response letter ACHD noted that no improvements are
required to any public roads and they also did not require a traffic impact study, because
the development is not estimated to generate enough peak hour vehicle trips, despite the
proposal -- the proposal being over one hundred units. ACHD has noted that all adjacent
public roads are overbuilt and are capable of handling additional vehicle trips without
issue. Therefore, staff is supportive of the development in regards to its transportation
impact. The applicant also intends on connecting to the multi-use pathway abutting the
site to the south for added pedestrian access to the commercial uses within Gramercy
and to the public park south of the school. Staff finds that proposing an apartment
complex, specifically age restricted in this area of the city that is in close proximity to
commercial development, child and charter schools and establish regional pedestrian
facilities warrants a DA mod and supports the proposed development. Staff does
recommend approval and following that there was no written testimony against or for this
project, so I will stand for any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Page 69
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: One quick question, Joe. In general is -- is the application to approve the DA
amendment to allow the use, but not necessarily the actual plan itself, or is the -- is the
plan as depicted part of your approval, understanding that there is architectural design
review later. Are we merely being asked to approve an expansion of the usage of this
parcel?
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Borton, that's a great question. It's kind of both. It is
also to replace the use of general commercial shown on the existing plat with multi-family
age restricted, but also generally the concept plan, yes. This is the same plan that they
are proposing with a CUP, which generally they wouldn't be required to present this much
detail in the concept plan, but they have chosen to do so, which we appreciate always
from staff's perspective. Obviously, minor adjustments might be made here and there.
know that there are some continued discussions with how the trash enclosure and
compact area may be redesigned. That's something that wouldn't require an additional
DA mod, but we would handle that once the CUP and/or with the CZC. So, it is for both
to -- as a short answer.
Borton: And is it tied to this?
Dodson: Yes.
Borton: Thanks.
Simison: Council, any additional questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant, please,
come forward. So nice to see everybody in person again.
Clark: It is very nice to see everybody in person. I was just thinking that the only thing I
will miss about Meridian Zoom meetings is I won't be able to covet Council Member
Cavener's awesome office desk chair anymore. That thing is awesome. Hethe Clark.
251 East Front Street is my work address in Boise. We are here tonight to discuss an
amendment to the development agreement for Gramercy. Everyone's very familiar with
it. It's a successful mixed use project. It's been going for about 15 years. The back side
of it has been a little bit slower to come along and this is going to help I think move that
process forward. That area is less visible, therefore, it's less commercially viable. That's
why we are -- we are -- that in a nutshell is the reason why we are here to have this
conversation tonight. So, our presentation is going to move forward in two phases. First
going to Council Member Borton's point, we want to make sure that you as a Council
know exactly what it is that -- that is being proposed here. We have a condition of
approval that our proposal -- or that we move forward with something that's substantially
in conformance with the concept that we are going to be providing tonight. So, we have
Tiina Ritval and Mark Sindall with GGLO Architects. They are online and they will provide
kind of a basic overview of the look and the feel, how it fits within the neighborhood and,
then, I will return, I will go over a few technical detail -- details and, then, talk about -- a
little about the process, how we go forward from here. In the meantime, I do want to note
Page 70
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 57 of 7,
that Aaron Elton and Mike Chidester with the Meridian based ownership group are also
here and they will be available to help answer questions if -- if I drop the ball on anything.
So, with that let's switch over to Tiina and Mark. So, I think they are online, Chris.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Clark, they are and they have the ability to unmute.
Sindall: Good evening. This is Mark Sindall. Can you guys hear me okay?
Simison: Yes.
Sindall: All right. So, Mark Sindall, principal with GGLO, 1199 Shoreline Lane, Suite 290,
Boise. In Idaho, of course. That's the work address. And, then, I will just say advance
on the slides for whoever is controlling the slideshow. So, let's go ahead and keep going.
So, we would like to start with your comp plan and this is directly from your comp plan
related to the zone and specifically it talks about multi-family residential may be allowed
in some cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through a thoughtful
site design, connectivity and amenities and this really became the basis for the
development of the design that you are seeing tonight. Next slide, please. Of course
next we looked at the Gramercy experience and the notion of homes, workplaces and
shopping blending seamlessly into an urban inspired community and we are pretty
confident that the proposal that we have got before you is going to be successful with
proximity and walkability and perpetuate the basic goals of the Gramercy district and there
is an amazing start of the Gramercy experience with the work to date and we think this is
an evolved way to grow that experience and to really accomplish the goals. We are pretty
excited about that. Next slide, please. Of course, location wise the site is adjacent to ball
fields and a school. It's walking distance to shops, parks, commercial and health services
and overall the site is really ideal given those proximities to age restricted multi-family
housing and if planned wisely it can open up opportunities for adjacent future
development sites, particularly to the north. Next slide. It shows proximity to some of
those connections that Joe mentioned. The trails and as also mentioned we are looking
at having a well connected network of pedestrian amenities that, then, connect to the
broader network of the district. Next slide. Which brings us to parking. So, livability, a
goal of the Gramercy district, means more space for people and open space and a
recognition that absolutely we need to accommodate cars, but not at the expense of
livability. So, to that end we studied the impact of a four level wrapped garage over a
surface parking lot -- choosing that over a surface parking lot and what that could mean
for livability goals for the district. The punchline is that we are reducing by two-third how
much of, quote, unquote, paradise is being paved by a parking lot for you 70s or even
'90s rock fans and there is an added benefit, of course, that most residents park on the
floor that they live on. So, proximity for parking is really strong in this arrangement.
Parking is hidden, parking is not diminished, but that leaves an outward expression of
quality building frontages and open spaces for the community. So, if you keep going.
Next slide. Keep going. So, here is what we are proposing a parking garage tucked
behind the high quality building with large amenity spaces immersed in a beautiful
regionally expressive landscape. The project faces the district with outward facing plazas
and frontages. Next slide. Keep going. As you see here this is more of the public facing
Page 71
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
commercial expression. Keep going. And, then, with residential scale frontages and
amenities -- amenities facing the more pastoral ball fields and the high school and as we
rotate this view you can see the garage wrapped and immersed in that landscape with
the convenience of parking and some of the amenities that Tiina will talk about a little bit
more. So, first of all, a little more amenity on those -- a little more detail on those
amenities. If you go to the next slide. As was mentioned there are community gardens
proposed on the north, as well as pollinator gardens, pickleball courts and a pool deck
and, then, the firepit lounges on the west. The pool deck you see on the south, you see
the pickleball court, community gardens on the north and, then, plaza on the east. So,
let's get into some of the architecture next. Turn it over to Tiina.
Ritval: You can keep going. Yeah. Good evening, Tiina Ritval, GGLO, 1199 Shoreline
Lane, Boise. That's the office address in Boise. I will walk everyone through the current
development -- the design and explain a little bit about the thinking that went into this
proposal. As Mark mentioned, the Gramercy district vision talks about a blending of uses,
shop, work and live and an urban inspired community. In the visual on the left we have
highlighted retail in red, office in yellow and residential in blue. We recognize that in
inserting residential into this office swath of development we would need to make some
references to the current buildings in the vicinity. We also recognize the opportunity for
the scale of the building to bridge between the high school and smaller scale residential
and office around the north, east and south sides of the project. So, on the top right we
are suggesting using the Gramercy brick. The renderings we have shared in the packet
and here show it a little bit more orange, but the intent is to be consistent with the district
brick color. On the middle right here you see residential bays along the western edge of
the project. We will use stucco also in the palette of the rest of the development and
bottom right we want to express a residential texture. So, an alternating lap siding is
proposed for the upper portions of the east and the majority of the building body. Go
ahead, next slide. Each side of the building demands a different response. For example,
the eastern edge is the more public side of the project with amenity uses clad in the
Gramercy brick. The west will get pounded by solar rays and is adjacent to the Mountain
View High School. So, on that side we focused on shading strategies, consolidating
glazing areas and a more residential modulation. Next slide. The east entrance plaza --
we were careful to make this side of the project relatable to the office or commercial uses
in the zone by bringing in a base that references that Gramercy retail district and weave
into the established language of the district. The upper levels on this side bring in that
residential texture of the lap siding. We understand we have some work to do to present
a more residential, high quality aesthetic and we want that to -- we want this to be a great
place for people to live and to love living here. Next slide. By stacking the parking in a
structure buried in the building like -- like Mark stated, we gain considerable open space
to consolidate areas for more significant outdoor amenity areas. The amenities take on
a bit of a commercial or resort vibe with clean volumes and stucco on a body of residential
texture. Next slide. We added this rendering of the western edge of the project. We
didn't show that in our package before. It illustrates the intent of this side to be the more
residential phase of the project facing the high school. We are using stepped base to
create shading from the afternoon sun. Next slide. And the elevations. The top elevation
shows the east side of the project adjacent to other office and commercial parcels in
Page 72
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Gramercy. The center of that elevation houses the entry plaza and amenity spaces. The
building terraces down a story to the south relating to adjacent lower rise structures. The
south elevation is at the bottom of the page with the amenity building in the middle. This
outbuilding provides privacy for the pool deck. The south facades feature consulted
glazing areas and deep overhangs to both take advantage of views to the south and to
protect against harsh rays. Next slide. The west or high school facing elevation is at the
top. A layering of bays help protect private open space from solar exposure, yet allow the
views to the southwest. Again you see the building terracing towards the low rise to the
south and, then, the north elevation ties into the retail and office vocabulary here. Below
inset decks at the upper levels provide protected private open spaces to residents and
views out of the pickleball court and gardens. The garage entry is from the side and will
incorporate clearance to get emergency vehicles into the first level of the parking garage.
Next slide. And I will pass it off here for some nuts and bolts regarding the modification
request.
Clark: Okay. Well, it's Hethe again. 251 East Front Street. So as we finish this up I just
want to focus on kind of the process to -- how to get where we are hoping to get. So,
again, this was previously annexed as part of the Kenai Subdivision that we now know as
Gramercy at 15 years old. It includes this development agreement. It's already zoned as
C-G. So, multi-family could go just as a matter of zoning with a conditional use permit.
It's only the development agreement modification that needs to occur here and as Joe
mentioned this has been set up such that you get a chance to look at it first before we go
to P&Z next week on the conditional use permit. As we look at the proposal it's a well
developed, detailed application. It meets or exceeds the requirements for parking, open
space, amenities, meets the dimensional standards. We are proposing that it remain
within the existing Gramercy development agreements. That means that the cross-
parking and cross-access and everything that we like about Gramercy remains in place.
It's an age targeted facility. It's very near services. As Tiina and Mark mentioned, all of
those services are well within walking distance. So, it's a great spot for this type of a
project. It provides a very nice buffer between Mountain View High School and its facilities
and the residential and commercial development on the north and on the east. As far as
agency review, the agencies have indicated no issues. ACHD, again, shows no
improvements to required area roadways. Staff has been great to work with as typical.
We appreciate Joe a great deal. As we looked at the staff report there is just two things
that I wanted to mention. One was that staff had identified that they wanted to see a more
delineated connection between the project and the pathways to the south. So, we have
done an updated plan here to show that we are -- we are going to include those. We will
use pavers or other elements to make sure that that's very clear, that people would be
guided down to those pathways. And, then, the other was just kind of a clarification on
the fourth additional staff item. It had indicated that the northern property would not be
used for any sort of multi-family use, essentially, in a nutshell. As you can see here on
this drawing there is some overlap there in terms of shared facilities and so we are all on
board with the content or the concept of that condition. What we suggest is that we just
tweak that a little bit to just say that the condition would not preclude joint use facilities.
You can see that about halfway through the paragraph there, including parking areas to
be used for the subject property, which is the area with the project we are talking about
Page 73
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 60 of 77
tonight and parcel 323, blah, blah, blah, which is the one that would retain commercial
use on it and that's the parcel there to the north that's shown here in blue. So, with that
we appreciate everyone's review on this and we would ask for your approval and happy
to answer any questions.
Simison: Thank you, Hethe. And I will start the questions off. So, when I go to lunch at
my favorite restaurant in Meridian, Gramercy Park Pizza and Grill, I could come park in
your parking garage?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, that's-- I don't know about in the garage, but we are providing additional
surface parking.
Simison: Okay. Glad for the clarification, because I know cross-parking out there is --
can be a big issue.
Clark: It is. And I work with the Gramercy developer and with the Gramercy owners
association, as Mr. Nary knows very well and so we are working to address that issue.
Simison: Okay. Council, any additional questions? Council Woman Strader.
Strader: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hethe, it's great to see you in person. I guess a comment
and, then, a question. I love the parking wrap and putting that on the interior core of the
building. That makes me so happy to see that here. So, I appreciate that. Question for
you. I guess I'm a little puzzled by your comment about joint use facilities to the north.
Could you just give me an example of what that might mean?
Clark: Mr. Mayor, Council Member Strader, I don't -- did I say joint use facilities?
Strader: Yes, I believe --
Clark: Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. Okay. I -- I apologize. So, what I was referring to
there -- and I -- Council Member Strader, I apologize, I was picturing way further north,
like in the -- in the other commercial areas. So, in -- when I refer to joint use facilities
what I'm really referring to is the yellow area that you can see here. That would be shared
parking between this lot and the commercial -- future commercial on the north and so
when I refer to joint use facilities I'm talking about that.
Strader: Thank you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If I can dovetail on that. If we can put that -- that condition up again? It's a great
question. I was wondering the language --to nerd out a little bit, it says shall not preclude
Page 74
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page— of 7,
joint use facilities, including parking, which presumes is a joint use facility that's other than
parking. So, what would you contemplate to be a joint use facility that's not parking?
Clark: I would contemplate that to be, you know, maybe potentially utilities, you know,
items that are serving both sides of the -- of the two projects, because it is in common
ownership, so there would be the possibility of those types of uses and we are happy to
refine that language.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: It's really helpful back to the DAthat started this that precluded multi-family unless
it came back, which is the only way Council gets to see it. That's great, because it allows
us the chance to go through what we are doing now, since this CUP doesn't get to us.
So, if there is language that might more narrowly refine what you mean -- it sounds like
it's basically parking and maybe some ancillary utilities. Just so some future council isn't
asked to interpret like joint facilities, that could be interpreted to be pretty broad, too, which
isn't your intent, so --
Clark: No. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely that's not the intent. This is reallyjust a clarifying
amendment. It's not substantive. We are not trying to be substantively different, which
staff's intent -- it was to just ensure that that northern parcel remained on the commercial
side of things. Because of this overlap we wanted to make sure that we weren't
automatically going to be in violation of that. As it stands right now it's really just the
parking facilities that we contemplate being on that other side.
Borton: Okay. You and -- as part of this -- I don't know if you work with planning staff or
legal to come up with some language that more narrowly describes that.
Clark: That would be great. Yeah, we would be happy to do that.
Borton: Great. Thanks, Hethe.
Simison: Council, any further questions for the applicant?
Clark: Thank you.
Simison: Thank you. All right. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anybody
signed up in advance to provide testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. Is there anybody in the audience that would like to come forward and
provide testimony on this item or anybody online who would like to provide testimony. If
you would like to do so, please, use the raise your hand feature at the bottom of Zoom or
Page 75
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
step up to the podium. Seeing no one wishing to testify, would the applicant like to make
any final comments? No final comments from the applicant. Council, what's your
pleasure?
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Borton.
Borton: We take pretty good caution in permitting multi-family in C-G, protective of the
commercial. This one has been available, ready, willing and able for commercial for a
long time. Where it's located is perhaps permanently hampered its ability to develop as
such, so this might be one of the more fitting exceptions I think to allow multi-family. The
way it's been presented makes it even easier to justify altering the DA allowing that use
as presented, understanding that there is pretty firm sideboards on how it's going to be
designed and I think Council Woman Strader's comments about the garage is spot on.
You are going to hear that from all of us, that's a really neat feature for this. So, hopefully,
we see more of that in some of these multi-family projects, so I think it's -- I think it's one
we can certainly move on and should approve. Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: If there is not other discussion, I'm just going to move that we close the public
hearing on H-2021-0022.
Strader: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any
discussion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: I move that we approve H-2021-0022, the DA modification request as set forth in
the staff report of May 25, 2021, to include the applicant's comments with regards to the
-- the staff conditions, the joint use facilities, and crafting language with legal that narrows
that as discussed in today's hearing.
Strader: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not,
Clerk will call the roll.
Page 76
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to. Thank you very much.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
3. Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason &
Associates, Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning
district commensurate with a provision within the Meridian
Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate
10,000-square-foot office building in lieu of residential development.
B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to replace the
existing agreement (Inst. #111024535) and enter into a new
agreement to develop the site consistent with the proposed
development plan.
Simison: Council, next item up is a public hearing for 3175 North Ten Mile, H-2020-0122.
I will open this public hearing with staff comments.
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. You got to hear me one more
time. Tonight at least. Sorry, I'm not -- that wasn't about my future employment or
anything, just -- this is my last item tonight. 3175 North Ten Mile for a rezone and
development agreement modification. The site consists of 1.1 acres of land, zoned R-4,
located at the southwest corner of Ten Mile and Ustick Road as seen on the maps. The
adjacent land uses are C-G to the north and additional commercial zoning in general. R-
4 and single family in all other directions. It was annexed in 2010 under ACHD Ten Mile.
It was originally an ACHD owned property from my understanding. They sold it off and
there was an existing development agreement and which required modification after
further staff analysis. The request is to rezone this property from R-4 to L-O, consistent
with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing
an approximate 10,000 square foot single story office building with 42 parking spaces.
Only 20 are required for the size of the building, in lieu of residential development, which
required the development group modification before you tonight. Commission only heard
the rezone. Following that the applicant applied for the concurrent development
agreement, because it only needs to go to Council. Their point for that is to replace the
existing agreement altogether, enter into a new agreement based upon the current and
proposed concept plan. The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel
due to the fact that is located in a hard corner of two arterial streets and has no local
street access, similar to our earlier projects,just much smaller and not for 37 homes. The
proposed use is for a dental office, which is principally permitted within the L-O zoning
district. The applicant has submitted a site plan that shows compliance with all
dimensional standards for commercial development. With the proposed site plan and
Page 77
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
proposed use staff finds the rezone and use to be consistent with the comp plan. The
subject site was annexed in 2010 as noted. Staff analyzed the application and existing
DA and realized that the DA mod is also required, since the original app -- sorry -- the
original DA contemplated residential versus commercial. A number of the proposed
parking spaces are facing directly towards a home, which does exist here, and to the west
and south. A number of the parking spaces face towards this lot in the southwest corner
of the site. Staff finds the proposed landscaping and existing wood fence may not be
enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from those patrons using those
spaces. Therefore, staff did recommend that the landscape buffer be widened to 30 feet,
instead of their minimum required 20 feet, for just this area adjacent to the southwest
corner, because of the parking spaces facing in and so just this buffer. The change would
not compromise any other dimensional standard on site, because the drive aisles are
currently shown as well over the minimum requirements. They would still be at least five
feet wider than the requirement. Commission agreed with this condition and
recommended approval with that. Access to the site is proposed via two connections
from the applicant, one right-in only access, which is proposed to Ustick, and one right-in
and right-out access to Ten Mile. The proposed access to Ustick does not mean ACHD
policy, but was a negotiated access at the time of the property sale. The proposed access
to Ten Mile also does not meet ACHD policy, but is recommended for approval within their
staff report, because, again, it's the furthest place they could -- they could place it from
the intersection. Staff supports the proposed unlimited access to Ten Mile commensurate
with the approval from ACHD. In addition to the access on Ustick not meeting ACHD
policy, the city can further restrict access despite ACHD previously granting it. The
proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only, but there would be no true
way to restrict vehicles from exiting. In addition, this access point is directly within the
right-hand turn lane on Ustick, which intensifies the safety issues associated with the
access point. Therefore, through UDC 11-3A3, staff does recommend the proposed
Ustick access not be approved and, instead, utilize it as an emergency only access with
with knockdown bollards that Mr. Bongiorno approves. This applicant is still requesting
to keep the Ustick entrance only access. Planning and Zoning Commission as noted did
recommend approval of it at the hearing. It was discussed -- the fire access concerns, if
any, but specifically regarding the reduction in the drive aisle width. There was also
discussion on the kind of uses that could reside within the building beyond a dentist's
office, because the dental office is not expected to take up all 10,000 square feet, which
to answer that would be limited office, very low intensity uses. A restaurant is a conditional
use, so that would come before Commission if anybody ever proposed that. That came
up at the hearing, so I just wanted to bring that up. Different options of mitigating the
noise and light beyond the widening of the required landscape buffer was also adjacent
-- or adjacent to the residential was also discussed. The applicant did not submit revised
plans showing the enlarge buffer, but staff is not concerned, as we can handle that with
the future CZC if the application is approved tonight. After that I will stand for any
questions. Thank you.
Simison: Thank you, Joe. Council, any questions?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Page 78
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Joe, just to confirm, this is a dentist office; right?
Dodson: Yes, sir. They are -- it's just not taking up all 10,000 square feet. There is
potential for -- be a multi-tenant building. I believe it's the right-hand suite is not a part of
the dental office, but it is the dental -- dentist who owns the property and will own the
building.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And just to follow up on that, Joe, that -- that does restrict -- because of how it's
being conditioned and whatnot, the hours are restricted 6:00 to 11 :00; is that correct?
Dodson: That is correct. 6:00 to 10:00 because of the L-O zoning adjacent to residential.
Hoaglun: Thank you.
Simison: Council, any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant with us? If you could
state your name and address for the record and be recognized for 15 minutes.
Petty: My name is Jessica Petty. 2882 South Honeycomb Way. I am the architect on
the project and I'm representing Dr. Rigby tonight. Dr. Rigby is the owner and he will be
the owner of the dental office as well. What we are proposing is a 10,000 square foot
building. He will occupy approximately a third of it for his dental -- family dentist practice
and, then, right now it will just be a vanilla TI for the other two tenants until we find
someone, but like Joe said, ideally it would be another orthodontists, veterinary clinic,
something of -- very similar that would work well and work well within the neighborhood.
We are proposing to put the building in the far upper right corner to keep it away from the
existing neighborhoods. We have been working very closely with the neighbors trying to
listen to their wants and needs, as well as keeping our project feasible. We are completely
on board with all the staff recommendations for increasing the buffer to 30 feet. We are
going to propose to do a berm to kind of hide the parking, hopefully decrease some of the
noise, headlights, whatnot, that was a concern for the neighbors and in general we are
-- we are on board with everything. The only thing we are asking is that you do consider
the right-in only access point. When Dr. Rigby purchased the property -- before buying it
he did his due, diligence he went to ACHD, he talked to them about what -- what they
would allow and kind of how he envisioned his building working with the -- the flow of
parking and so for him it is important to have the right-in only off of Ustick, as well as the
two way off of Ten Mile. We feel that having the right-in only we will help reduce some of
the traffic flow from all of it only coming in and out of Ten Mile and that was a big concern,
especially for the residents down in the southern corner with their kids and just their family
life having an increase in traffic. So, we do ask that you consider that, but ultimately
Page 79
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
tonight we would just like to walk out with our approval, so we can get onto design review,
so thank you. If you have any questions.
Simison: Thank you. Council, any questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very
much. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, do we have anyone signed up to provide
testimony on this item?
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, we did not.
Simison: Okay. If there is anybody in the audience that would like to provide testimony,
please, come forward at this time or if there is anybody online, please, use the raise your
hand function at the bottom of the Zoom. It looks like we have someone online.
Johnson: Mr. Mayor, Steven Rankin.
Simison: Okay.
Rankin: Hello, everybody. Myself and my wife --
Simison: Sir, if you can unmute yourself and state your name for the record.
A.Rankin: Yep. Can you guys hear us? Can you hear us?
Simison: And we cannot hear you.
Rankin: Hello?
A.Rankin: Hello? Hello? Hello?
Johnson: The audio appears to be moving, we are just not receiving it here. Let me try
something on our end to make sure it's --
Rankin: Yeah. Please do.
A.Rankin: Yeah. Can you guys hear us? We can -- we are unmuted on our end, so it's
something going on on your end. Hello? Hello?
Rankin: Hello, can you hear us?
A.Rankin: Hello? Hello?
Johnson: I can hear just barely. Give me one second here.
A.Rankin: Okay. Let us know. We will keep knocking.
Rankin: Should I hold off on speaking or --
Page 80
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page— of 7,
Johnson: It looks like we have a YouTube feed coming through and we disconnected
from the --
A.Rankin: Hello?
Simison: From YouTube that's being picked up somewhere else.
A.Rankin: Can you guys hear us now? Can you hear us now?
Johnson: It looks like they have left and hopefully are coming back in. Mr. Mayor, they
are back and I think we have audio now.
A.Rankin: Yep. Can you --
Rankin: Can you hear us okay?
A.Rankin: Hello?
Simison: Yep, we can hear you. Can you hear us?
Rankin: Okay. Great. Hi, there. This is Mr. and Mrs. Rankin. My name is Steven
Rankin, I'm here with my wife Alexis.
A.Rankin: And hi there, you guys. We are the family that they--that she was just referring
to that had concerns with the drive-in, drive-out off of Ten Mile. I definitely would concur
with the architect, that it's probably necessary to have one drive-in on Ustick. Our main
concern, aside from that, is that the area between our fence and the drive-in, drive-out
from Ten Mile is way too close to our fence line. It definitely poses a major safety issue
for us and our small children in our backyard. You know, though, we live on Ten Mile and
that's a risk not anybody's willing to take, to have people slowly pulling in and out on such
a busy road at all hours of the day, it makes for a really, really -- you know, a huge
opportunity, unfortunately, for somebody to get T-boned coming in and out of there and
they are going to go directly into our yard and we have small children in the yard and
animals. We ask and would like to politely request that the 30 feet that's going in on the
other side --
Rankin: That would be on the side -- on the west side of the fence line.
A.Rankin: Yeah. Would also be considered for our side as well, especially considering
we are going to be the ones dealing with the pulling in and out, but, you know, consistently
throughout the day and we take a much greater risk of somebody actually flying into our
yard because of that.
Rankin: And on that note -- I mean, again, without knowing the exact litigations behind
the setbacks of the ACHD and the distance that needs to be away from the corner of Ten
Mile and Ustick, if it's already under those restrictions and you are doing it as far away
Page 81
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page—of 7,
from the -- from the street as possible, please, take into consideration the risk factor that
is in place with children and dogs and our family on the other side of that fence. Doing
the research leading up to this meeting just before 6:00 o'clock and as exciting as it's
been so far, I must mention that the average length of a car is between 15 and 16 feet.
So, if you just took your average sedan and you are looking at 15, 16 feet, that gives you
a reference. When you look at 20 feet, how far away that interest is to my fence line and,
again, looking into the restrictions of what ACHD has in place, being as far away from that
intersection as possible, if it's still under that restricted code, please, also take into factor
that if you can go further away, whether it be 30 or whatever it might be, to take the fact
-- safety factor, you know, at highest regard, we as -- as civilians in this area and as -- you
know, as the worried neighbor, without having to, you know, put up a stink, we just want
to make sure that everybody's needs are met here.
Simison: All right. Thank you very much.
Rankin: Also -- wait. Also really quick. One thing I didn't mention is the lights. I would
like to know the height of the lights. One thing that the architect did mention there is she's
been in close contact with the neighbors. Little did I know. I live here, I'm here all the
time, we work from home oftentimes and never once did we have a knock on the door,
never once even called from the architect. So, I'm not saying there is lies being put forth,
but there has been little to no communication with me and we share a fence line with his
property. I have been in direct contact with dentist. Great guy. We have had an amazing
opportunity to meet and chat and he's been great, we have no quarrels with -- with the --
with the dentist whatsoever. We want to see this project happen. We just want to make
sure that, you know, there is two major lights that are closest to our property line leading
out to that -- you know, that exit. The height of those -- I mean inevitably, everybody, this
is going to go right into my backyard.
A.Rankin: And right into our master bedroom.
Rankin: To give you a reference -- yeah. In the master bedroom as well. For instance
-- sorry to cut you off, Alexis. Referencing this, you have to -- you have to also consider
-- when I walked to the -- to my south side of the yard, which is right up against that fence
line, I can literally see right over the fence based on the way that the land is -- is -- is
shaped and in the way it's sloped. So, we -- again, we take the impact of the lights.
would love to know the height of those lights and the brightness of those, so we are not
blinded every night until, you know, whatever, 11:00 o'clock or 10:00 o'clock with -- with
traffic coming in and out of there.
Simison: Thank you very much. Council, any questions? Joe, would you just like to
respond on the light to shed information about our white standards and directional --
Dodson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yes, the -- any streetlights that are going to be required
with this have to be shielded and they have to be face down, they cannot have any light
trespassing on any adjacent residential properties. With the future CZC application they
have to provide a photometric plan that shows that, that there is no footcandles of light
Page 82
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page V9 of,,
trespassing. I can't speak to the vehicle lights coming in. A lot of people here have those
tall trucks, even though they don't go off roading and, you know, get high levels of light in
people's fences, but I can't -- we can't mitigate that. I will say that staff is amenable to
increasing that buffer along the south boundary. ACHD is going to approve it regardless
from my understanding. Ten feet shouldn't make a difference. I can't speak for ACHD,
but I can't see that they -- if they had their way it would be right on the property line, but
because we require a buffer I think they are understanding that if we require bigger buffers
that they will accommodate that as well.
Simison: Well, since they are not here this evening, we can do whatever we want.
Dodson: I like it. How about that Linder Village -- Linder Road overpass.
Simison: Council, any further questions? Sorry. Is there anybody else that would like to
provide testimony on this item at this time? Okay. Would the applicant to come forward
and -- for final comments? Okay. Council, turn it over to you.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Question for Joe. The comment about Ustick access, I understand the
applicant's request for it and the project probably requires it to be financially viable and
the tradeoff is if it's right-in only it really is going to be a right-in, right-out. People aren't
going to go that way and back up. Right? If they have to turn right they are probably just
going to --
Dodson: I would.
Borton: -- those on Ustick and -- on Cherry Lane and Linder there is one coming out of
the old Chicago Connection, same idea. So, that being said, is it your-- is it kind of a soft
recommendation to make that emergency only bollard still be funky if people drive that
way and backup or --
Dodson: Councilman Borton, we have project review meetings on these every few
weeks, whatever, for the upcoming hearings and that access was one of the only
concerns brought up by multiple departments. So, I understand the concern, I understand
the desire to still want that, but I agree with you, I mean if someone goes down a hundred
feet of driveway there, they are going to continue. I would. I guarantee you I would sneak
out. But it -- that's why we have that concern and especially because that's a right-hand
turn lane, that's not even the lanes of travel right there, so, then, if someone does have
to turn right or trying to turn right there and they are going to head east more, they are
going to be crossing multiple lanes of traffic, which we just -- we don't want to incentivize
that.
Page 83
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 70 of,,
Simison: If I can make -- there is one development that has done this correctly that I'm
aware of, it's the corner of Victory and Cole Road in Boise into that commercial
development right there where they have very successfully made it one way in only, you
cannot get out that way, so if it is something, I think it can be done, but it takes some --
some -- some very concentrated effort to make it appropriate, but it can be accomplished.
I promise you. I can't turn left out of that.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: Would we require signage, you know, not an exit, all those things, trying to --
you know. And people do what people do, but at the same time we are still trying to tell
them don't do this, you know. I assume that's going to be required, if that's allowed, right-
in only?
Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, absolutely. We would -- I would -- I didn't put it in my staff
report as a DA condition or condition of approval, because I was recommending it -- I
would recommend if you decide to keep it that you require signage there to make it very
clear this is only an entrance and nobody should try to go out. In addition, fire doesn't
need that secondary access, I just didn't -- I wanted to give them another opportunity to
have it. So, therefore, if-- if it's going to not be an emergency access we can choke down
that drive lane to the minimum 12 feet, which is for a one way drive aisle, so that would
help incentivize people not going down that as well from within the site.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: How would we -- how would we approve this with different -- a different design
aspect that you speak about?
Simison: Do a good job? Sorry, I mean it -- I know it's tough.
Dodson: Mr. Mayor, I will say that I -- I have seen it I believe in Gramercy when I went
over there for a site visit. They also -- they did curbing to try and utilize that to help make
it very clear that people cannot enter into that -- or exit and that one you will not -- you will
be fighting traffic just to go around the curbing, so I believe additional curbing would be
necessary. I did see someone make a left-hand turn in that that they shouldn't have
made, but that you --this-- it would not occur, because there is the median there, I believe,
along Ustick. If a recommendation was before to keep that, I would recommend including
that the applicant work with ACHD to have some curbing there in the edge of the right of
way.
Bernt: Okay. Perfect.
Page 84
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 71 of 7,
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: With that discussion does that change the applicant's desire to make any last
comments? Apparently so.
Rigby: I'm Vince Rigby. I'm the owner of the property.
Bernt: Can you state your address, please?
Rigby: My address is 4163 Philomena, Meridian. We will do what we need to do to keep
it a one way only. If-- if that example that was given is the one that we need to follow, we
will do that and add extra curbing, signage, whatever we need to do to have the access.
I also -- I would just add that part of the -- part of the reason why we would like to have
that access is -- is to reduce some of the traffic as was mentioned by Jessica off of Ten
Mile, so -- that's it. Any questions for me?
Simison: Council, any questions? Thank you. And, Joe, I think, actually, yours was a
better example on Gramercy. Those are definite limitations are what way you are going.
Borton: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Borton.
Borton: Question back to staff. From this discussion do you have enough specificity to
include in the DA modification language that sets forth the right-in only parameters?
Dodson: Councilman Borton, I do. I'm making notes even though I probably won't be
able to read them again, but I will -- it's up here. I got it.
Hoaglun: And, Mr. Mayor, question for --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: And do we need to include anything about the 30 foot on the south side,
attempting to --
Dodson: Councilman Hoaglun, if that's your desire, yes, I would include -- I would -- you
would modify one of the existing conditions regarding the other 30 foot and just say
include the southern boundary as well.
Hoaglun: Okay. And Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Page 85
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page ,2 of,,
Hoaglun: Follow up to that, Joe. We are -- we are assuming ACHD would approve that.
I mean --
Dodson: Yes, sir. I would assume --
Hoaglun: Because they wouldn't take any contingencies or anything else, based --
Dodson: Correct. Because they are allowing the existing buffer. So, if we say that the
buffer is 30 feet, they -- they should be able to accommodate that.
Hoaglun: Okay.
Simison: So, with that, Council, do I have a motion to close the public hearing?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move we close the public hearing on File No. H-2020-0122.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor, second the motion.
Simison: Have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Is there any discussion
on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Hoaglun: I don't know if we need, Mr. Mayor, much discussion on this, so --
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: -- I will make a motion that after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony I move to approve file number H-2020-0122 as presented in the staff report and
public testimony of May 25th, 2021, and just for noting modifications that we do require
signage that it's not an exit to Ustick Road. The appropriate signage. That they work with
ACHD to find a curbing solution to prevent a right turn on Ustick and that on the south
boundary near the entrance that the 30 foot buffer be in place for the residential area.
Cavener: Second the motion.
Simison: I have a motion and a second. Is there discussion on the motion? Okay. With
that Clerk will call the roll.
Roll call: Borton, yea; Cavener, yea; Bernt, yea; Perreault, absent; Hoaglun, yea; Strader,
yea.
Page 86
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
Simison: All ayes. Motion carries and the item is agreed to.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Simison: Thank you, Joe, for your work this evening.
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor, real quick, before Joe leaves. Does Alan owe him lunch or dinner
or anything? Oh, you owe him --
Tiefenbach: The other way around.
4. Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren
Bailey of Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S.
Eagle Rd.
A. Request:Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning
districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40
common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1
private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of
land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.
Hoaglun: There we go. Yeah. I got it right. Okay. Just wanted to clarify before we got
started in the next one.
Tiefenbach: Everybody owes my wife dinner.
Simison: Counsel, do we need any breaks or any conversation about doing this one this
evening? I mean everyone still seems to be here for that, so I know there was a question
about -- it's getting late, if we wanted to do this this evening or do this tomorrow, but is
everyone -- thoughts?
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Cavener.
Cavener: Just a conversation for Council to have. We have -- we have tried to refrain
from going late. It's been a good practice that we have followed. Again, I don't know what
the status is of the applicant and the public. I appreciate that they have been marathoners
and sat with us all night. I just -- I don't know if that's the direction Council wants to go, if
we want to barrel through, or -- or continue this for another point in time. Open to either
suggestion.
Simison: I guess the first question that was asked was we have a meeting tomorrow
evening. If this would be continued until tomorrow would that work for everybody in the
Page 87
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page ,4 of,,
room to come back and be part of that? I see some shaking no's. I don't know -- the
meeting tomorrow is at 6:00. We have one other item -- two.
Bernt: One of them's pretty quick. One is just a -- Mr. Mayor, just like a -- like a code text
something.
Simison: We had some people shake no this evening.
Strader: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Council Woman Strader.
Strader: I'm just curious, but would it be possible to go ahead and take some public
testimony from anyone that really -- oh, we can't do that? Like split it?
Simison: We have to open the hearing and go through that first process.
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, you can do that. I would strongly urge you not
to do that. It breaks the record up and it makes it much more complicated if we go beyond
one or two hearings that you have. It's a very disjointed hearing where you have got
some testimony, you haven't had a presentation, it makes it a little bit harder to follow
from a record standpoint.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: Maybe we take a comment from the applicant and see what their opinion is.
Simison: Yeah. Definitely need to start there. This is their hearing this evening.
Nelson: Mayor and Council, we are open to coming back tomorrow evening. We would
ask to be heard first after wading through the business, if that's possible.
Simison: Mr. Nary, would there be any concern with that, with how it's noticed for
tomorrow?
Nary: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, the clerk did just ask me that, so you can
amend your agenda. You will just have to put on the record why. So, you are allowed to
do that. You can certainly put it first. Ms. Suggs' application is also tomorrow and that
was set over a couple weeks ago and, then, the other one is -- is the staff one. So, it's
totally your decision. It's up to you.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Page 88
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 75 of 7,
Bernt: If the applicant is amenable to it, then, I think that we can do it tomorrow, we can
make it so that you guys are first on the agenda.
Nelson: Appreciate that.
Bernt: Okay.
Simison: Okay. If there is anybody who can't be here tomorrow we do take remote
testimony as we have seen and we have that information. So, we -- you know, if you -- if
you want to come up afterwards and make sure we get you all the information in order to
do that.
Cavener: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Cavener.
Cavener: Another suggestion is, you know, we have taken recorded audio testimony.
think there was even some of that on this particular application. So, if they are not
available at the time, they can record and send it and have it added to the record and
maybe even the Clerk could play it tomorrow. Just another suggestion. So, we can -- we
want to make sure that we hear all the public testimony.
Simison: And we want to give this due diligence for everybody's purpose. So, it can be
disposed of wisely and prudently.
Bernt: Mr. Mayor, I think it's important, I think that this is -- any application is an important
application, but it's important to have -- you know, to deliberate wisely and effectively and
I know I have drank four Diet Cokes tonight, but I -- I feel like it would be in everyone's
best interest if we deliberated about this tomorrow.
Simison: Okay. So, with that do we need to open the public hearing and continue it until
tomorrow?
Nary: Yes, sir.
Simison: Okay. So, with that we will open the public hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood,
H-2020-0127. Do I have a motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move that we continue the public hearing on H-2020-0127 until June 26th,
6.00 p.m.
Nary: May.
Page 89
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page —of 7,
Simison: May.
Hoaglun: May. May 26, 6:00 p.m.
Simison: Do I have a second?
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to continue this public hearing until tomorrow
night at 6:00 p.m. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by
saying aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and this will be continued until tomorrow.
Hopefully Alan can be here. Oh-oh.
Bernt: Sorry, Alan.
ORDINANCES [Action Item]
5. Ordinance No. 21-1929: An Ordinance (H-2020-0046 — Gateway at 10
Mile) for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West '/2 of the
Southwest '/4, Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in Attachment "A" and
Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho,
and Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of
Meridian as Requested by the City of Meridian; Establishing and
Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 41.284 Acres of
Land from RUT to R-40 (High Density Residential)(17.273 Acres) and
C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)(24.001 Acres) Zoning
Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing that Copies of this
Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada
County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required
by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the Ordinance; and Providing
for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Simison: Council, I need one more -- oh, we actually have an ordinance. Next item on
the agenda is Ordinance No. 21-1929. Ask the Clerk to read this ordinance by title.
Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It's an ordinance related to H-2020-0046, Gateway at
Ten Mile for annexation of a parcel of land situated in the West '/2 of the Southwest '/4,
Section 11, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise meridian, Ada county, Idaho, as
described in Attachment "A" and annexing certain lands and territory, situated in Ada
county, Idaho, and adjacent and contiguous to the corporate limits of the City of Meridian
as requested by the City of Meridian; establishing and determining the land use zoning
classification of 41.284 acres of land from RUT to R-40 (High Density Residential)(17.273
acres) and C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial)(24.001 acres) Zoning Districts
in the Meridian City Code; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the
Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission,
Page 90
Meridian City Council
Item#2. May 25,2021
Page 77 of 7,
as required by law; and providing for a summary of the ordinance; and providing for a
waiver of the reading rules; and providing an effective date.
Simison: So, you have heard this ordinance read by title. Is there anybody that would
like it read in its entirety? Okay. If not, do I have a motion?
Hoaglun: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Hoaglun.
Hoaglun: I move that we approve Ordinance No. 21-1929 with the suspension of rules.
Cavener: Second.
Simison: I have a motion and a second to approve for Ordinance No. 21-1929 under
suspension of rules. Is there any discussion on the motion? If not, all in favor signify by
saying. Opposed nay. The ayes have it and the ordinance is agreed to.
FUTURE MEETING TOPICS
Simison: Council, anything under future meeting topics? Do I have a motion to adjourn?
Bernt: Mr. Mayor?
Simison: Councilman Bernt.
Bernt: I move that we adjourn.
Hoaglun: Second the motion.
Simison: Motion and second to adjourn. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed nay.
The ayes have it and we are adjourned.
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10.22 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
6 / 8 2021
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON - CITY CLERK
Page 91
Future Meeting Topics — Public Forum
Signing up prior to the start of the meeting is required.
This time is reserved for the public to address their elected officials
regarding matters of general interest or concern of public matters and is
not specific to an active Land Use/Development Application.
By Law, no decisions can be made on topics presented
under this public comment section, other than the City Council may request
that a topic be added to a future meeting agenda for more detailed discussion
or action. The Mayor may also direct staff to further assist you in resolving
the matter following the meeting.
CITY OF MERIDIAN
CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC FORUM SIGN - IN SHEET
Date : May 25 , 2021
Prior to the commencement of the meeting a person wishing to address the Mayor and City
Council MUST sign in and limit their comments to the matter described below. Complaints
about individuals, city staff, business or private matters will not be allowed. Testimony or
comment on an active application or proposal that is or will be pending before Planning and
Zoning or City Council is strictly prohibited by Idaho law. Each speaker will have up to three
(3) minutes to address the Mayor and Council, but the chair may stop the speaker if the
matter does appear to violate guidelines, varies from the topic identified on this sign in sheet
or other provisions of law or policy.
Print Name Provide Description of Discussion Topic
Planning Presentation and Outline for Land Use Public Hearings
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting May 25, 2021
limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units.4A.b which -3F-allow such in three (3) locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 114A.6, which prohibits common driveways
off private streets, to -3F-Alternative Compliance to UDC 11and,Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates; driveway
lots, one (1) private street lot and one (1) lot for the existing home). Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common 15 zoning
district;-8 and R-Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R
AERIALZONINGFLUM
AT1
Slide 11
AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021
AT1
Slide 12
AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021
AT1
Slide 13
AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021
AT1
Slide 14
AT1 Alan Tiefenbach, 3/18/2021
enforceable. notApplicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted, but unless deed restricted this is Some quality open space, but much of the
open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum requirements. Although Fire says they can serve, they have expressed concerns. community and providing necessary infrastructure.
e ablsafe routes and access, encouraging safe, physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikepurpose pathways, ensuring -to provide complete streets,
developing a connected, comfortable, and comprehensive network of multidoes not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring new residential neighborhoods –Narrow private streets with
no sidewalks Located on the fringe, only adjacent to City limits in portions, not an infill development. 8 would suffice.-15 when R-Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower
density zoning for higher density, rezoning to RInadequate transition of lots to the southOnly one access road for all but 15 lots, and applicant has not demonstrated legal access
for the 23 lots at Phase 9.City. Criteria include whether the complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the The applicant is requesting the City annex and
serve this property, presently in the County. Staff recommends DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION
Commission unanimously recommended denial citing all the issues staff just mentioned. Planning & Zoning Commission heard this item on April 1, 2021
City Council May 25, 2021 Meeting
Item #1: Compass Pointe Sub. PLANNED DEV.ZONINGFLUM Zoning Maps–
ACHD and Planned Dev. Map
Revised Plat
Revised Open Space
Revised Landscape Plan
Elevations
Item #2: Gramercy Commons MDA AERIALZONINGFLUM Maps–
Existing Plan”“Concept
New Development Plan
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Item #3: 3175 N. Ten Mile RZ AERIALZONING Maps–
Site Plan/conditions of approval*not revised per Landscape Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Changes to Agenda : [ if applicable]
Item #1 : Compass Pointe Subdivision ( H -2020 .0100 )
Application (s ) .
➢ Annexation and Zoning , Preliminary Plat, Private Streets, and Alternative Compliance
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 7 . 69 acres of land , currently zoned RUT, located at 3247 S .
Locust Grove (SWC of Victory and Locust Grove intersection) .
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning : County Residential to the North (Application is in process with the city for low density residential
project) ; Single-family residential and R-8 zoning in all other directions .
History : None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Medium Density Residential (3-8 du/ac)
Summary of Request : This project was heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on December 3 , 2020 and the Commission
recommended denial of the project to the Meridian City Council . Following this recommendation , the Applicant made a request to the
City Council to be remanded back to P&Z with a revised plat and open space pursuant to comments made within this staff report and
by Commissioners . The City Council agreed with this request and remanded the project back to P &Z . The main changes made by the
Applicant were related to the number of residential units proposed (down to 37 from 48 ) , the road layout, the amount of usable open
space , and the Applicant is no longer requesting a Planned Unit Development .
• Annexation and zoning of 7 . 69 acres of land with a request for the R- 15 zoning district; Preliminary Plat consisting of 37
residential building lots and 10 common lots on approximately 5 . 5 acres of land in the R- 15 zoning district; Private Streets
throughout the development; Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street ,
• The proposed uses are all single-family residential but in multiple forms : attached townhomes (triplex) , attached duplexes , and
detached 4 single-family homes as well . The project is proposed with a gross density of 4 . 8 du/ac , lower than the previous
proposal . (Gross density of closest subdivisions are 4 .4 du/ac) .
• The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24' wide with 5 ' attached sidewalk on at least one side of the
street throughout the project , The Applicant is proposing an emergency only access to Victory Road which is required if more
than 30 homes are to be constructed . The proposed access for this development is to S , Locust Grove and lines up with E .
Coastline St . on the east side of Locust Grove , the access into Tradewinds Subdivision . The access point into the
development does not meet ACHD district policy but they have to modifying their policy to accommodate access into the
development because this is the best possible place for an access to a residential development on this site (furthest access
point available away from the Locust Grove/Victory intersection) .
• The site has major development constraints . The site is a triangle shape , bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one
side by the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for road connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD prefers private
streets within the development. City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development
and this Applicant has proposed a gate meeting these code requirements .
• There is no existing sidewalk along Victory Road or Locust Grove ; both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of
the roundabout project at this intersection in 2021 -22 . Applicant is required to dedicate additional ROW for the intersection and
the future widening of Victory and Locust Grove adjacent to the site . ACHD is requiring the Applicant enter into a road trust for
these sidewalks as they will be constructed by ACHD with the aforementioned projects .
• Applicant is proposing Open Space in excess of code but a large portion of this open space is the Tenmile Creek which does
qualify per UDC as a natural waterway . There is now more usable open space throughout the site and has been improved
overall from previous layouts . Staff appreciates the pedestrian connections to and from the central open space area .
• The applicant submitted conceptual elevations for the proposed attached single-family homes , both the duplexes and the
triplexes . The submitted elevations show all two-story structures with two-car garages and finishing materials of wood and
stone . In addition , the elevations show modern architecture designs with shed roofs , second story patios with glass railings ,
and stone accents that go the full height of the proposed homes . Attached single-family homes require design review approval
prior to building permit submittal .
Commission Recommendation : Commission recommended approval of the subject applications .
Summary of Commission Public Hearing :
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on February 18 , 2021 ,
1 . Summary of Commission public hearing :
a . In favor: Steve Arnold , Applicant Representative ;
b . In opposition : Rhonda Unruh neighbor: Stan Unruh , neighbor; John Buckner, neighbor; Julie Edwards ;
Galen Mooso , neighbor;
c . Commenting : Steve Arnold ,
d . Written testimony : None
e . Staff presenting application : Joseph Dodson , Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application : None
2 . Key issue (s) of public testimony :
a . Density of project and additional traffic that would be added to the adjacent intersection and streets ;
b . Does the project comply with the comprehensive plan in that it is a different type of residential than the
surrounding residential area ;
c . Proposed density is high-density residential when adjacent neighborhoods are not—in fact , the
proposed project is not high density according to the City's definitions and comprehensive plan .
3 . Key issue (s) of discussion by Commission :
a . The density of the revised project following the loss of 11 buildinq lots ;
b . How do the latest revisions (showing staffs recommended changes) affect the project ;
c . Clarification on how the protect meets the Private Street findings ;
d . Review of the changes that have occurred following the original recommendation of denial by the P &Z
Commission ;
e . Staffs level of concern with the Applicant's recommended changes to the conditions of approval ;
f. Timeline of the ACHD roundabout and road widening protects being sooner than previously
anticipated .
4 . Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation :
a . Modify Conditions VIII . A . 1 . e and A . 3 .f to strike "sidewalk" from those conditions ;
b . Add additional quest parking spaces along the common areas ;
c . The Applicant work to provide an easement for a future mass transit stop along its perimeter.
5 . Outstanding issue(s) for City Council :
a . A few of the conditions of approval regarding the preliminary plat and landscape plan were not revised
and presented to Staff at least ten ( 10) days prior to the Council hearing—However, the remaining
issues can be handled prior to submittal of the Final Plat.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing : 22 pieces of testimony submitted since April 26th continuance . Outlining concerns
over multi-family on this corner ( project is not multi-family or high density) and increased traffic with adding any additional homes to this
area of Meridian . Discussion on how multi-family will decrease home values nearby .
Notes .
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony , I move to approve File Number H -2020 -0100 , as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 25 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2020 .0100 , as presented during the
hearing on May 25 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H -2020 . 0100 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific
reason (s) for continuance.)
Item #20 Gramercy Commons MDA ( H -2021 .0022)
Application (s ) :
➢ Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 6 . 9 acres of land , zoned C-G , located at 1873 , 1925 , and 2069
S . Wells Avenue—adjacent to the east boundary of Mountain View High School .
History : Part of Gramercy Subdivision ( Kenai Subdivision) — AZ-06-007 , DA Inst. 106141056 ; PP-06-019 ; FP-06-048 ; and H -2021 -
0022 ( MDA) .
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Mixed - Use Regional
Summary of Request .
• Request to modify existing Development Agreement ( Kenai Sub . ) for the purpose of amending the concept plan to incorporate
164 age restricted multi-family housing units instead of general commercial . Existing concept plan is essentially the original
preliminary plat which did not detail the development for these sites and were only noted as C- G zoning .
• The new development plan depicts a singular building that is a multi -level , age-restricted (three and four stories in height)
multi-family apartment complex wrapped around a parking structure—the parking structure is proposed to contain a majority of
! the required parking spaces .
• In addition to the building , the new development plan depicts multiple areas of open space and amenities located along each
side of the building to include : a pool and other amenities within a south courtyard ; an entry plaza along the east side of the
building ; fire-pits and lounging areas along the west, and ; a community garden and pickleball court along the north side of the
building . All of the open space and amenity areas appear to be connected with sidewalks and to be easily accessible by future
residents .
• The submitted elevations are for illustrative purposes and further refinement is necessary to comply with the Architectural
Standards Manual and other design elements of buildings already constructed within the Gramercy development ,
• As seen on the proposed development plan , the Applicant is proposing to connect to three (3) adjacent drive aisles to provide
access to the apartment complex : one to the north connecting to an existing drive aisle and commercial property and two to
the east to connect to S . Wells Avenue .
• ACHD does not act on Development Agreement Modifications but has provided a response letter with the concurrent
Conditional Use Permit application . In their response letter, ACHD has noted that no improvements are required to any
adjacent or nearby public roads and did not require a Traffic Impact Study because the development is not estimated to
generate enough peak hour vehicle trips , despite proposing over 100 apartment units .
• ACHD has noted that all adjacent public roads are over- built and are capable of handling additional vehicle trips without issue .
Therefore , Staff is supportive of the proposed development in regards to its transportation impact .
• The Applicant intends on connecting to the multi -use pathway abutting the site to the south for added pedestrian access to the
commercial uses within Gramercy and to the public park south of the school .
Staff finds proposing an apartment complex in this area of the City in close proximity to commercial development, child
care/charter school , and established regional pedestrian facilities warrants a Development Agreement Modification and support of
the proposed development.
Staff Recommendation : Did not go to Commission as MDAs go directly to Council ,
Staff recommends approval of subject Development Agreement Modification
Written Testimony : None
Notes .
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H -20214022 , as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 25 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H -2021 -0022 , as presented during the
hearing on May 25 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H -2021 - 0022 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason (s) : (You should state specific
reason (s) for continuance.)
Item Ow 3175 N . Ten Mile Rezone ( H -2020 .0122)
Application (s ) :
➢ Rezone and Development Agreement Modification
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 1 . 16 acres of land , zoned R4 , located at 3175 N . Ten Mile
( SWC Ustick and Ten Mile) .
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning :
C- G and Commercial zoning to the north ; R4 and single family residential in all other directions .
History : AZ- 10-005 (ACHD Ten Mile) ; DA Inst , # 111024535
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : Medium Density Residential ( MDR — 3-8 du/acre)
Summary of Request : Request to rezone this 1 . 16 acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district commensurate with a provision
within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate 10 , 000 square foot, single-story office building
with 42 parking spaces (20 minimum required ) in lieu of residential development . Development Agreement Modification to replace the
existing agreement ( Inst . # 111024535) and enter into a new agreement to develop the site consistent with the proposed development
plan .
• The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel due to the fact it is located on a hard corner of two arterial
streets and has no local street access . The proposed use is for a dental office which is a principally permitted use within the
requested L- 0 zoning district. The Applicant has submitted a site plan that shows compliance with all dimensional standards
for a commercial development, With the proposed site plan and proposed use , Staff finds the proposed Rezone and use to be
generally consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan .
• The subject site was annexed into the City in 2010 and thus has an existing Development Agreement . As Staff analyzed the
application and existing DA, Staff realized that a DA Mod is also required because the original DA contemplated a residential
development and not a commercial development . Applicant has applied for this DA Mod as required and the recommended
new DA provisions are listed in the Staff Report.
• A number of the proposed parking spaces are facing directly towards one of the homes where there is an existing wood fence
located along the shared property lines . Staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be
enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from the proposed dental office and parking lot . Therefore , Staff has
recommended the landscape buffer be widened to 30' wide adjacent to the home in the southwest corner of the site . This
change would not compromise any other required dimensional standards as the proposed drive aisles would still be at least 5
feet wider than required . Commission agreed with this condition .
• Access to the site is proposed via two connections to the adjacent arterials—one right- in only access is proposed to Ustick
and one right- in/right-out access is proposed to Ten Mile . The proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policies but
was a negotiated access at the time the property sold . The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy and is
recommended for approval by ACHD within their staff report.
• Staff supports the proposed and limited access to Ten Mile Road commensurate with the approval from ACHD . In addition to
the access to Ustick not meeting ACHD policy, the City can further restrict access for the development despite ACHD
previously granting the access with the sale of the property , The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only
access into site but there would be no true way to restrict vehicles from utilizing it as an exit as well . In addition , this access
point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick which intensifies the safety issues associated with this access point.
Therefore, through UDC 11 -3A-3 , Staff recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and instead utilize it as an
emergency only access barricaded with knockdown bollards, to be approved by Meridian Fire , The Applicant is still requesting
to keep the Ustick entrance-only access .
Commission Recommendation : Commission recommended approval .
Summary of Commission Public Hearing :
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on April 1 , 2021 . At the public
hearing the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone request.
1 . Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favors William Mason Mason & Associates — Applicant Representative,• Stephen Rankin
Neighbor,
b . In opposition: None
c . Commenting: William Mason; Stephen Rankin.
d . Written testimony : One ( 1 ) piece - discussing potential of noise and light pollution to
adjacent residential ,• mention of a desire to require the Applicant replace the existing wood
fence with an 846ot CMU block wall.
e . Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application : None
2 . Key issue s of public testimony :
a. Concern over the location of the access to Ten Mile being too close to the existing residence
to the south.
3 . Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. Fire access concerns if any, specifically to the recommended reduction in drive aisle
width to approximately 30 ' ,
b . The kind of uses that could reside within building beyond a dentist office;
c . Different options of mitigating noise and light beyond wideningthe he required landscape
buffers adjacent to residential;
4 . Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5 . Outstandin issues for City Council :
a. Applicant has not submitted revised plans; Staff is not concerned as revised plans will be
required with any future CZC application .
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing : None
Notes :
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2020-0122, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 25 , 2021 : (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2020.0122, as presented during the
hearing on May 25 , 2021 , for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2020.0122 to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s) : (You should state specific
reason(s) for continuance.)
Item #4 : Skybreak Neighborhood ( H-2020 . 0127)
Application (s ) :
➢ Annexation of 80 . 46 acres of land with an R-8 and R- 15 zoning district;
➢ Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots , 40 common lots and 14 other lots ( i . e . 12 common driveway lots , one ( 1 )
private street lot and one ( 1 ) lot for the existing home) .
➢ Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two (2) gates ; and ,
➢ Alternative Compliance to UDC 11 -3F-4A . 6 , which prohibits common driveways off private streets , to allow such in three (3)
locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11 -31`-4A . b which limits all proposed gated developments to 50
units .
Size of property, existing zoning , and location : This site consists of 80 acres of land , zoned RUT , located at 7020 S . Eagle Rd . &
3487 E . Adler Hof Ln . (east of S , Eagle Rd and south of E . Lake Hazel Rd ) .
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning :
Mostly within unincorporated Ada County , except The Keep is being developed to the west and Pura Vida Subdivision is being
developed to the northeast. Boise Ranch Golf Course is to the east.
Future Road Improvements
Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd , intersection in 2023 . Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-
lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024 ; and to 5danes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030 ; no
improvements are planned to Eagle Rd . south of Lake Hazel abutting the site .
History :
The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020 . This proposal consisted of 353 building lots , all of it single family
detached . This proposal was scheduled for the October 15 , 2020 Planning Commission meeting . Following staffs report to the
Commission recommending denial , the applicant withdrew the application , and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021 . This
proposal is virtually the same except for 24 less lots , slightly enlarged open space in several areas , and 30 single family attached units
in the northwest corner of the project. Staff has noted on two pre-apps, multiple discussions and two staff reports that staff did not
support this project .
At the time the staff report had gone out for review, staff had not received updated comments from ACHD or West Ada Schools . Staff
relied on the analysis from the previous proposal , which was virtually the same except for 24 more lots and a small part of this project
being attached homes . West Ada's most recent correspondence has given slightly less students that would be generated and a change
in schools . In regard to ACHD , some improvements have since occurred along S . Eagle Rd as part of The Keep since ACHD ' s October
analysis .
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation : 6 acres +/- are recommended for Low Density Residential at the SW , the remaining 74
acres is recommended as Medium Density Residential .
Written Testimony : At the time of the staff report, only one comment had been received , 13 additional letters have been received
since this time . — issues expressed are transition in density, R- 15 zoning being inappropriate , lack of sidewalks to fit in more houses ,
inadequate green space , "fringe development school capacity , road design , and proposed usage of Vantage Point Rd .
Notes .
• Zoning and Transition in Lots
o The applicant proposes R-8 on the western portion of the site , and R- 15 zoning on the eastern portion of the site .
o R-8 requires 4 , 000 sq . ft . lots and a 40' lot frontage, R- 15 allows 2, 000 sq . ft, lots and requires no lot frontage .
o The applicant has requested R- 15 zoning in order to be allowed private streets that would not be allowed by R-8 zoning .
o All of the development as proposed would meet the minimum requirements of R-8 zoning .
o As proposed , the zoning would zone the denser portions of the site to the less dense zoning , and the lower density
portions of the site , to the higher density zoning .
o Staff also has concerns with the transition of lots .
■ To the southwest, the development proposes lot sizes of approximately 6 , 000 — 6 , 500 sq . ft. The applicant has
noted in a response letter that future development in the unincorporated land directly adjacent would likely
develop at a density of 8 , 000-9 , 000 SF lots at a density of approximately three units/acre
I
• Staff does not understand this analysis , as the FLUM recommends < 3 du/acre in this area (> 14 , 520 sq .
ft . lots) .
■ At the middle south , the development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of
between 80 feet and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south
in Vantage Point, but still proposes lots of 5 , 000 — 6 , 000 sq . ft.
■ The road and park would help with a buffer, but there would still would be 2-3 houses adjacent to the houses in
Vantage Point that are on one acre lots , At the southeast, larger lots are proposed at approximately half acres ,
but the lots are rotated such that the adjacent properties in Vantage Point would still see 2-3 houses along each
of their lot lines (except for the most southeastern lot) .
■ Staff appreciates that applicant proposes to limit houses to one story in this area .
■ Staff notes the applicant correctly mentioned staff had called this area Phase 9 , whereas the southern boundary
consists of Phase 9 , Phase 4 and Phase 7 .
o Since the time of the staff report, the applicant has submitted drawings proposing additional screening and buffering in
this area . The Council should determine whether the applicant has provided an appropriate transition .
• Fire Access
o The Fire Department has noted this development can be serviced by the Fire Department, but has noted the following
concerns :
■ A large subdivision with only access out to Eagle Rd .
■ Fire would prefer a connection to Lake Hazel to the North , but found that the preservation of the Southern Rim
makes this access difficult.
■ The west end does fall within the 5 minute response time , but the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5-
minute response area and the nearest station has a low reliability rating . This would improve if and when the
new southern station is built in 2021 .
■ Fire has also noted the gated areas will cause delays .
■ Staff would prefer the applicant work with one of the property owners to the north to achieve access to E . Lake
Hazel Rd .
o The applicant has noted in their March 17 response letter that Pura Vida , Pinnacle and Lavender Heights Subdivisions
are all at the same distance or further and have the same reliability as Skybreak, and they were approved .
o However, staff notes , Lavender Heights and Pinnacle (Apex) both have access from multiple streets ( not just Eagle Rd ) ,
and although Pura Vida only has access from E . Lake Hazel , it has a development agreement that limits the number of
lots that can be built out by phase until there is a bridge built to the east . Pura Vida is also less than half the size of this
development.
o Applicant submitted a fire phasing plan , which includes 59 lots with Phase One . Only Phase 8 takes proposes access
from anywhere other than S . Eagle Rd , Phase 9 only has emergency access , the applicant has not demonstrated legal
access .
• Access , Private Roads and Gates
o As already mentioned , all lots except for 15 in Phase 8 utilize E . Eagle Rd as the only point of access .
o Phase 8 cannot be built until Pura Vida builds out.
o Phase 9 currently has no proven access except emergency access . Staff has suggested a bridge across the Farr Lateral .
o The applicant proposes 112 lots to be served by private roads and two gates (there are two additional gates for
emergency access) .
o The private roads proposed are as narrow as 27' and have no sidewalks or landscaping .
o These roads would pass the maintenance costs on to the homeowners in perpetuity, as since they do not meet minimum
ACHD templates , ACHD would not accept these roads if there were future financial constraints with the HOA .
o Staff does not understand how narrow streets with sidewalks is innovative or preferable to streets with sidewalks .
o Staff has asked the applicant to explain why this is preferable other than the ability to increase lots or reduce building
costs . The applicant has stated it provides an intimate setting , and there is a demographic that prefers a gated
community .
o Staff has concerns with supporting this feature without sufficient justification and what precedent it would set for future
requests to build inadequate roads .
o The applicant requested alternative compliance to allow 112 lots served by 2 gates and 2 emergency gates , and 3
common driveways off a common street .
o The director denied the request for Alt Compliance as none of the conditions or finding were met .
o Applicant has stated Skybreak' s gated private streets are intentionally designed without sidewalks to prioritize the use of
streets for walking , biking and convening with neighbors and that cars are a secondary use . However, given the location
out on the periphery of the City, staff believes nearly every resident must drive to get in and out of this subdivision .
• Parks and Open Space
o Applicant states 14 . 99 AC . ( 18 . 8 %) is provided .
o Parks and amenities include :
■ 3/ acre tot lot with play structure , climbing rocks , outdoor seating (shown as A)
■ 1 acre open sports park (shown as E)
■ Pathways along the Farr Lateral and sloped eastern portion (shown as B)
■ Golf cart pathway
■ Dog parks (shown as C)
■ Entry park (shown as D)
o Aside from that, much of what they are crediting as qualified open space is buffers along roads , end caps , open space
that could not have been used anyway .
o It is important to note that although the applicant has submitted a chart showing which open space meets the minimum
dimensional requirements of the UDC (i . e . (50' x 100 ' ) in area) the applicant is requesting the City annex this property,
there are no present City entitlements .
o Staff thinks a development of this size (80 acres) should have more quality useable open space , and more of it compiled
together and oriented in more convenient locations .
o Applicant has submitted a pedestrian circulation plan with this proposal . All the private streets without sidewalks are being
reflected as pedestrian connections .
o The Council should decide if this project provides appropriate open space and amenities .
Staff Recommendation : Staff recommends DENIAL of this proposal .
o Staff does not believe this proposal substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the
City .
■ Only one access road for all but 15 lots , and applicant has not demonstrated legal access for the 23 lots at
Phase 9 .
■ Inadequate transition of lots to the south
■ Higher density zoning for lower density area, lower density zoning for higher density, rezoning to R- 15 when R-8
would suffice .
■ Located on the fringe , only adjacent to City limits in portions , not an infill development .
■ Narrow private streets with no sidewalks — does not Comprehensive Plan policies for a walkable community .
■ Although Fire says they can serve , the have expressed concerns .
■ Some quality open space , but much of the open space being credited not useable even if it meets minimum
requirements .
■ Applicant has noted school capacity will not be an issue because it will be age targeted , but unless deed
restricted this is not enforceable ,
Planning Commission Recommendation
• The Meridian . At the public hearing , the Commission unanimously moved to recommend DENIAL on the subject annexation
request.
o Commissioners reasons for denial were the same issues staff just listed above .
o Citizen testimony and letters touched on most of the same items .
Possible Motions :
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to APPROVE File Number H-2020-0127 , as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of May 25 , 2021 , 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 -2020-0127 , as presented during the
hearing on May 25 , 2021 for the following reasons : (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H -2020-0127 to the hearing date of ( insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason (s) : (You should state specific reason (s) for continuance)
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing Continued from April 27, 2021 for Compass Pointe
Subdivision (H-2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E.
Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district.
B. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 residential building lots and 10 common lots on
approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
Page 4
Item#1.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: April 27, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing Continued from March 23, 2021 for Compass Pointe Subdivision (H-
2020-0100) by A-Team Land Consultants, Located at the Southwest Corner of E.
Victory Rd. and S. Locust Grove Rd.
A. Annexation and Zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15
zoning district.
B. A Preliminary Plat consisting of 38 residential building lots and 10 common
lots on approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 5
I
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : May 25 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 1
F
PROJECT NAME : Compass Pointe Subdivision ( W2020 - 0100 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
�v
2
3
, _ 4 .1�7 Use
4
5
N
6
r,:. 55 S
7
s Cos
I 'a'I
9
10
IVb
11 �'� \ ►� L�1�M�
12 Ck
� cw � es
Y
13 l
14
� � I VA
ct s Win
vo,
Pn Ia" FR [ l t u " v ' ' `l . w^ ' aoj( q 1,7 Imo/
s +CXV 0 rLO/Vk
f� e lei
ALA fi � � � r � � P ��
� Irl � 7fb ( I c �—
f1�
c
rKA
� wG
v �
LiNDA Lc XA ND t (Z -
Pa I or
54CA
Item#1.
STAFF REPORT E COMMUNITY
N --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 3/23/2021 Legend _ M:HTR
DATE:
Project Location !
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner 0
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2020-0100 r ®'
Compass Pointe Subdivision ®�
LOCATION: The site is located at 3247 S. Locust = �
Grove Road, in the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of FH
Section 30,Township 3N.,Range 1E.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This proiect was heard by the Planninz and Zoning Commission on December 3, 2020 and the
Commission recommended denial of the proiect to the Meridian City Council. FollowinP this
recommendation, the Applicant made a request to the City Council to be remanded back to P&Z
with a revised plat and open space pursuant to comments made within this staff report and by
Commissioners. The City Council agreed with this request and remanded the proiect back to P&Z.
The main chanPes made by the Applicant followinP the recommendation of denial are related to
the number of residential units proposed, the road layout, the amount of usable open space, and no
lonzer requesting a Planned Unit Development. In addition, the Applicant is no lonzer requesting
a Planned Unit Development.All revisions are discussed and analyzed below in subsequent
sections and delineated by strikethrogeh and underline changes throughout the staff report.
• Annexation and zoning of 7.69 acres of land with a request for the R-15 zoning district;
• Preliminary Plat consisting of 48 3-9 37residential building lots and 9 10 common lots on
approximately 4.69 acres of land in the R-15 zoning district;
• Alternative Compliance to connect a private street directly to an arterial street;
• Planned Unit Development to r-e"ee the r-ear-sethaek of the R 15 zoning dist-r-iet for-a pet4iffl Of
the ao. elopme fft due to site nst,aii#s,by A-Team Land Consultants.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage� 7.69 acres
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential
Page 1
Page 6
Item#1.
Description Details Page
Existing Land Use(s) County Residential
Proposed Land Use(s) Attached single-family and townhomes
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) 57-48 47 total lots—48 38 37single-family residential;and
910 common lots.
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one(1)phase.
Number of Residential Units(type 4848 37 total units—483433 single-family attached
of units) townhome units and 4 single-family detached units.
Density(gross&net) Gross—6-.24 4.94 du/ac.;Net—434 9.82 du/ac.
Open Space(acres,total 3-18 3.72 acres total—2:84 3.4 acres of qualifying open
[%]/buffer/qualified) space(or approx.35.6844.2%qualified according to the
submitted open space exhibit)much of the qualified open
space is the creek and landscape buffers
Amenities 3 amenities—Climbing rocks for children,walking loop,
and shaded picnic area.
Physical Features(waterways, Tenmile Creek runs along the western property boundary
hazards,flood plain,hillside) with most of its easement on this property.Portion of the
property within the easement shows area of flood hazard.
Neighborhood meeting date;#of September 8,2020; 1 attendee.
attendees:
History(previous approvals) N/A
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes Section
VIII.H
• Requires ACHD No
Commission Action
es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Proposed access is from S. Locust Grove,an arterial. The
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Proposed) proposed access is via a new private street and all internal
roadways are proposed as private streets.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub streets are proposed due to site constraints.
Access
Existing Road Network E.Victory Road and S.Locust Grove Road,arterial streets,
are existing with 2 travel lanes.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ No
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed by the Applicant due
to all abutting right-of-way to the subject site being
scheduled for widening by ACHD. The intersection of
Locust Grove and Victory is to be a roundabout in
2022-23 with Locust Grove Rd.being widened to 5
lanes north of the intersection and Victory Road being
widened to 3 lanes on either side of the intersection by
2025.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 1.5 miles from Fire Station#4
• Fire Response Time Proposed development falls within the 5 minute response
time goal.
• Resource Reliability 77%(below the target rating of 80%)
Page 2
Page 7
Item#1.
Description Details Page
• Risk Identification Risk Factor 2—Residential with hazards;current resources
would not be adequate to supply service to this project due
to nearby waterway if a water emergency were to occur.
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,
and turnarounds.
The project will be limited to 30 homes until the entire
emergency access to Victory Road is constructed.
Police Service
• Distance to Police Station 2 miles
• Response Time Estimated response time of 4.5 minutes(Goal of 3-5
minutes)
• Accessibility MPD has no concerns with access into this development;
the MPD can service this development if approved.
• Additional Comments Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 636
calls for service within one mile of this proposed
development. The crime count on those calls was 79.
Between 8/1/2019 and 7/31/2020,MPD responded to 30
crashes within 1 miles of this proposed development.
West Ada School District
• Distance(elem,ins,hs) No comments submitted.
• Capacity of Schools
• #of Students Enrolled
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer N/A
Services
• Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 13.98
• Project Consistent with YES
WW Master Plan/Facility
Plan
• Additional Comments N/A
Water
• Distance to Water Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 4
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with YES
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •See the attached water markup for more details;
•Connect water main north to Victory Road;
•At the end of Navigation Road provide a meter pit for a
1"service and a 4"sleeve to the northeast at the proposed
edge of the future roundabout.This will be used for a
future water service to the roundabout used by Parks for
landscaping.
Page 3
Page 8
1 1 1
`:: ■ ' i� -:IN■'�
■11:::r Noll
♦ ♦ In unn ■ {
■■■■Wli�1\ -- ♦ �a-e no nion■NO
o ■ * � ■■ E, pEii pnnu
a L - ■ LLI■ILL I ■ ■■■■u■ ■ ..
Nra� ■r nnm-' ■���_illfl� �! -::■== =
IMINE . �illt••!' ~- � �■, iumll= r%��w -
_ n■mn■ � ■�1 \`a.Yl al ,pnunnm a - Ity
�'-
A1111111= ■ . ___ .` ,V �� � UIIIIIII 3
-
= nnnl nn■unE pr ml e
QIN OIIf� NOIII115n FIIIII:11■ ■■Ill Ii � --
�noon■�IlIIIILIII -nnum - '` �/lnLIfLI1f J � -
unn.IIIIIEInnI nnnm - u■unL■nI/im11;
umin�ss■ ENIELI � mxn nnnm � - Ill II■n■r -
ME so
�Iji.•• vu nu ■lnnunm nnua �O ■ILIIIII■ -, 5
_ NIEII■■ .w - I
IL■ I � I J
111' �. � \►um nmuuuN \ Si■O■ rl _ IIE!a��'' *' _ -� �'
N■■■■I■■■■IN Illly 1111111111111■ LI■ ■ 1■■m - I } � ���� � � `�
— m1 111►��i�� q�y '_-= Y��i � r=iiiin � _� c}" ` �•
• -• -• • • • '�■■ E■E■n■■■i a�l I■IIII■LL
IIII J u■n+�_■IV a-OIII
Epson• ■I■■ 'i■i�
�
i
■■■■LLaG�1� --r ♦�♦i I�_ -_ n■EIr ♦� • �':-ee== ■n■EI �.
no■�►E 4 :� n u IIII .� inm ion n u Illlii p nnu ion '
�■ NONE. a*.noon ■■••rl■■ oe1-I- •••rl'■
��Nun■ i■nn ■ 11■n■n■■� ,r • -• •• - 1 ■ JI■mn■■��
■■■PEE: �■■n■ n+ ■■■. nd inl ■•>t ■n. nNl_
■m 11- it■m
� 1 lilfll 11 Ei! :::� : ■ :�-1�.� ■14111111 Ems! ::::___=
111• �'+ II nm ��■ . �IIIr ~�i�. '" -- - ■��Ia■quum n.n
r� � Innn r•�� III • V3GTORY- IIIIIIII■� �►� I�V'I ;� i�wYZi� - -- -
-- -__- .�=� _UIIIIIII= ---- --=__ �':�I I�'-- YT=•AN�AIAA ==�e � --- - = IIIIIIII= EN�■INN
-■NNNIII■IE rr 11■7 � � Illllnl ■nNNNI1INNE-r�11■- ._� - "� �
QIN■NIIp��■IIIIIIII■�r11111 7111 QII■1111��EIII■111N■IIIIIIII�11■ - � �\
nuns_Gmm�n �p nnum - - noon_�i■nu nn O�nnum - i.11a_
► mn.noon nq p noon 1 nm.IIIIIIIInq p nnnm t
unnmm nnm - nm � � mmmn num - nnm m
�Iwu nu-■nn■m EE I� �NOILNOLL■ I�t \I�•�w nu E•'mi■unn m - ��CL:C7:L7c
■non -nnnu ■ - • ..Enna a nu■- moon nIIIII • SO Enna
•nnm � i ■■ � -mnni 5i m �■�■ ■■
p ■nm ln■ II ti '.lnu nnm nn ln■•�
-`� �%�i� pNnunnn 1 �� ■ � �■ � �i�i .i�nunnn m �. r �■
111 I �i ..��■■- �. �f I ryl�l" \IIN�1 I �QIII I 1. .. \nN
.' + I..::7C:n:1 ■■ I 'y� pa I ilil;q � �'l,�,+��I..::..■n:n � � na
111 L. ►um nnnm NO■ ■■� 1111A\�V'ri� ►um nnl■1 Gf.l� 4_
nn■■■■m 1 Inm uumnl h nn HE nm -
- n 1 111 � -:a �� ■ nun — n11 111 'y �' ■ nun
��� 6� __�o '• - Innn q��� � ��w - Innn
II
i ' - 1� ' -1 ••1 '� 11
Item#1.
IV. NOTICING
Planning& Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 1�'� 01/29/2020 3/5/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet
"1�'�20 01/26/2020 3/2/2021
Site Posting 11/ 02/01/2020 3/10/2021
Nextdoor posting 1�'� 01/26/2020 3/4/2021
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan)
Medium Density Residential—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of
three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of
additional public amenities such as a park, school,or land dedicated for public services.
The proposed annexation area is an undeveloped corner of land with existing medium density
development to its west and east across Locust Grove. Specifically, this parcel of land is at the
southwest corner of Victory Road and Locust Grove Road. There is existing City of Meridian
zoning to the west, east, and northeast located at the northeast corner of the same intersection.
All existing development most adjacent to the subject site is zoned R-8. There is a large county
zoned parcel directly to the north of this site that has not yet received development approval but
has two streets stubbed to its western property line so no access will be taken to Victory or Locust
Grove. In addition, its future land use designation is Low Density Residential(LDR)dictating
that it will likely have less density than this site.
The proposed land use of attached single-family residential, and townhomes would be a new type
of dwelling in this immediate area and is therefore consistent with policies noted in the
Comprehensive Plan for all residential future land use designations, including Medium Density
Residential(MDR), to contain different types of dwellings. MDR, as noted above, also allows
gross densities of 3-8 units per acre; the Applicant haste revised this project to reduce the
number of units wi4 and is now proposed with a gross density of 4-.24 4.94 du/ac. Staff finds that
the proposed project meets the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City may require a development agreement(DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-651IA.In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application, Staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions included in
Section IX.A1. The DA is required to be signed by the property owner(s)/developer and returned
to the City within 6 months of the Council granting the annexation for approval by City Council
and subsequent recordation.A final plat will not be accepted until the DA is executed and the AZ
ordinance is approved by City Council.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies(https://www.meridiancity.oi-glcompplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"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 R-15 zoning and proposed
land use of single family attached and townhomes would be a new dwelling type in the immediate
area surrounding this development. R-8 zoning abuts the subject site to the south and west and
across Locust Grove to the east. This policy, and the comprehensive plan, calls for a variety of
Page 5
Page 10
Item#1.
housing types in any one geographical area. So, adding 48 units of a different product type to the
area shows congruency with this comprehensive plan policy.
"With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathways connections, easy
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable
open space with quality amenities"(2.02.01A). The Tenmile Creek runs adjacent to this property
on its western boundary and the entirety of its 100'easement is located on the subject site.
Because of this, the Applicant has proposed to utilize this area as a natural open space and place
a 5-foot wide path adjacent to the easement. In addition, the Applicant is proposing sidewalks
adjacent to the internal private streets with connections to the path along the creek and out to
Locust Grove and Victory Roads. These connections create a continuous walking path through
the development creating easy pedestrian and bicycle access within and out of the proposed
development.
Despite the Tenmile Creek qualifying as open space per the UDC, it is the majority of the
proposed open space and is not an active open space area. The Applicant has not been able to
enter into a license agreement with the irrigation district to beautify the creek but code Tees
allawfer this watet=wtfy to notes that this is one of the waterways encouraged to be left natural.
There are other small pockets of open space within this development that the Applicant has
enlarged since the first Commission meeting that can accommodate active uses and the Applicant
has chosen to place them throughout the project to encourage use by all future residents;e*
an three of these areas is are large enough to be qualified open space(meets the 50'x 100'
requirement). Despite the inclusion of a large area of qualified open space in terms of percentage
of the site, Stafffinds theme revised project and reduced unit count utilizes the laeking in
usable proposed open space more than the previous layouts and is in better alignment with this
op -—icy.
"Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as cross-
access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads, and promoting local and
collector street connectivity"(6.01.0213).Due to the triangle shape of this parcel and its location
being constrained directly by the Tenmile Creek and two arterial streets, strict compliance with
this policy is not feasible. There are no streets (public or privates stubbed to this property and
this parcel also cannot stub to any other parcel due to these constraints. The Applicant is only
proposing one access for the development and is locating it as far away from the intersection as
physically possible. Despite not being able to comply with this policy, Staff appreciates that only
one access to an arterial is proposed. The access to Victory Rd. is for emergency access only.
"Require all new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets,consistent with the
Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan."(2.02.01 Q. The Applicant is not proposing to
construct complete streets with this development and therefore does not comply with this policy.
Instead, the Applicant is proposing to construct private streets at their minimum standard width
of 24 feet but with 5-foot attached sidewalk on en both sides of the street along the main access
road, shown as Compass Lane on the submitted plans. Both ACHD and the Applicant believe
private streets are the preferred street type in this development because there is no opportunity
for road connectivity to adjacent parcels due to the site constraints outlined above. The Applicant
is not required to construct private streets and public streets would be accepted by the highway
district if proposed as compliant with their standards. However,public streets require more
right-of-way than private streets and if this were to be constructed with public roads instead, a
redesign of the project would be required and would likely result in a large reduction in building
lots and usable land.
"Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal
conforms to the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is
Page 6
Page 11
Item#1.
provided." (3.03.03). The proposed development and use adhere to the vision established by the
underlying future land use designation in that it should offer an additional housing option for the
immediate area.Attached single-family and townhomes are permitted uses in the R-1 S zoning
district. In addition, all infrastructure extensions will be paid for by the Applicant and not the
taxpayers.
"Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00). The proposed development is not like any of the detached single-family homes adjacent
to the subject site and this distinction is encouraged in the comprehensive plan in order to offer
different housing options at different price points and to different types of home buyers. The open
space within the development has been improved by being larger than previous layouts and
should also be more usable due to the Applicant proposing ten (10)fewer units than previously.
may leave seniethiffg to be desired but In addition, the development has landscape buffers oth
natural and otherwise) on all three sides of the development to minimize any conflict that may
arise from having an attached product in an area dominated by detached single-family homes. IW
addition,4The Applicant is also proposing only one access to the development which should help
minimize traffic impact on adjacent streets, especially once the arterial network surrounding this
development is widened and improved in the coming years.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies and
objectives.
VI. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE REVIEW
A. Planned U-nit Develepmen4!
The Applieant is r-equesting to eenstmet this subdivision as a Pimmed Unit Development(PU4))
in line v��UDG standards a-ad findings (UDG 11 7). PUD's have speeifie puTese statements,
should also be, plied w 44; Stag analysis; in 4 ie-s•
A. The pwpese of the planned tmit develepmen4(PUD)r-e"ir-emeats is to provide
1. Preserves > ;
2. Allows for-iaaeva4ive design tha4 er-ea4es vistially pleasing and eehesive pa#efas e
density gf eamr than 8 units per aere 6WPoximately 13 dmWe) after orea is
property boundary of the subjeet site is made up of the Tenmile Creek and its easement.
ereek easement to be non buddable and should be removedfrom the density eakula
in genowt Onee this a - .- - - -d-, the density is 8.6 units per aer,-, helping to inee
this design mquhwment-. The net density is higher than that of the immediakly
mitigate a presented by the h4gher densitr.
— Page 7
Page 12
Item#1.
As presented-, the overall site deskn &laeking in innovation, in Staff-S 6pMion.AH of t
tinit-s ore garage dentinate jMic-h does not meet thePLD staif Ms. However-,Staff ha
sethaek request only appheable to five(5) units instead of 47 and agoo,these units to be
pushed baek towards the stmet with a rear sethaek of no kess than ;Sfeet-, as o9owed in
the R TS zoniffg distrietfor alley loaded units-. Seeondly, ottee these Hnits beeonte alley
loaded-, they shouldf-pont on the internal nder-o path that is already proposed behveen
the development offeiing more than adequate pedesWan aeeess to the at"al sidewalk
nmpork that wig be in plaeefogowing the eonstruedon of the roundabout. 94th an
additional hoHsiffg type in the development, theAppUeant meets this objeet&e by bei.n.Ig
innovative in the PUD request and ovepaU design. In essenee, the proposed
open sp- aee-.
•
3. Creates funetionally integfated development that allows for-a mofe efficient and cost
the reqHii-enienf to offer adequate vehieHlar aeeess to the site. As if oted-, the
eonstrahit*severely lintit the point of aeeessfor this development to the one loeation
he. However-, this inter-seetion should be eonstrueted and improved with a multi
these improvements are eomplete, this development should befunedonalty bitegmted Wo
> >
AppUeant�s intent oFfitnetion to do this on�y to have a largeF home on the pFoposed lotS.-
AppUeant states that this sethaek mlief is needed to pmvide the innovative produet t"e,
Staff above, th&iwquest isfurffier diminished beeause it would only apply to Lots 2 it is if ot
Bl^
The standards pr-eser-ibedwithin the PUP eode are as follows; Staff analysis is in itaues:
A. Gener-al Use Staiidafd&-.
Page 8
Page 13
Item#1.
1. Deviations Ffofn Under-lying Distfiet Re"ir-ements: Deviations ffofn the development
Regnia4ionsDistfie
, ef this title may be appr-eved. The e*eeption is that along the pefiphefy o
t4e planned development,the applieable sethaeks as established by the distfiet shall Hot be
ppUeon
> >
3. Wer-eenneeted Uses: The uses wi"n the plamed unit development afe inter-eeflnee
thfongh a system of r-eadways andler-pathways as appropriate. Private streets a-ad sef-viee
" "
, of this
paths-.However-, the amount of vsabk open spaee and housing t"es WMbr M
subiUvision ean be inereased if the eentm!units front on the iniero path as
mor,eusabk opeft spoee, aft additional housing type in thefim of ofley loaded homes-,
4. Building Clusters. Buildings shall be eluster-ed to pf:esen,e seenie er-envir-Effliffiefitall
sensitive areas in the nattffal state, ef to eenselidate small open spaees into lafger-,fRefe
B. Pf:iva4e Open Spaee: in addition to the eommon open spaee and site amenity rv"ir-emen
nRepla4ieas Applying Te All n
ef eighty(90) squafe feet of pr-iveAe,usable open spaee shall be pr-A-AAddedd e-ol
f:esidepAial unit. This r-equir-emefft ean be satisfied through >patios, deeks,
an
show eompHanee with this standard by gmphieoMy depiedng Me Wmensions of th
Page 9
Page 14
Item#1.
QResidentia4 Use Standards-.-
nDistfiet n
title,multi family d-wellings may be an allowed tise when approved thfetigh a plafmed tinit.
2. Housing T5Tes: A vaf:iety of housing types shall be ineluded within a single p1mme
homes)> >
the site,provided th4 the over-all deasiVy limit of the distfiet is Maifi�aified.As He
theApplieant needs to inelude an additional housing type that is more dominant than
12 units of difftrent type than the garage doininated townhemes eumendy proposedL.
Ilowever-, if Commission and4or Couneil deter-mine otherwise,Staff reeommen-1-
types in this developinent-.
3. Density Femiula: Residential densiVy in a planned develepmen�shall be ealeuWed by
leeated. There are no non residentialusesproposedwith this development but
beeomes 8.6 dm4ie-. This is above the agowed g-poss density of the underlying Ftuwe
use designation but Staff is onlyusing this ealeulation to show eonip- Manee with th
4. Density Bemis: A fesideafia4 density benes may be given fer-dedieatiens ef land fe
publie use sueh as >padE,
entity by dena4ien or-at a eest less than, er-equal te,the applieffit's pfedeVe!Opfflefit eest
for-that!a-ad. The beftes shall be pr-epet4ieaa4 to the ameunt of!a-ad being dedieated. Fe
example, if ten per-eefA fire station or-fvef:eatiefial f4eility provided to the publie
shall be ten per-eent ) of the total pr-epei4y is being dediea4ed,the density befffls
). However-,in no ease shall the beaus exeeed twepAy f4ve per-eepA
reeontinended by Staff.
B. Private Streets/Access:
Access for this development is proposed via a private street connection to S. Locust Grove in the
southeast corner of the site aligning with E. Coastline St. on the east side of Locust Grove(the
access into Tradewinds Subdivision). All private streets appear to meet UDC dimensional
standards for width,number of units,and turnarounds.
Because the site is a triangle shape, bordered on two sides by arterial streets and on one side by
the Ten Mile Creek, there is no opportunity for connectivity to any adjacent site and so ACHD
prefers private streets within the development. Consequently, because private streets take less
right-of-way than public streets and most notably because of the constraints just noted,-i the
Page 10
Page 15
Item#1.
Applicant agrees with this assessment and has proposed private streets throughout the
development.
City code requires that private streets are to be used in either a mew or gated development and
so this Applicant has proposed neithe to construct a gated entry into the development with the
revised layout.
beeente alle�, loaded garages eff ef the prhwte street by requesfiffg to elintitiate the required
P-rivate Street standards.
The access point into the development does not meet ACHD district policy but they are modifying
their policy to accommodate access into the development because this is the best place for an
access to a residential development. This is largely because of the site constraints already
outlined above. The Applicant is proposing to construct private streets that are 24'wide with S'
attached sidewalk on one both sides of the main private street t f fug'out the r,,eje t and on one
side of the other two private streets within the development. Staff supports the proposed men
of-the sidewalk layout eH ones to ensure adequate pedestrian access in the development
except Staff believes an additional pedestrian connection to Locust Grove is necessary from near
the center of development. Since the Commission meeting the Applicant has also revised the
street layout to have the main street bend and meander through the site. This design offers some
natural traffic calming and also changes where setbacks are taken from because setbacks are
measured from the back ofsidewalk. On the submitted site plan (Exhibit VIII.E the Applicant has
not appeared to take full advantage of these varying setback lines. Therefore, Staff is
recommending a condition of approval that the Applicant vary the build-to-lines throughout the
development to eliminate any monotonous wall plane; this should occur with every other
structure showing a different wall plane.
At the north end of the main street within the development(labeled as Compass Lane on the
landscape plans) the Applicant is proposing an emergency only access to Victory Road. This
access is required if more than 30 homes are to be constructed. Staff is not aware of the kind of
emergency access proposed but Meridian Fire prefers bollard type accesses for added efficiency
in emergency situations;Meridian Fire has approved the requested preliminary plat for fire
access, turnarounds, and road widths.
Page 11
Page 16
Item#1.
Near the center of the development the Applicant is showing a hammerhead type turnaround
because that dead-end street is longer than 150'and therefore is required to have a turnaround
for emergency vehicles. Since the hammerhead does not take up the full length of a buildable lot,
the Applicant is proposing the rest of that lot to be a small area of open space. rW'' �
reeemmendations.diseus-s-ed in the PUD ana4wis, this eufarffit4,small open&paee area wou
beeentepartef the larger eemmen open Vaee niew let, Further analywis is belaw in the Open
To remove the need for this hammerhead and the incentive to use this turnaround
as parkin spaces, Staff recommends revisions to this area of the site. The Applicant should
connect the two private streets shown as Galileo Road and Navigation Road along the eastern
property line, as shown below. This requires the applicant to remove two building lots and revise
I
e
the plat and all other plans to show this connection. However, if these two roads connect, there is
no need for the hammerhead turnaround and the small proposed open space area at its terminus
and the Applicant could then add a unit to that lot resulting in a net loss of one unit. Staff finds
that this recommended revision makes for a more complete road network and allows better
circulation within the site for both residents and emer eenncy services.
As noted, the Applicant is now proposing to construct this development as a,gated community to
meet the Private Street Standards. According to the revised preliminaryplat, the Applicant is
proposing the gate to be located approximately 130'into the private street access and after a set
of guest parking�spaces. Staff appreciates the desire of the Applicant to add additional guest
parking but these parking spaces should be removed in lieu of a turnaround area so that anyone
who may pull into this private road on accident has the ability to turnaround safely. This is
needed because private streets are too narrow to safely turnaround within its 24 feet of right-of-
way. The Applicant should remove these 3 guest spaces and show a turnaround area in this area
instead.
Page 12
Page 17
Item#1.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There appears to be an existing home on the propertyi an&this building will be demolished at the
time of development, according to the Applicant. There are no other site improvements known at
this time.
D. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is attached single-family and townhomes which are listed as principally
permitted uses in the R-15 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. There is one are four detached
units proposed and a better mix of duplex and triplex style townhomes shown on the revised plans
for elesest to the eflA n-e-e or the development.
As discussed in the comprehensive plan section above, the proposed use of attached single-family
homes would be a new type of residential use within almost a square mile in every direction of
this development. So long as the Applicant complies with the recommended conditions of
approval, including those regarding the road layout Staff
finds that the proposed use will be a welcomed addition to the City of Meridian and add more
housing options in this area of the City.
E. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The proposed lots and the private streets appear to meet all UDC dimensional standards per the
submitted preliminary plat. This includes property sizes,required street frontages,and road
widths for the requested R-15 zoning district.Note: The City of Meridian does not have
maximum lot coverage or floor area ratio requirements so proposed homes can theoretically
more living area than proposed lot area or be close in area.
proposed la�q withiH the subdivisien. This is the only i�equest the ApplieaHt is makiffg that w
adjust Me required dimeHsieHal staHdap6k. #t-hePLD request is appreved-, theH all lets will
In addition, all subdivision developments are also required to comply with Subdivision Design
and Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3). Stafffinds the proposed project meets these
standards.
F. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-
3C-6 for single-family detached and attached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per
unit.Future development should comply with these standards.No parking plan was submitted
with the application.
The proposed street sections(23 24 feet wide with attached sidewalks) of the private streets
within the development,shown on the submitted preliminary plat, CANNOT accommodate
parking on either side of the street. The entirety of the private streets will be required to be
labeled as "No Parking,"per the Meridian Fire recommendations. Each unit will be required to
meet the off-street parking standards and Staff encourages the developer of this site to include
provisions within their HOA bylaws that prohibit garages being used as storage. This would help
alleviate some of the parking issues seen throughout the City and especially in areas where no
on-street parking is allowed. The PUP-Site Map submitted by the applicant appears to show
compliance with the parking standards with a two-car garage for each unit and a parking pad.
weuU lose their j9af*iffgj9ad through a PUD request to elintinate that requireniew as allowe
Page 13
Page 18
Item#1.
This weuk4 eliminate sente 19a4dng in Me subdivision but Me,�ppfieant is also 19repas-ing to
eens-truet gues-t1ga4ing eff the main private street in three areas ef the develepment te tetal 12
addifienal spaees. Staff is ameHable te using some e)4he ether sniall epeH spaeeI9eeketsfiW
The Applicant is also showing guest parking along the main private street to total 9 additional
parking spaces (does not include the 3 spaces outside of the entry gate that Staff is recommending
be removed in lieu of turnaround area). Lot 3, Block 4 is proposing 6 guest within an
open space lot that is not quali Being because it combines remnant areas that Staff does not find
meets UDC open space standards. Because of this, Staff encourages the Applicant to add
additional guest spaces in this area to better utilize the area.
G. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
No multi-use pathways are proposed or required with this development because the required
multi-use pathway is already constructed on the west side of the Tenmile Creek on an adjacent
parcel.
This Applicant is proposing a 5-foot wide pathway on this side of the creek and behind the
proposed homes. This pathway connects to the private streets at the southern end of the project
and thru the common open space lot located midblock on the west side of the site. This pathway
also continues north and connects to the required sidewalk along Victory Road creating
continuous pedestrian circulation path for the development. 'addifien, t ^pplie nt
Leeust Greve. Thig path z9heuld be kept and ineluded within the i�eeemmended mew te sei=�v aS
H. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
Five-foot attached sidewalks are proposed along at least one side of all internal leea4 rb ivate
streets. Sidewalks are not required when constructing Private Streets. There is no existing
sidewalk along Victory Road or Locust Grove;and none are proposed with this project because
both arterial streets are scheduled to be widened as part of the roundabout project at this
intersection in 2021-22, according to ACHD, as stated above.
Detached sidewalks are required along arterial roadways per UDC 11-3A-17. The Applicant has
already agreed to dedicate additional right of way to ACHD for the roundabout and future
widening of Victory and Locust Grove.ACHD is requiring the Applicant to road trust for the
sidewalk improvements as the roundabout and associated improvements will likely be constructed
prior to construction of this site. In addition, this will ensure any improvements made by the
Applicant will not have to be removed to make the planned roundabout improvements. Therefore,
Staff is recommending that the Applicant comply with the ACHD conditions of approval for the
arterial sidewalks instead of constructing them with this project.
As discussed, the Applicant is proposing 5-foot attached sidewalks on at least one side of the
internal private streets to accommodate better pedestrian access through the development. Staff
recommends that 4es-e all sidewalks and every expected pedestrian crossing be constructed with
pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the sidewalks from the driving surface
and to subsequently help with pedestrian safety. In addition, Staff is recommending that with the
recommended road layout changes the Applicant add an additional sidewalk connection to
Locust Grove to improve pedestrian accessibility to the arterial sidewalks.
Page 14
Page 19
Item#1.
I. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to E.Victory and S. Locust Grove because they
are arterial streets. This buffer should be landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C
and placed into a common lot that is at least 25-feet wide. In most cases this common lot should
also contain the detached sidewalk required along all arterial roadways but in this case the
sidewalk abutting this site will be built with the ACHD roundabout project.
The submitted landscape plan and preliminary plat depict a 25 foot wide landscape buffer; the
correct number of trees appear to be shown on the submitted landscape plans (see Section
VIII.C). However, there is no landscape calculations table as required by code. The Applicant
shall be required to submit revised plans that include a calculation table depicting the linear
footage of the landscape buffers, the required number of trees, their common name and their
scientific name, the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree canopy at maturity; each type of
shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the calculations table.
stems-ftem theApplieantprepesing the water alld sewer mains near4,20feet apart within t
right of way dietadHg that the everall easemeHt width will eHereaeh inte theficent yatW-s ef t
the submitted laHd-seape 191aHs ean be eeHz9tr feted Z-.-th e leeations shown OR revise the 19repas
water and sewer main laeations.to alleviate this issue by faeAeing the everall wid4h of A
easentent.
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-
3G-3E. The total square footage of common open space is not included because there is no
Landscape Calculations table on the submitted landscape plans demonstrating compliance with
UDC standards. However, Staff can graphically see that the open space lots are vegetated
according to UDC standards. Still, the Applicant will be required to add a calculations table with
the recommendation noted above and revise the landscape plan to show the addition of the mew
between Lots 2-14, Block 2 as recommended by Staff.
The proposed pathway located behind the homes and adjacent to the Tenmile Creek is also
required to be landscaped with a tree every 100 feet per UDC 11-3B-12. However, the Applicant
did not include a 5-foot wide landscape bed on either side meant for the required trees. The
Applicant will need work with the irrigation district to obtain a license agreement to include at
least S feet of landscaping on one side of this pathway. Otherwise, the Applicant will need to
apply for Alternative Compliance with the Final Plat submittal so show an equal or better means
of compliance with this requirement.
J. Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is
required. According to the property size of 7.69 acres,the Applicant should supply at least 0.77
acres of qualified open space, or approximately 33,500 square feet. The applicant is proposing
IM91 acres of open space,of which 2-.84 3.4 acres is shown as qualifying open space on the
s4mitte revised open space exhibit(see Section VIII.D).
Some of the area listed as qual,fying open space by the Applicant does not meet UDC standards
due to their size not being at least 5,000 square feet or being near the 50'x 100'dimensions.
Once this area is removed, the qualified open space proposed is 2.6897 acres, awn -&n '.��;
the Applicant should revise the open space exhibit to correctly label the qualified open space
removing Lot 23, Block 1, Lot 1, Block 2, Lot 4, Block 3, and Lot 3 Block 4.
Page 15
Page 20
Item#1.
The open space for this development is vastly made up of the Tenmile Creek easement(2.12
acres) and the arterial street buffers (19,281158 square feet of qualifying area).All of this area is
qualifying but the Tenmile Creek will be left natural(no improvements)and will be a buffer and
more of a visual amenity than usable open space for the development.
Abutting the creek and generally mid-block, the Applicant is proposing an open space lot that is
approximately 5,4-30700 square feet. This open space lot contains one set of the amenities and a
micro path that connects the private street to the pathway along the creek. This open space lot
and micro path offers a clear connection to one of the at her miere aMs in the development t a'
the attached sidewalks throughout
the development and an additional open space area centrally located within the development.
mew beAfven Lots ' 14, Bleek '. In general, the Applicant has increased the usable open space
areas throughout the site following the Commission's recommendation of denial and comments
regarding a desire to have more usable open space. With the reduction in unit count and
additional centralized open space, Staff finds the proposed open space not only in excess of code
requirements but also an improvement from previous layouts.
K. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
Based on the area of the proposed plat, 7.69 acres, a minimum of one(1)qualified site amenity is
required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C. The applicant has proposed
four(4)qualifying amenities in multiple locations: gazebos, seating around small plazas,
climbing rocks, and walking paths.
The proposed amenities exceed the minimum UDC requirements and Staff finds them to be
applicable for a community of this kind due to the variety of activity levels they can
accommodate.
L. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7. Fencing is shown on
the landscape plan along the subdivision boundary and around the central open space lot along
the western portion of the site but no other fencing is shown.Fencing shown next to any open
space shall be open-vision or semi-private fencing per UDC requirements.
According to the Applicant, the exclusion of fencing between homes is purposeful despite the
homes being a for sale product. The Applicant intends for the open areas between homes to be a
more shared space than what is normal within a subdivision. to ff'Y r..,,,m,iena Lien.to inehide
Fencing is not required in these areas so Staff
has no conditions regarding this. However, there should be open-vision fencing along the western
edge of the pathway adjacent to the Tenmile Creek to ensure the safety ofpedestrians, especially
children. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to show this additional fencing.
M. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant has submitted sample elevations of the attached,triplex, single-family homes for
this project(see Section VIII.F).
The submitted elevations show all two-story attached structures with two-car garages and
ldenfiea finishing materials of wood and stone. In addition, the elevations show modern
architecture designs with shed roofs, second story patios with glass railings, and stone accents
that go the full height of the proposed homes. Staff has also not received elevations for the effe
Page 16
Page 21
Item#1.
detached homes but detached homes do not normally require design review; if the Commission or
Council determine design review is needed for these detached units, Staff recommends an added
condition to require the entire property obtain design review as a blanket condition. nor one
duplexuni However, attached single-family homes require design review approval prior to
building permit submittal and at that point, Staff will ensure compliance with the Architectural
Standards Manual. The submitted elevations for the townhome units appear to meet the
architectural standards but with the design review application for the site, the Applicant will be
required show additional styles and colors for these units. In addition, Staff recommends the
Applicant provide a different design for the units fronting on the recommended mew.
VII, DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested annexation and zoning with the requirement of a
Development Agreement, and the preliminary plat, and p1mmed tMit developffle with the
conditions noted in Section VIILA per the fmdings in Section IX of this staff report. The Director
has approved the private street and alternative compliance applications.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on February 18,2021.At the
public hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Annexation,
Preliminary Plat, and Alternative Compliance requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Steve Arnold,Applicant Representative;
b. In opposition: Rhonda Unruh,neighbor; Stan Unruh,neighbor;John Buckner,nei hg bor;
Julie Edwards; Galen Mooso,neighbor;
c. Commenting: Steve Arnold,
d. Written testimony: None
e. Staff presenting application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. Density of project and additional traffic that would be added to the adjacent intersection
and streets;
b. Does the project comply with the comprehensive plan in that it is a different b Te of
residential than the surrounding residential area;
c. Proposed density is high-density residential when adjacent neighborhoods are not—in
fact,the proposed project is not high density according to the City's definitions and
comprehensive plan.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission.
a. The density of the revised project following the loss of 11 building lots;
b. How do the latest revisions(showing staff's recommended changes) affect the project;
C. Clarification on how the project meets the Private Street findings;
d. Review of the changes that have occurred followingthe hginal recommendation of
denial by the P&Z Commission;
e. Staff s level of concern with the Applicant's recommended changes to the conditions of
approval;
f. Timeline of the ACHD roundabout and road widening projectsbeing sooner than
previously anticipated.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. Modify Conditions VIII.A.Le and A.3.f to strike"sidewalk"from those conditions;
b. Add additional guest parking spaces along the common areas;
Page 17
Page 22
Item#1.
c. The Applicant work to provide an easement for a fixture mass transit stop along its
perimeter.
5. Outstandingissue(s)ssue(s) for City Council:
a. A few of the conditions of approval regarding the preliminary_plat and landscape plan
were not revised and presented to Staff at least ten(10)days prior to the Council
hearing—However,the remaining issues can be handled prior to submittal of the Final
Plat.
C. City Council:
To be heard at fixture date.
Page 18
Page 23
Item#1.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description and Exhibit Map
a
DAVID EVANS
AND ASSOC I ATES INC
DESCRIPTION FOR
COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVSION
REZONE&ANNEXATION
The following describes a parcel of real property lying within the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter(NE1/4 NE1/4),Section 30,Township 3 North,Range 1 East,Boise Meridian,City of Meridian,
Ada County,Idaho being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the northeast corner of said NE1/4 NE1/4;Thence,along the east boundary line of said
NE1/4 NE1/4,South 00'14'11"West,1070.48 feet;
Thence,departing said east boundary line,North 30"12'47"West,1235.02 feet to the nortFi boundary
line of said NE1/4 NE1/4;
Thence,along said north boundary line,North 89'42'20"East,625.91 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
containing 7.69 acres more or less.
l
�w F
0
13 x
sF r a 1oP e�
P.SULL��P
Page 19
Page 24
Item#1.
625.91
n89°4220"e
Title: Date:05-19-2020
Scale: 1 inch=200 feet File:COMPASS POINTE SUB REZONE ANNEXATION.des
'tract 1: 7.690 Acres: 334998 Sq Feet:Closure—s72,0359w 0.00 Feet Precision>1/999999: Perimeter—2931 Feet
001=00.1411w 1070.48 003=n89.4220e 625.91
002=00.1247w 1235.02
Page 20
Page 25
Item#1.
EXHIBIT MAP OF
COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVISION
RE—ZONE & ANNEXATION
A PORTION OF THE NE 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 30,
T. 3 N., R 1 E., S.M.,
CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO
2020
E VICTORY RD
N $9'42'20" E 625.91'7h
PLS 8444 NE COR, SEC. 30
FOUND 1/2 REBAR FOUND BRASS CAP
28.95' WC
I
\ I
00
p
O w�
2 � 7
O
�p 7.69 ACRES± I O
a o
N.
I
FOUND 5/8 REBAR
ILLEGIBLE 1"=200'
DAVID EVANS o _
Q ANoASSOCIATES INC. a 1 4 6
,u O 9179 W Black Eagle Dr 4p D
Boise Idaho 7 °
Phone: 208-585-5858 s'tc9 F F►oP�e�
qNP SU1L�`1P
Page 21
Page 26
B. Preliminary Plat(dated: 4 4 Q/2020 4/2 t�2 2/18/2021)IJQJ A jD1212 03,TED
j_j
H LU
2H.
T
A
Mid
-"M
\\`/�� � `\�� - �� / /-gyp i, �I III WO
\ \ \
'N
H
"—RUH
Page 22
Item#1.
C. Landscape Plan(dated: „12 i2020 12 242 2/18/2021)NOT APPROVED
jw
o ,x
,
I
\ \ '\ \
1
----- ----
Page 23
Page 28
Item#1.
D. Open Space Exhibit(dated: „ 102i2020 12 02 2/18/2021)NOT APPROVED
x
0
— �
f
F
� y
F-
or
U \
w N ° z am \ \F \F
w �
❑ \
w d O =
Of z
O _
�a O --
U
Page 24
Page 29
E. Site Plan—"PUD Map"(dated: 1 1/02,120201,1244242472/18/2021)r"O'F ADII)DONTE—D
a
z 7 q F I F
V t
il L-I I
A
I \C
�\ \ J\ �� ` z�u 3' N
up
I'A
Page 25
Item#1.
F. Conceptual Building Elevations
WHITE CLOUD
COLOR OPTION 1 - F' `4V'� STtDICS
.�s ....._..��,..... MORE.
w
ll LL
x�aw
O
Rm��
COLOR OPTION 7 - _ -- - - —RF'm 42 Q
_.... .... ... .._ z7_7:3O
0 K U
COLOR OPTION 9
Mn
COLOR OPTION 447:1- 1p
3a f u3
AhTeAMrm
■ n�v u.- COVER SHEET
■ - . tee
WHITE C—D
sTUDios
® ® LL
X�(;w
j
mal
�a
N-_�tK
a���W F �W u
m r.
ELC4*101110-11 111111
VAYIONe
Page 26
Page 31
Item#1.
WHITE GLO'Jn
STucaos
COMPASS POINTE CONTEMPORARY MODERN aoT.aE.�E.o
2 BEDROOM 2112 BATH DUPLEX DUPLEX M�.s°.�
1689 50 FT
W
o'
- z
}} }; IL Q
r }
U
i
Telm
_ E
WHITE GLOWP
STUDlor
— W
_ 1
U
ELEVATK**
C;a'=,�a�
s
Page 27
Page 32
Item#1.
WHITE CLOUD
S TUD�IOS
COMPASS POINTS COLOR OPTION 1
3 BFDROOM 2 112 BATHROOM - 1951 90 FT
2 BEDROOM 2 112 BATHROOM TRIPLEX - Ia55 SQ 1=T
w
0
z o
T '�'• TAN STUCCO SIDING- Q
17
u.
I i
, cove SWEET
WHTE CLOUD
5TUDI
L:3-
-----
d)J Q
OOP
U
E SYA=!
AA 201 u
Page 28
Page 33
Item#1.
WHITE CLOUD
STUDIOS
COMPASS POINTE CONTEMPORY MODERN
3 BEDROOM 2 1/2 BATHROOM DUPLEX
Me SQ FT.
W
- o
OfjW
0 0
TEPM
covm B"m
0�30>
u1HITE GLOIIn
sruvlos
O
iU O
- m.o� z27
m z
fj�}W
U
�.
.. .-• ; TEAM
sELEYAYION6
Page 29
Page 34
Item#1.
IX. 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,the property owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption,and the
developer.
Currently, a fee of$303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division
prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner
and returned to the Planning Division within six(6)months of the City Council
granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following
provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the approved
Preliminary Plat,PUB NUpailte Plan,Landscape Plan,and conceptual building
elevations for the development, especially the attached single-family dwellings,
included in Section VIII and the provisions contained herein.
b. The Applicant shall comply with the ordinances in effect at the time of
application submittal.
c. Direct lot access to E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove Road shall be
prohibited.
d. The entire frontage improvements along E.Victory Road and S. Locust Grove
Road shall be completed with the first phase of development except for the
required sidewalks,per the conditions of approval by ACHD.
e. All sidewalks an pedestrian crossings within the subdivision shall be
constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, or similar to clearly delineate the
pedestrian pathways throughout the development and to add to the character of
the private development.
f Lets 2 1 1�leek 7 h ll ha-y dueea t .1 t 1 de �
xzvrrz x�,vxocxc z�xxaxx nay�i caucca�'a'r ci�3�ra�3crar z6 �xxc ua�6�3 y'-c c
r-equir-ed twe (2) gar-age spaees per-the Planned Unit Development fequest.
2. The Appheant shall revise their-Planned Unit Development request to! 1)r-edttee the lots
being asked for-a r-ear- yar-d sethaek relief--,2)request an elimina4iea of the pafk4ng-pad
requirement of the eg sb-7eet pafking sta*dar-ds(UPC 11 3C 6) for-Lots 2 >Bleek >
and 3)
ineltide a mew a4 least 20 feet wide between these lots to meet the PUD a-ad Private Str-ee
sta
3. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the preliminary plat included in
Section V111.13, dated 1111/�201/21/2021, shall be revised as follows:
a. Revise note#4 to list the building lets thM have a r-edueed feaf yafd setback per-the PUD
request(Lets 2 6,ul,,e"
b Devise the..1,t to remove the guest arks outside of the gatedent and instead d ;,.t
t,,.-.a-,,,,.,,] area. s1, Lot^71> as ow .T2leek 2 Tot 4>-Ble k 2 to e at labeling mistake
e. Revise the p14 to show Galilee Read and Navifgatiea Read eemeet in the area sheNN%as-
Lets 7 & 9,Bleek 3. show Lets 2 14 as alley loaded homes tha4 front on the eepAr-al mew
between them eemmenstwate with the revised PUD r-e"est.
Page 30
Page 35
Item#1.
d. Revise the pleA to show et 4 gel 3 as-a buildable lot instead of a ee Q
c T2leek 2 as .,t least., 20 feet wide conmmon lot oat;,,..., fnew a-ad,.e taro, g the
proposo,l m path.
e. Revise the pW to show the removal addition of the�we additional a pathway ewmeetion
..,1 south of the miefe path leeated i the mew between Lets i 2 1 A 1?leek 7 o ea ee ,
f. Revise the plat to show all si,lo....,lks an expected pedestrian crossings to be constructed
with pavers, stamped concrete,or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian pathways
throughout the development and to add to the character of the private development.
g. Show additional guest parking on Lot 473,Block 24.
4. At least ten(10)days prior to the City Council hearing,the landscape plan included in
Section VIII.C,dated 1111/�201/21/2021 shall be revised as follows:
a. Include a landscape calculations table that includes the following information at a
minimum: the linear footage of the landscape buffers,the required number of trees,their
common name and their scientific name,the class of tree, and the dimensions of the tree
canopy at maturity; each type of shrub proposed to be used should also be included in the
calculations table with the same accessory information as is required for the proposed
trees.
b. Show open vision fencing on the west side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile Creek;
all fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
c. ;
!a-adseape ealeWations shall also be r-efleeted in the ealeiila4iens table.
d. The ApplieafA shall gr-aphieally depiet the vegetation oft the submitted!a-ndseape plans
ea-a be eenstmeted in the leeal4ens sheNN%OR revise the-proposed w4er-and sewer-Mai
leeatiens to a4leviate this issue by fedtieiag the ever-all width of the iftility easement.
e. Show the required landscaping on the western side of the pathway abutting the Tenmile
Creek per UDC 11-3B-12.
5. ,
open spaee per-the standards in UPC 11 3 6 3 a-ad per-the r-evisiefis r-eeeffiffleaded by Staff-.
6. Future development shall be consistent with the R-15 dimensional standards listed in UDC
Table 11-2A-7 for all buildable lots
the PUP r-equt-A.
7. 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_exeept€er
8. The Applicant shall comply with all ACHD conditions of approval as noted in Section IX.H.
9. The Applicant shall work with the Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District to obtain a license
agreement to include a 5-foot wide landscape strip and the required landscaping(including
trees)per UDC 11-3B-12 prior to applying for the Final Plat application; IF the Applicant can
prove this agreement could not be reached,the Applicant shall apply for Alternative
Compliance at the time of Final Plat application submittal for the required landscaping.
Page 31
Page 36
Item#1.
10. Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted and approved prior to
submittal of any building permit applications for single-family attached dwellings as
applicable.
11. A miaiffmm of 90 squafe feet of private,
unit;this r-equir-emen4 ean be satisfied thfough per-ehes,patios, deeks a-ad efielesed yards a
€or4'� in T� 117 4B. Future homes along the proposed"Compass Lane" shall provide
variation in building setbacks to provide for an attractive streetscape; a master-plan depicting
varying building setbacks shall be submitted with the required design review application(s).
12. The Ten Mile Creek that resides along the western boundary of the subject site shall be
protected during construction.
13. The Applicant shall comply with and maintain all applicable standards for the proposed
Private Streets as outlined in UDC 11-3F.
14. "No Parking"signs shall be erected on both sides of the private streets throughout the
development; coordinate with Joe Bongiorno of the Fire Department if you have any questions
regarding this condition.
15. The proposed develepment shall have a t:edtteed r-eaf yafd sethaek ef ne less than ten(10) feet
for-Lots 1 6, Bleek 3 per-the Plamed Unit Develepmen4 r-e"est.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 Connect the Compass Lane water main north to the water main in Victory Road.
1.2 At the end of Navigation Road,provide a meter pit for a 1"service and a 4"sleeve to the
northeast at the proposed edge of the future roundabout. This will be used for a future water
service to the roundabout for landscaping.
1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A streetlight future
installation agreement will be required for the streetlights on Locust Grove and Victory.
Locust Grove and Victory are scheduled to be improved by ACHD and streetlights will be
installed during the improvements. Contact the Transportation and Utility Coordinator for
additional information.
1.4 The geotechnical investigative report prepared by SITE Consulting, LLC dated April 6,2020,
indicates some specific construction considerations and recommendations. The applicant
shall be responsible for the strict adherence of these considerations and recommendations
to help ensure that homes are constructed upon suitable bearing soils, and that groundwater
does not become a problem with home construction.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department,and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials
shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
Page 32
Page 37
Item#1.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s)for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A)and an 81/2"x 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.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-
round source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any
existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not
available,a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a
single-point connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of
assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways,intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code
42-1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic
service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering
Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be
used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho
Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B.Whitney at(208)334-2190.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for
this subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
Page 33
Page 38
Item#1.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review,and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have
been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be
required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record
drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be
received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures
within the project.
2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for
surety,which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please
contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.23 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(MFD)
https:llweblink.meridiancity.orglWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216616&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ky
Page 34
Page 39
Item#1.
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT(MPD)
https:llweblink.meridianciV.org/WebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=216663&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
E. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT TABLE
https:llweblink.meridianciU.ore/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216459&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
ky
F. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216673&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
iv
G. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT(CDH)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=216532&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
fty
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https:llweblink.meridiancily.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=217090&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianC
Ry
X. 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;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to R-I5 and proposed residential
uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, if all provisions of the Development
Agreement and conditions of approval are complied with.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will allow for the development of
single-family attached homes which will contribute to the range of housing opportunities
available within the City and especially in the area immediate to this site, consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose statement of the residential district.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to, school districts; and
Page 35
Page 40
Item#1.
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact
on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the proposed annexation is in the best interest of the City per the Analysis
in Section VI.
B. Preliminary Plat Findings:
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,
the decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat, with Staffs recommendations, is in substantial
compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, density,
transportation, and pedestrian connectivity. (Please see Comprehensive Plan analysis and
other analysis in Section V and Section VI of this report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate
the proposed development;
Commission finds that public services will be provided to the subject property with
development. (See Section IX of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at
their own cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers(i.e.,Police,Fire,ACHD,
etc). (See Section V4-IIX for more information)
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
platting of this property. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis and approves of
the project with specific conditions of approval relating to the scheduled road improvements
adjacent to the subject site.
6. The development preserves significant natural,scenic or historic features.
The Applicant is preserving the Tenmile Creek that resides on the subject property; therefore,
Commission finds the Applicant meets this finding.
C. Private Street 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;
Page 36
Page 41
Item#1.
The design of the proposed private streets complies with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-
4. See analysis in Section VI for more information.
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
Staff does not anticipate the proposed private streets would cause any hazard, nuisance or
other detriment to persons,property or uses in the vicinity if they are designed as proposed
and constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3F-4B.
3. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan
and/or the regional transportation plan.
The location of the private streets does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and/or the
regional transportation plan despite needing Alternative Compliance for its connection
directly to an arterial street. With the constraints detailed and analyzed for this development,
Staff finds that local street access has been provided via a private street.
4. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
The Applicant is proposing to construct the
residential development as a gated community and so, Staff finds this development in
compliance with this finding.
D. Alternative Compliance:
In order to grant approval for alternative compliance to allow Private Streets directly off an
arterial,the director shall determine the following findings:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements is not feasible; OR
Access to this development is provided by a private street and the UDC restricts access to
both Victory Road and Locust Grove Road, arterial streets. There are no available local
street connections to the subject property due to it being a triangle shape bordered on two
sides by arterial streets and the other by the Tenmile Creek. Because the property is not
served by public local street streets and any public street would not be able to be extended to
any adjacent property, the Director finds strict adherence to the UDC is not feasible and
approves the request for the private streets to directly connect to S. Locust Grove Road, an
arterial street.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the
requirements; and
The Director finds the development proposed by the applicant as a whole provides an equal
or superior means for meeting the requirements in that it contributes to the unique character
of the area and provides diversity in housing types available within the City.
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 will not be detrimental to the public
welfare or impair the intended use%haracter of the surrounding properties and will
contribute to the character and variety of housing types in this area of the City.
Page 37
Page 42
Item#1.
shall,E. Planned Unit Develepmen4-.-
Upon r-eeommendation from the eommission,the eouneil shall make a full investigation
at the publie hearing,
review the appliention.in order-to grant a planned development
request,the eouneil shall make the following findingsi
1. The planned unit development demonstrates exeeptional high quality in site design
thr-ough the pFovision of >eontinuous,
visually related and funetionally linked
patterns,.4'development,street and pathway layout, and building design;
features;2. The planned unit development pr-eserves the signifleant natural, seenie andior-hist
natur-alfeatures of the site are being jgr-eseF+,ed-.
• ,
hazar-d, or-nuisanee to per-sons or-property in the vidnity;
• The internal street,
development,bike and pedestrian eir-eulation system is designed for-the efflei
and safe flow of vehieles,bieyelists and pedestrians without having a disr-uptive
an undue buf!den upon existing tr-ansportation and other-publie ser-viees in
surrounding nor-plaee
• Community 9 9 9
and dedieated open spaee areas
functionally related and accessible to all dwelling units via pedestrian and/or bicycle
pathways;
units within the subdivisien,
6. The pFoposal eomplies with the density and use standards requirements in meord with
It 11
f Regulations , of this title;
&5tfffinds the proposed develepmeHt eentplies with the densio,and use standard-s of the
Residential.
7. The amenities pr-oAded are appropriate in number-and scale to the proposed—
Page 38
Page 43
Item#1.
8. The planned unit development is in eonfor-manee with the eompr-ehensive plan.
As noted in Seetion V of this staff report-, Stafffind-s the development te be in eeitfor-manee
with .h . ,s;,,. rk,,,,
Page 39
Page 44
Applicant Presentation
Overview of Public Concerns This project will be an enhancement to the surrounding propertiesparkspercent with sever pocket -Amenities and open space far exceeds adjacent properties,
we are over 44Again, it is not apartment, these are a for sell product4. Project Quality 8/15-Our over all density is 4.8, very similar to 4.4 in the surrounding area and way less
than R3. Density Our impacts are minimal (37 trips in the PM/PK hour (1 trip every 1.5 min)The Victory/Locust intersection slated for improvement before our impacts will occur2.
Traffic impacts on adjacent roads They are attached townhomesThese are on their own lot for conventional financingfamily product-These are a single1. Apartments/Multifamily Housing
CURRENT LAYOUT
ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL
North view compass lane
SOUTH VIEW
PARK VIEW
PARK VIEW EAST
Recommended revision to draft da the private development. throughout the development and to add to the character of pathwayscrossingor similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian striped
asphaltor raised crossings to be constructed with pavers, stamped concrete, , pedestrian all sidewalks and expectedRevise the plat to show IX.A3.f the private development.hroughout
the development and to add to the character of tpathwayscrossings or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian striped asphaltor raised pavers, stamped concrete, eithershall be constructed
with pedestrian crossings within the subdivision sidewalks andAll IX.A1.e
MODIFICATION TO THE MAP Added pedestrian crossings13.Added a turnaround at the gated entry12.Added a gated entry11.feet.-feet to 3206.5-Sidewalk: increased the linear length of sidewalk
from 2094.10.North/South Road: added some “S” turns to help break up the massing along Compass Lane.9.turn eliminated the need for a fire turnaround.Roadways: eliminated the two dead
end road and created a “Lollipop” or a loop design which in 8.With the increase of open space we added a dog park and an additional central park.7.percent and increased the -percent
to 44.2-acres or 35.68-acres to 3.72-Open Space: 3.286.Odd shaped housing: eliminated completely.5.along the roads.Increased the housing variety and decreased the triplex units which
in turn helps with massing 4.PUD: eliminate the request for building setback reduction.3.Density: 6.24 lots/acre to 4.81 lots/acre.2.Building Lots: we went from 48 lots to 37 lots.1.
ESTIMATE OF TAX REVENUE GENERATION
ONE-TIME FEES
ItemPer LotTotal
Sewer Hook-up Fee$3,433$127,021
Water Hook-up Fee$3,884$143,708
Meridian Police Impact Fee$128$4,736
Meridian Parks Impact feet$1,770$65,490
Meridian Fire Impact Fee$2,483$91,871
Building Permit-Application Fee$50$1,850
Preliminary Submittal-Application Fee$0
ACHD Impact Fee$3,433$127,021
TOTAL ONE-TIME FEES$15,181$561,697
Annual FeesPer LotTotal
Annual Water Fee$186$6,882
Annual Sewer Fee$210$7,770
Annual Highway User Tax$150$5,550
Total Annual Fees$546$20,202
Annual Taxes
Assessed Property Value$525,000
DescriptionLevyPer LotTotal
Ada County0.0021499350$1,129$41,762
Pest Extermination0.0000981710$52$1,907
Emergency Medical0.0001184220$62$2,300
Ada County Highway Dist0.0007015390$368$13,627
School District No. 20.0023778950$1,248$46,191
Meridian Library0.0005249910$276$10,198
Meridian Cemetery0.0000483430$25$939
Meridian Fire0.0010178480$534$19,772
Mosquito Abatement0.0000211060$11$410
Western Ada Recreation0.0000377360$20$733
College of Western Idaho0.0001242930$65$2,414
Total Annual Taxes0.007220279$3,706$137,107
TOTAL ANNUAL TAXES & FEES$4,252$157,309
Total Fees & Taxes
$0$739,208
In conclusion We ask for your approval of the project.•area.Annexing this property will financially help pay for existing City services in the immediate •fill and currently utilizing
City services.-The site is in•Comprehensive Planning policies. We are providing a mix of housing types that is in a huge demand and is consistent with •home and harmonizes with the
greater Meridian Community.Continued commitment to providing a quality neighborhood that people are proud to call •the “long haul”Developer is the builder, therefore there will be a
commitment to quality, they are in it for •Open space greatly exceeds requirements.•made the changes to the maps accordingly.We have recognized all the Commissioner’s concerns from
our previous meeting and have •We have taken in the neighborhood concerns about density and have greatly reduced it.•recommended changesThe project conforms with City Code, the COMP
Plan, and we have made all the staff •
Public Presentations and supporting documents
STRATEGIC GROWTH REJECT COMPASS POINTE SUBDIVISION
STRATEGIC GROWTH COMPARABLE DESIGN TO SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODREDUCTION OF NOT LESS THAN 14 UNITSREZONING R8 OR LOWER DENSITY ZONINGAPPROVE ANNEXATION FORREJECT THE CURRENT APPLICATION
MERIDIAN’S LEGACY Community VisionCity of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, strategic growth … and being good stewards of the public trust”character ... The vision reinforces the core values
of guided and “The #MyMeridian Vision … reaffirms a desire to preserve Meridian’s
MERIDIAN’S LEGACY Community VisionCity of Meridian Comprehensive Plan, ”being good stewards of the public truststrategic growth … and ... The vision reinforces the core values of guided
and characterMeridian’s“The #MyMeridian Vision … reaffirms a desire to preserve
MINIMIZE CONFLICTS Simply no precedent The Public sentiment is clearmaximize use of land” (Comprehensive Plan Action Item 03.07.00)and minimize conflictsand site design to compatible
use “Encourage
LOCUST https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/ZoningMap.pdf)Housing(Comprehensive Plan, employment areas” community services and transportation, located to public must be strategically
density housing -“HighFRANKLINGROVE &
LOCUST https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/ZoningMap.pdf)Housing(Comprehensive Plan, employment areas” community services and transportation, located to public must be strategically
density housing -“HighFAIRVIEWGROVE &
LOCUST https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/ZoningMap.pdf)Housing(Comprehensive Plan, employment areas” community services and transportation, located to public must be strategically
density housing -“HighCHINDENGROVE &
LOCUST https://meridiancity.org/planning/files/ZoningMap.pdf identity?existing neighborhood support and protect the Does this development Action Item 05.01.02E)(Comprehensive Plan neighborhoods”
residential the identity of existing “Support and protect VICTORYGROVE &
PRESERVING CHARACTER)(Comprehensive Plan, . Yard and landscaped areas are reduced… family dwellings-multiand urban) to attached residential -loaded garages (auto-driveways and frontdominated
by family lots -small, narrower singleHousing types range from Lower lot coverageLarger setbacks and larger lotslandscapingExtensive vegetation and Higher lot coverageHigher land
use intensityReduced front and side setbacksframed by buildingsStreets and other public spaces Suburban CharacterUrban Character
A QUICK PEAK Does this protect neighborhood identity?
QUALITY OF LIFE.” (Action Item 5.01.00)Meridian residentsquality of life for all “Sustain, enhance, promote, and protect elements that contribute to livability and high
PRICING OUT THE LOCALS 21)-18-(Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing 02” actually pricing all of our local people outwe are “Our housing market right now … is kind of scary, because Steve
Arnold:
AFFORDABLE weblink.meridiancity.org costis 1.5 X average March Developer’s price/sq ft is $30,917 (realty.com)Avg household income (Trulia.com)$481,892 value in 83642: typical home
CurrentHOUSING
EXAMPLE BENEFIT?WHO DOES THIS LOT SIZEHALF1.5 X COST at suggested priceCompare with $525,000 $355,244$129/sq ft x 2,753 sq ft =
IT’S NOT ABOUT THE DENSITY 21)-18-& Zoning Commission Hearing 02“zoning is mainly … so that we can get this product type” (Planning 21)-18-(Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing 02an
open field but go down to those reduced dimensional setbacks” “zoning is mainly is so that we can create smaller lots and still have Planner Dodson and Applicant Steve Arnold:
REALLY, IT’S NOT ABOUT THE DENSITY 21)-23-03“We are not tied in any way to the design” (City Council Hearing 21)-23-“eliminated need for the PUD” (City Council Hearing 03Planner Dodson
and Applicant Steve Arnold:
Unified https://library.municode.com/id/meridian WHO BENEFITS MOST?smaller lots”that we can create “zoning is mainly is so 21)-18-Commission Hearing 02(Planning & Zoning setbacks”reduced
dimensional go down to those “Zoning is so that we can 2A-Code 11Development
IT’S NOT Future Land Use & Zoning 21)-18-02Commission Hearing (Planning & Zoning the zoning”the future land use, not “the density is tied to Planner Dodson:ABOUT DENSITY
Unified Development Code 11 devoted to the residential lots.easements, waterways, common spaces, and any other are not development divided by the total area, excluding streets, alleys,
. The ratio of the total number of dwelling units within a Density, net https://library.municode.com/id/meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances 1A-
Unified Development Code 11.not easements, waterways, common spaces, and any other are , excluding streets, alleys, divided by the total areadevelopment within a total number of dwelling
units . The ratio of the Density, net https://library.municode.com/id/meridian/codes/code_of_ordinances 1A-
HIGH
R 21)-23-(City Council Hearing 03“We are not tied in any way to the design” 8 Revision-
FINAL THOUGHTS
Thank you
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Gramercy Commons (H-2021-0022) by Intermountain
Pacific, LLC, Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 S. Wells Ave.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai Subdivision Development
Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the purpose of amending the concept plan to incorporate 164
age-restricted multi-family housing units.
Page 82
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : May 25 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 2
PROJECT NAME : Gramercy Commons ( H - 2021 - 0022 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item#2.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 25, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for Gramercy Commons (H-2021-0022) by Intermountain Pacific,
LLC, Located at 1873, 1925, and 2069 S.Wells Ave.
A. Request: Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai
Subdivision Development Agreement (Inst. #106141056) for the purpose of
amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age-restricted multi-family
housing units.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 83
Item#2.
STAFF REPORT C:�*%_
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 5/25/2021 Legend
DATE:
Project Location _ 1A
TO: Mayor& City CouncilC C-G
1
C C-G
FROAM: Joseph Dodson, Associate Planner �C-C-G R1
208-884-5533 �_� • '
C L-o
SUBJECT: H-2021-0022 -C� C-G
C-E
Gramercy Commons MDA R-8
R-40
RR TN-R
LOCATION: The site is located at 1873, 1925, and 1
2069 S. Wells Avenue, in the NW 1/4 ? RI �R-4 R-15
of the NE 1/4 of Section 20, Township R1
3N., Range lE. jUT �-
RUT ".Ca
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Development Agreement Modification to amend the Kenai Subdivision(aka Gramercy)Development
Agreement(Inst. #106141056) for the purpose of amending the concept plan to incorporate 164 age
restricted multi-family housing units,by Intermountain Pacific,LLC.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Applicant:
Mike Chidester,Intermountain Pacific,LLC—2541 E. Gala Street,Meridian, ID 83642
B. Owners:
St. Luke's Regional Medical Center,LTD.; The Dagney Group,LLC, and; Elton Family Fund 1,
LLC
C. Representative:
Same as Applicant
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
The Applicant proposes to amend the Kenai Subdivision Development Agreement(Inst. #106141056)
to amend the existing concept plan for the subject commercial lots and incorporate a new development
plan with a multi-level, 164 age-restricted unit multi-family development. See Section V for Staff s
recommended new DA provisions related to the proposed development.
History: The subject sites were annexed in 2006 under AZ-06-007 (Kenai Subdivision) and platted
under PP-06-019 and FP-06-048; the preliminary plat was approved with single-family detached,
single-family attached, multi-family, and commercial building lots. The subject development is
Page 1
Page 84
Item#2.
proposed across three(3)of the commercial properties that directly abut Mountain View High School—
in reality,the new development is proposed primarily on the two southern properties and only a drive-
aisle and parking are proposed to cross the property line of the northernmost site.
The original approvals required a cross-parking and cross-access agreement for all lots within the
subdivision; Staff understands this agreement to be recorded and in place for the subject sites. The
Applicant is proposing to amend the existing DA rather than enter into a completely new DA in order
to show good faith in the original agreement and to remain part of the overall Gramercy Development,
including maintaining the cross-access/cross-parking agreements.
Because the Development Agreement(DA) does not include multi-family in this location, an MDA is
required and is why the Applicant is requesting one. Concurrently, multi-family residential is a
conditional use within the C-G zoning district and the Applicant has applied for said permit which is
scheduled to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission on 6/03/2021, following the decision
by Council on this DA Modification. Staff will analyze the proposed development in more detail with
that report; Staff s review at this time shows the Applicant is compliant with or exceeds code
requirements in parking, open space and amenities, and dimensional standards for the proposed use
within the C-G zoning district.
Concept Plan: The existing concept plan within the DA only depicts the three subject lots as
commercial lots but does not depict any building footprints or any other development on the lots. The
only development depicted on the existing concept plan around these lots are the multi-use pathway
along the southern property line and the associated pathway landscaping. The pathway and required
landscaping are already installed in this area of the site. See Exhibit B for the existing concept plan
found within the original Development Agreement.
The new development plan depicts a singular, multi-level, age-restricted (three and four stories in
height) multi-family apartment complex that is wrapped around a parking structure—the parking
structure is proposed to contain a majority of the required parking spaces.Around the proposed building
the new development plan depicts a drive aisle that circles the entire structure and includes two areas
of surface level parking located on the east and north sides of the proposed building that contain the
remaining required parking. The drive aisle that circles the building is intended to be for Fire and EMS
but Staff is unaware if the drive aisle will be closed to resident traffic as well.In addition to the building,
the new development plan depicts multiple areas of open space and amenities located along each side
of the building to include: a pool and other amenities within a south courtyard;an entry plaza along the
east side of the building; fire-pits and lounging areas along the west, and; a community garden and
pickleball court along the north side of the building. All of the open space and amenity areas appear to
be connected with sidewalks and to be easily accessible by future residents.
The submitted elevations are for illustrative purposes and further refinement is necessary to comply
with the Architectural Standards Manual and other design elements of buildings already constructed
within the Gramercy development.
Access: The subject sites are internal to the Gramercy development and only abut a short segment of
public road along the southern boundary of the site (E. Goldstone Street); all of the sites are currently
undeveloped and do not have any accesses constructed on-site.However,to the north and east,adjacent
sites are developed and have constructed portions of drive aisles for their access to S. Wells Avenue.
As seen on the proposed development plan, the Applicant is proposing to connect to these three (3)
drive aisles to provide access to the apartment complex:one to the north connecting to an existing drive
aisle and commercial property and two to the east to connect to S. Wells Avenue.
ACHD does not act on Development Agreement Modifications but has provided a response letter with
the concurrent Conditional Use Permit application. In their response letter, ACHD has noted that no
improvements are required to any adjacent or nearby public roads and did not require a Traffic Impact
Page 2
Page 85
Item#2.
Study because the development is not estimated to generate enough peak hour vehicle trips, despite
proposing over 100 apartment units. Staff verified with ACHD that the estimated trip generation of the
development does not change whether the units are proposed as age-restricted or not. In addition,
ACHD has noted that all adjacent public roads are over-built and are capable of handling additional
vehicle trips without issue. Because of these reasons provided by ACHD Staff is supportive of the
proposed development in regards to its transportation impact.
Nonetheless, Staff understands the traffic along Overland Road(the closest arterial street to the north)
is worsening and any additional traffic will exacerbate the problem. The development would also have
easy vehicular access to the east to Eagle Road in three different places via commercial collector streets.
One of the commercial collectors also provides an additional access point to Overland Road which
should lessen the burden placed on the intersection of Overland Road and S.Wells Avenue.
In addition to vehicular access, the site abuts a segment of multi-use pathway that the Applicant is
proposing to connect to. This multi-use pathway runs along the southern project boundary and
continues both north and south. To the north, the pathway runs along S. Wells and connects to the
arterial sidewalks along Overland Road.As the pathway heads south, it runs along the Mountain View
High School property and then connects to a public park, Gordon Harris Park; the pathway then
continues into the neighboring single-family development further to the south.
Staff finds proposing an apartment complex in this area of the City in close proximity to commercial
development, child care/charter school, and established regional pedestrian facilities warrants a
Development Agreement Modification and support of the proposed development.
IV. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the modification to the DA(Inst. #106141056)as recommended by
Staff s analysis above and with the specific changes below.
V. EXHIBITS
A. Development Agreement provisions from the existing DA(Inst. #106141056):
Existing Provisions:
5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY:
5.1. "Owner/Developer" shall develop the "Property' in accordance with the
following special conditions:
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT(AZ 06-021)KENAI SUBDIVISION
PAGE 3 OF 1 I
Page 3
Page 86
Item#2.
1. All future uses shall not involve uses,activities,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.
2. That all future development of the subj ectproperty shall be consistent
with the owner/developer's conceptual plan unless otherwise
modified by other provisions of the Development Agreement.
3. That all future development of the subject property shall be
constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect
at the time of development.
4. That all future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District
Regulations and Allowed Uses contained in the Unified Development
Code(UDC),in effect at the time of development.
5. That the ownerldeveloper will be responsible for all costs associated
with the sewer and water service extension.
6. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this
project will have to be removed from their domestic service,per City
Ordinance Section 5-7-517,when services are available from the City
of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation.
7. That development of the residential and commercial lots,along with
the orientation and relationship to the street,particularly the auto
court,shall comply substantially with the submitted sample elevations
and materials list in Exhibit A of the staff report for the hearing date
of June 27,2006.
8. That prior to the issuance of any certificate of zoning compliance all
landscaping shall be constructed along the southern and northern
property boundaries to the point of connection with adjoining
projects. The commercial/office lots should include either a
permanent easement or be redesigned to include landscaping in
common lots along Overland Road
9. That the maximum square footage of one single building without
design review shall be 60,000 square feet or a maximum of 40'in
height.
10. That the owner/developer shall coordinate with the Meridian Parks
Department and Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to define the
location of the multiuse pathway, bridge maintenance, and
landscaping along the Ridenbaugh Canal and along the western
property boundary to the area where the proposed R-15 zone
transitions to the C-G zone. The pathway shall then connect to the
proposed detached sidewalks along S. Kenai Way and continue
internally through the site to connect with E.Overland Road.
11. That the owner/developer shall comply with all design and
maintenance standards as defined by UDC 11-3A-8 unless
specifically waived by the Meridian City Council.
12. That the owner/developer shall coordinate with the Meridian Parks
Department the transfer by dedication of the 2,035 acre addition to
Kiwanis Park. The owner/developer shall also be responsible for all
costs of dedication, construction, landscaping, and pathway
construction as agreed upon.
Page 4
Page 87
Item#2.
Staff s Recommended Changes:
Strike 5.1.9—Current development code requires Administrative Design Review for new multi-
family residential and new commercial so it is not necessary to dictate other parameters.
Staff does not recommend any other changes to the existing provisions for this site as this
DA and these provisions encompass a much larger area than the three subject sites.
Add Provision: "Future development of the proposed age restricted multi-family development on
the subject C-G zoned properties shall be substantially consistent with the approved site plan,unit
count, open space and amenities, and future approved elevations(the submitted elevations are not
approved; future elevations will be reviewed via Administrative Design Review with a future
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for the overall site development)."
Add provision: "The multi-family units within this project shall be age-restricted to 55 years and
older,per the Applicant's proposal."
Add provision: "Applicant shall connect to the regional pathway system along the southern
property boundary by constructing at least one(1)pedestrian crosswalk across the drive aisle with
either stamped concrete,brick pavers, or similar to clearly delineate the pedestrian connection to
the pathway system."
Add provision: "Future development of northernmost property(1873 S. Wells Avenue; Parcel#
R3238510240) shall NOT include any multi-family development and shall be limited to
commercial uses(including vertically integrated development)unless a future Rezone application
is applied for to allow single-family dwellings. The concept plan for these three parcels shall be
updated when Parcel R3238510240 develops in the future."
Add provision: "Prior to Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval, a Property Boundary
Adjustment shall be obtained by the Applicant to reconfigure the lots consistent with the
proposed site plan."
Page 5
Page 88
B. Existing DA Concept Plan(Preliminary Plat):
CITY Of MIZRI DEAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFJr REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE or.6/2712006
Exhibit Al: Preliminary Plat dated Alar-sh W Revised June 27,2006 POOR COPY
Subject
Sites
A,
14 0.
----------- -il. ......
-----------------
leiIg 74
'Lin.
Subaivision
Exhibit A Page I
Page 6
Item#2.
C. Proposed Development Plans:
m
a
o en z
3 Z p
3 w
� x �
- o —
zo � z
n
3
A
507 32'
�' ..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—..—. .. ..............—
Fire Department Access
o � o
0
8 G1
_ LJ_LJ—L�L�W o
o III ��7�I���
o — I„I II
— Aar ssor��
z � I
50735,
0
0
s weosA—
iD
0
A -
9
— n
0
a
a
Go
Page 7
Page 90
Item#2.
SECTION 05 CONTEXTVIEW
nn a;a
scnmim
_ Y,
SECTION 07 I LANDSCAPE PLAT
10 ,� :G,
- A � �`I•- All. PROTECT INFORMATION
�� I Itl � .. -• ����' na�•nno[rr3 vtiinlfnnins,cnafag to"N bga,or
I�if —.. �. I .riai.gtrw..it.trm[.kagrr.r llunairchu een LL.,u[a.
an Y ee[PvRpi:Ala
1'. �T nCcuedt[pie FJ V W po.imctur iar.O:[ unp:io
qw
Will
�' M1v mbrol oarAingea.lsaM F«cmlcfPa•Firgaiw niti
i L[,iwrwl la-�Iscayry-:71 wrLuagls Ix�:b abigirc.irul
rc..Fa:m rwirs.••o—.[h-Sl�a�h hNwwn,lan:vyng
f
�- :yj'v�]� ,_^�4 'oq�numl;prol rr�ana trpa ipa�c:m�SJ h¢a}py$PPclas
bstlrnlal k;ld 0
R PrV}�pGrr p � ..
Y
i
® a• bT
,,aw rry. .�' .,.` ®ndnror�enro�A>�PR,wW,ma
6nmerq Lanncis 'Mid..Iv CaraNienaluc R'mJ[Applkdkn P325.mQ1 GGLo
Page 8
Page 91
Item#2.
D. Conceptual Building Elevations: (NOT APPROVED)
SECTION u4 I ELEVATIONS
i- .l„1 llil
EASr E LE VATION
i.
SOUTH ELEVATION
U•-CW I+4eF•Iu'�:n4 032S. 1 GOLD
SECTION 04 I ELEVATIONS
wnrl,�
F�cm
:.o9dliv
T 1 Ll _II I a III
m � �. -T� -1 a A 11 4 1 6 6
Tr
WEST ELEVATION
d [ = E1 l! II IIII I111 II �{,,.
Il Il ! [ llil ! I ;
NORTH ELEVATION
GGLO
Page 9
Page 92
Item#2.
SECT ION 06 1 P gRS PECTIVE V IEWS
r -
0�a..I o U.M ApL&�IW.".Ml GGLO
SECT ION 06 1 P ER$PECTIV E vIeWs
1
a�.RrCw�w I o U.M ApL&�IW.".Ml GGLO
Page 10
Page 93
Applicant Presentation
AGREEMENT
�.DEVELOPMENT
MODIFICATION
........................................
.............. ..............
Meridian City Council
05.25.2021
GGLO
dd
}
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT I GGLO
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
"Commercial Land Uses This designation will provide a full range of commercial uses to serve area residents and
visitors. Desired uses may include retail, restaurants, personal and professional services, and office uses, as
well as appropriate public and quasi-public uses. Multi-family residential may be allowed in some
cases, but should be careful to promote a high quality of life through thoughtful site design,
connectivity, and amenities. Sample zoning include: C-N, C-Cl and C-G. "
-City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan
r
I
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 G= 3
GRAMERCY DISTRICT LIVE WORK SHOP DIRECTORY NEWS & EVENT$ CONTACT
THE GRAMERCY
EXPERIENCE
Here. Domes, workplaces, and shopp-3 N blend seamlessly into an urban-Inspired
corn muni Ly. wily Located in the center of the Treasure Valtey. everything is vA Lhi n a
short via Lk i n this ti ghtfu ay designed comet un , made to Live. work, a nd shop with
ea and comfort.
LIVE WORK SHOP
11,,csinncximl, r(�, r F:(irl ur IL rall, JXx:13rrri a uxn r1 {�rrrwrcyr ux�Illy IiXiiri H in I I m!rxr&A w Ur mi F nkc y RIE�Fx.l��r,11-0 CXWfL �d �'q;7nxT I;x Iv 'zX1 lL
-ijr2mKiv Pwlf sEa ffiem hr DumFie--a awise trdleV w6-!buod-to-Eurt Cr WPei-zhip ❑pparlinbt s taw tDr anV waL ijInLrrg-ar enbNW—ment husrr*s=- E'a
qN4- jun urn. bm -& bmIL9* pTLLs-:�uni k and rr1Fj0icoL o?ice Taw5 4;4rrQllrr-kwA4d U' i;w6ikllfon4s4 QummL4n1:V.
� Pryi
F t F A R K P I A z 1%
tr .. . .. • . • • • •
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT I WALKABILITY + CONNECTIVITY
3 R Lam.- NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
'" ' +-i` �•- - i - The Site-in its prominent location within:the Activity Center-
. _ . ' - - * ,.�• -
- • offers many opportu nit les to advance the mixed-use goals for
the area outlined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and the
r ■ �• I,irameF[y District,
i A fever questions we asked ourselves as wa be-gan to study this at
+ + n _ +' r'{ the-neighborhoodscale;
• i How car:design of the new development preserve and enhance
this mixed use Iocatlon,frlendky neightaorhood c haracter, and
r ■
_ neighborhood diversity?
. ,'. - - ` How car+design of the new development be a catalyst in
- E. Overland Rd. anhancing Gramercy as a beautffvi, comfortable,and activated
ice:• -C WM4 � *r
" � 1' walkable dl5trlct7
Tit
' ; .� �" "' _' !r,, Ho c.an design of the new development, by example,define
ipp
growth as positive change, add to Gramercy'Saxisting character.ot ItA., . .= and perpetuate Intergenerational activity in the neighborhood
" � . +. * I i 1 over tune?
— * do UPP
qPA I
5 — i+ -
jr
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Lb
.#.Ifs fls.w �4h►J,Fs.►/_ .r+d lila I
Retail/Service
I +tire Food/Coffee
1 Grocery
I�
1 aii C~vic,/Educatlorial Institution
1 i 1
� Officelhank
Healkh&Wellness
M a k•, * �h - .
ly
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLO 5
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT VICINITY
r* Retail& Se;vicp , r • F
ip
m Q 40
ip
46P lip
# 0
0111,
QiflCe � }
GRAMERCY 9A �P "-"
DISTRICT
v, school art+vitaes
in t-Teneral i cwaf interaebon Dt-'
ountaln vt&UY
�
- � # Park I -
110
r
JS w
• ! "� / r ■
• f + 4t
GQfdOt1 Harris Park .. : .� �• �
VICINITY MAP 40L
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLO 6
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT STRUCTURED PARKING
� `4
:`Pi F.
I � 1
Parking Garage
4 Levels
larking —
220 spaces
Garage � 1 i°fo of site area
F H F
Site I 4
Surface Parking }ip ,.}F a c
224 spaces R r
33%of site area +r
,Surface r --
Parking
f [ N J
f�
site
Cltta�l L�
STRUCTURED VS SURFACE PARKING
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 GGLO 7
PROJECT CONCEPT I GGLO
' WA
"Multi family residential may be allowed in some cases but should be careful to promote a high
quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities.
-City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan
Mountain View High School
r
rlti ng Garage
IWIA
s ;` • — F` Reside ildin
Fire Department Access
South Courtyard Entry Plaza
Amenity Building �
O�
9
soy � The Goddard
School of Meridian
LOOKING NW ' F
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 GGLO 9
"Multi family residential may be allowed in some cases but should be careful to promote a high
quality of life through thoughtful site design, connectivity, and amenities.
-City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan
The Goddard
JL
School of Meridian
1 � Parking Garage
Residential Building
South Courtyard
Sunset Terrace � f
Amenity Building
4
Fire Department Access -
T S•,4 cco
laQf
Mountain View High School
f
LOOKING NE
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 ,GGLO 10
PROJECT CONCEPT SITE PLAN
PROJECT DATA
d Current&Proposed Zone: C-G
k Zane,C•G zone:C-G
I � Lkse;Vacant .Ilse:Office .
i PARKING
� I �
Refuse CoMetion Zane ( Required:
2 Bedroom(2�unit): 112
Access Drlve
1 B--di-mm(1-Slunit), 162
Guest Parking Future Re'quirement): 1
r
Total Parking Required: 290
r
Trash Provided:
u compact4F roam k Zone:C-G
c Use:Vacant Garage Jstand�rd); 212
I ; CJ
E I
Garage{accegs i b!ej' 8
� a
I � 01 ..I Pe-rkingGarage SurFace{s#artdard}= 69
Zone- R-4 I �;� �1� 1 Surface{aceessiblel; 3
1.1se;MDUri to i n Vi Nw I 9
Total Parking Provided; 291
High schw]
p Access DrNe
a 0
Bicycle Parkrng(publId Bicycle Parking:
I . I '
Required: 12
I '
4 Provided: 12
r (Additional secure bike parking to be provided, size TBDj
Zone;C-G
i — We-The Goddard
I = I $Ch�41 of�Nerid�an r - Building Size; 175,087 sq ft
...... lbI h ,
Garage Size: 112,516 sq ft
A me ruts es Bldf
I k Ton Gross Building A eea: 287r6G3 sq ft
' Fire DepartmentAccess �-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _
_ t Y C-[tt5ize: 211,702sgft
(resldents� E. Goldstone 5t,
Zone: R-15 111■1���
SITE PLAN Use. Resin Zone: 1N R —• �j" �0' t o o'
(D
5cAir i - iw Use-Residential
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 105.25.2021 WLQ ii
PROJECT CONCEPT AMENITIES
� ��I!J r �� 1W. 1,Q411111Community Garden A Recreation EXTERIOR A E fV I I ILS
.. GI,000',Ij tC
Naliw•i,l,iiiling dcnwmtratbn gacdan
�outdoor games tour# Required;
Common Oppri Spider 41 r000%%ft
Privai-P Open Sp ce 13,120 sq ft
Prmdded;
Common Op.-p Space 42,OW sq ft
Private Open Space(privaetr patios&balconies) 13,120 i,q It
TOM 55,120 sq ft
At
a01
ry F�
I
Sunset Terrace Louth Courtyard Eflitry+Plaza
9,000 sq fl 13,000 6q R 9.000 sc;it
Rre pits, BDOs,gathrring,-S bunging areas Lap&rcci'eatiorml pool,hot tub,cabarm.grilllnq area,Iounpesr outdoor QemM Cat t:WM.shade"Or lawn area,public art, pip-UP dVVantS
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 ILO 12
PROJECT CONCEPT METHODOLOGY
- Gramercy+Brick base along East and North Elevations
GramercyLnr.k-
�,.► ` I hp it#■ �• Oil #
l rr I�l I I M. i.
r
010
loin
M
Stucco: Stucco accents along the West facade
M
"Heger homes,workplaces,acid shopping blend seamlessly into an urba4irirt5p4red community.° Lap 5idh 1q Lap siding wrapping residential upper floors
Shop
Work
Live
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLO �3
PROJECT CONCEPT METHODOLOGY
EAST SIDE.,
• Public _
_ Internal to Gramercy District ..
Comm rcial f Office facing
— — d Iii�1
SIZE.
WEST SIDE;
- -- * Climate a:nd Sun exposure
& Vlem
—V; �} � � + School 1 Residential cwtoxt '
4 IA 1r r r
F'
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 GGLO �4
VC
fflP
r�
Af
* � c *.
IN-
44-
APL.
Alb
Jlisp
ir
-
' _ 'fig• �,
oil' �7 i '�aY y �i • ■ .
�A�
may— •k • f
fooda
low 4L
'
' - - -. :ram + +�• ti �� •�
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 105.25.2021 WLO is
i
l
. , ,,� - ■rl�. ■��i � ewe oom
TIT
--
• ''1�'� tit -�`.,-. .I�� - ._
r
9�
i
M �
Development Agree •• • HearingMe rid i an City Counci1105.25.2021
PROJECT CONCEPT I ELEVATIONS
MeW Noel
Lap Siding
Brick
F =1 ei. rya'-n-
'
� E
EAST ELEVATION
Textured Concrete
Metal Nrpgl
Lap Siding
Brick
Tfl OUT
]
TT C7 r p f F tl
Amenity Building
SOUTH ELEVATION
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLQ 18
PROJECT CONCEPT I ELEVATIONS
Meta Panel
Stucco
Lap SidIng
TF i I U a '77 1, 1
EST ELEVATION
Metal Panel
Lap$lding
Brick
e
H l- P. r rr [I
_ R a
NORTH ELEVATION _
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLO 19
. ..... ....
Lf
3 I
GGLO F 4
I�
SEATTLE `
r
1301 First Avonue,Suite 301 # `
Seattle,WA 98101 }`-�+ I A 1
206.467.5 928
LOS ANGELES
4553 Glencoe Avenue,Suite 390
Marina Del Icy,CA 90292
310.751.5688
BOISE
1199 Shoreline Drive, Suite 290
Boi se, I D 83702
208.953.7227
ggJo.cam
LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION
PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
• Property previously annexed as part of Kenai Subdivision ( now Gramercy) and
subject to Instrument No. 106141056 (the "DA" )
• Property is, accordingly, already annexed and has a C-G zone
• Two applications required :
• Modification of the DA to permit multi-family in this area (Council decision )
• Conditional use permit for multi-family in a CG zone ( PZ decision )
Development Agreement Modification Hearing IMe rid ian City Council1o5.z5.aon GGLp 19
LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION
SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW
• Well developed application that meets or exceeds requirements for parking, open
space, amenities, and dimensional standards for C-G district
• Agencies have indicated no issues
• ACHD review shows no improvements to area roadways required
Development Agreement Modification Hearing I Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 GGLO 19
LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION
RESPONSES TO STAFF CONDITIONS
TRFEIECF.ND AIL
'
�� SLR 7k1�4l�
w
Residential Building
' &Parking Garage
dr
JF
Amenities1luilding
LANDSCAPE PLAN _ :-
sc+r<�--eo
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 WLO ig
LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION
RESPONSES TO STAFF CONDITIONS
Lod 1 Block 3 I `
Gmmescy Subdivision Na.1 f
IClriginal Lot: 92,4143q ft 1`2.12ac} I
_ Southern Parking(yell ow): 15.524 sq{t(0.38&0 _
IRemaining Parcs4(blue): 75.990 sq ft(1.74 ac}
Inagreement
with terms and .
conditions of the staff report
with one clarification to the fourth added provision
r
e
1 1
M
Development Agreement Modification Hearing Meridian City Council 1 05.25.2021 GGLO 19
LEGAL STANDARDS AND DISCUSSION
RESPONSES TO STAFF CONDITIONS
"Future development of the northernmost property (1873 S. Wells Avenue; Parcel #
R3238510240) shall NOT include any multi family development and shall be limited
to commercial uses (including vertically integrated development) unless a future
e application is amnliad made to allow ��� ry '� {Q �^ i'1A �'IA40%A VV I I % %A "�„�c residential
development. The foregoing shall not preclude joint use facilities, including parking
areas, to be used by the subject property and Parcel R3238510240. An updated
concept plan for r =o►r %rtiOA ;l Il c,Q 10dA %QA td O Parcel R3238510240
maybe required when it develops if such proposal is inconsistent with existing
approvals. "
Development Agreement Modification Hearing IMe rid ian City Council1o5.z5.aon GGLp 19
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason &Associates,
Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district commensurate
with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an
approximate 10,000-square-foot office building in lieu of residential development.
B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to replace the existing agreement (Inst.
#111024535) and enter into a new agreement to develop the site consistent with the proposed
development plan.
Page 94
Item#3.
E IDIAN:-�-
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Joseph Dodson Meeting Date: May 25, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for 3175 N. Ten Mile (H-2020-0122) by Mason &Associates,
Located at 3175 N. Ten Mile Rd.
A. Request: Rezone of a 1.16-acre property from R-4 to the L-0 zoning district
commensurate with a provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for
the purpose of constructing an approximate 10,000 square-foot office
building in lieu of residential development.
B. Request: Development Agreement Modification to replace the existing
agreement (Inst. #111024535) and enter into a new agreement to develop
the site consistent with the proposed development plan.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 95
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : May 25, 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 3
PROJECT NAME : 3175 N . Ten Mile ( W202M122 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Item#3.
STAFF REPORT C:�*%-
W IDIAN --
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HEARING 5/25/2021 Legend
DATE: -- ® ® 0
Project Location '
TO: Mayor&City Council
a
FROM: Joe Dodson,Associate Planner " -:--___
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2020-0122 6
3175 N. Ten Mile Rezone
LOCATION: The site is located at 3175 N. Ten Mile ® EL
Road,the southwest corner of the Ten
Mile and Ustick Road intersection, in the
NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 3, 5.1
Township 3N.,Range 1 W.
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Request to rezone a 1.16 acre property from R-4 to the L-O zoning district commensurate with a
provision within the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of constructing an approximate
10,000 square foot office building in lieu of residential development and a Development Agreement
Modification to replace the existing agreement(Inst. #111024535)and enter into a new agreement to
develop the site consistent with the proposed development plan,by Mason&Associates.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 1.16
Future Land Use Designation Medium Density Residential(3-8 du/ac)
Existing Land Use(s) Vacant land
Proposed Land Use(s) Commercial—Office
Lots(#and type;bldg./common) One(1)building lot
Phasing Plan(#of phases) Proposed as one phase
Neighborhood meeting date;#of October 7,2020—1 attendee and 1 letter received
attendees:
History(previous approvals) AZ-10-005 (ACHD Ten Mile);DA Inst.#111024535
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
Page 1
Page 96
Item#3.
Description Details Page
• Requires ACHD Commission No
Action es/no
Access(Arterial/Collectors/State Two accesses are proposed,both to the adjacent Arterial
Hwy/Local)(Existing and Streets—Access on Ustick is limited to a Right-in only by
Proposed) ACHD;Access to Ten Mile is proposed as a right-in/right-
out access.
Stub Street/Interconnectivity/Cross No stub street connections are available due to site location
Access and existing development. Cross-access is not feasible or
proposed.
Existing Road Network Yes
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ Existing sidewalk;buffer is not properly vegetated currently
Buffers
Proposed Road Improvements No road improvements are proposed or required.
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 0.5 miles from Fire Station#2
• Fire Response Time This project lies within the Meridian Fire response time goal
of 5 minutes.
• Accessibility Proposed project meets all required access,road widths,and
turnarounds.If right-in only access is removed,Fire desires it
to become an emergency-only access.
Police Service
• Concerns None
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Services N/A
• Sewer Shed Ten Mile Trunkshed
• Estimated Project Sewer See application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining Balance 14.08
• Project Consistent with WW Yes
Master Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •Flow is committed
• Services are installed to site from W.Niemann Drive from
the West.
Water
• Distance to Services 0'
• Pressure Zone 2
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
• Water Quality Concerns None
• Project Consistent with Water Yes
Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •There is no water infrastructure shown in this application.
•There are two existing water stubs:one to the north off of
Ustick;and one to the east off of Ten Mile.Any stub that is
not used is required to be abandoned.
Page 2
Page 97
1 1 1
f � 111111 ��■ - a.��- � :_, `-�''
r
CyYl31_ry17 yl�■■1� w 1 \
mill
mill
uAS,:J-U�1AS � ■ 1■r■r` �1' \ _fir � �-
USTICK - ■■■■■n " USTIC•� -�
1■■■■■■r.■■r - . e - 1
monsm—
■1■■■■■■r —� ■■■.� ■■■ w
■■■■ ■■■■
no ' a
■■■If `��■■--.■ ■■■■■■■ .
� ■ ■■ ■ter • / w r \ •y•_ .',.
- • - • ■ , - • - • �11111 �1■1111
�w! �I w��11„■:1111■111■
� 11 1111■�
AIII � �111■ n■nuN
■■ -I■■■■1 I■:1 iiii■we 1 M u
`�■1■11■1■11■■i ,, 1■ �mill
�r■■111■111■i � 1 ununnr+,l �♦
' Iw 111■111 ■ ' � I�
J■�I ■■■■■ ►� , i■iiiiiii■� �1 e�
■■■■■ ■■IA II ■■■ ■ ■11 unoilr rnu�r,USTIC-� pn n �•11 m ■
�■ ��I Y unnli■ r■n■.r. �' �i io o■ �
■ 1!;' A■ ■■ {� nn ■ �J ■ o■ Oyu 1 l ■
1??Il■■ ■■ ■�1■■■ ■nun : 0.4i■■ • m A:-"n ■•y..
■■■I i ■�■ ■■■�i. ■1 ■rr ■■11 �i■■i■■ .■I::i q■■ ■
■■ ■■■ ■■■.! u■ .unn Iin■ rr MEN
mill
� Wj ■■■r ■� r11nnnuq1■ pfi M■■
�j�n■n■_iiii■A .�.w 11■
■■■ �■ ■ 7� ■ ■■■■■■■■ :C::n=__= ■mii11■■in a
ONE M i �iiiii ■
MENEM
■■ ads_,.:RI�qq ■ �-■ w■■•iiii�y + ■■■u �■.
�■■�, UJ�UQ ■■■■■ ■■■1 ■� �� rn■i?•u■ri■ ::�nn11 .. u■
�■■. ■■■■■ ■■■■■_ t !�■`lnnm nu nuniq m
��i ��i•i , ■1■■■■■■■■■ s • ! �iA••:� :II■iiii 1�'. • r■�■
i � _
Item#3.
IV. NOTICING
Planning&Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Newspaper Notification 3/12/2021 5/7/2021
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 500 feet 3/9/2021 5/4/2021
Site Posting 3/20/2021 5/7/2021
Nextdoor posting 3/9/2021 5/3/2021
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation(https:llwww.meridianciu.or /e compplan)
Medium Density Residential(MDR)—This designation allows for dwelling units at gross
densities of three to eight dwelling units per acre. Density bonuses may be considered with the
provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land dedicated for public
services.
The subject site is somewhat of a residentially zoned outparcel due to the fact it located on a hard
corner of two arterial streets and has no local street access to be utilized. The Meridian
Comprehensive Plan has a provision to allow properties less than two acres in size(subject site
is 1.16 acres) that have the access constraints to request a Rezone from a residential district to
the Limited Office (L-O) district. The existing site constraints and this provision of the
comprehensive plan are the reasons for the Rezone request.
The L-O zoning district and office uses are not inherently allowed or compatible within the MDR
future land use designation. However, with the allowed provision, office uses may occur with
added requirements that deal with mitigating any noxious uses or incompatibilities of having an
office near single-family residential. The Applicant has submitted a site plan that shows
compliance with all dimensional standards for a commercial development and within the L-O
zoning district. With the proposed site plan and proposed use of a dental office (a principally
permitted use within the L-O zoning district)Staff finds the proposed Rezone and use to be
generally consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan.
Part of the site design shows a landscape buffer adjacent to the abutting residential which is a
requirement of the existing Development Agreement(DA)for the subject site. This DA was
required when the property was annexed into the City for ACHD in 2010.As Staff analyzed the
subject application and site history, Staff realized that a Development Agreement Modification is
also required due to the original DA being for a residential development and not a commercial
development. Therefore, the proposed Rezone and office use are not generally consistent with the
existing DA. DA Modifications only require Council action so,following the Commission hearing
the Staff recommends the Applicant submit a DA Modification application to run concurrently
with this Rezone application for the purpose of entering into a new DA, subject to proposed
development plan and new DA provisions in Section VULA below.
The Applicant has submitted a concurrent DA Modification application since being heard at the
Planning and Zoning Commission hearing; as noted above, the new DA provisions are provided
below in Section VIII.A1.
Stafffinds the proposed project and site design to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 4
Page 99
Item#3.
B. Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.or /g compplan):
The applicable Comprehensive Plan policies are cited below with Staff analysis in italics.
"Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices" (3.07.01A). The
proposed commercial project sets the building as far away from the existing residential as is
physically possible. In addition, the Applicant is showing the required landscape buffer adjacent
to the existing homes to the south and west. Because of the proposed layout and landscape
buffering, the proposed building and use should be compatible with the surrounding residential
uses, especially after Staffs recommended revisions discussed in later sections regarding the
fencing and landscape buffer width.
"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 the existing stubs abutting the site,per Public Works comments. This
project also lies within the Fire Department response time goal by being within half a mile of a
Fire Station. School capacity is not a factor in a commercial development. A project of this small
size should not impact the abutting transportation corridors but the Applicant's proposal to
utilize an entrance that is part of a turn-lane for the main intersection is not supported by code.
Staff finds that the existing development of the immediate area and proposed use create
conditions for adequate levels of service to and for this proposed project.
"Support the inclusion of small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential
developments as part of the development plan,where appropriate."(3.06.02A). The proposed use
directly abuts residential homes but has no shared accesses with these homes. However, there is
easy pedestrian access to the proposed dental office from the adjacent subdivisions via the local
and arterial sidewalks. Locating a neighborhood commercial use like that of a dental office near
residential with easy pedestrian and vehicle access meets the intent of this comprehensive plan
policy.
"Require appropriate building design, and landscaping elements to buffer, screen,beautify, and
integrate commercial,multifamily, and parking lots into existing neighborhoods."(5.01.02D).
With the proposed building elevations showing a 22'high building at its maximum and the
required landscape buffer to the adjacent residential uses, the proposed use should be integrated
with the existing neighborhood.
"Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote
neighborhood connectivity."(2.02.01D).Proposed project is maintaining the existing detached
sidewalks along Ustick and Ten Mile and shows sidewalk connections from building entrance to
the arterial sidewalks. The proposed pedestrian accesses should be adequate for the proposed
use.
"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
a commercial development that places the building the furthest away from the residential it can
be and proposes a 20 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to the homes. The site design and
landscaping should provide for a use that is complementary to the existing homes.
Staff finds this development to be generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in order
support the proposed office use.
Page 5
Page 100
Item#3.
C. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are no existing structures on site. Subject site has two water stubs to the property and a
sewer service line stubbed to it from the west through a driveway located on an adjacent City
owned property.No other site improvements are known at this time.
D. Building Elevations(UDC 11-3A-19 I Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted conceptual building elevations of the proposed single-story commercial
building. The submitted elevations show a single story building approximately 22' to top of plate
in the area of the building that directly abuts the intersection; this area is meant to hold the corner
of this intersection. The remaining portions of the building are approximately 17.5' in height.
Overall the building is shown with varying parapet heights, a stone material banding along the
bottom of the building,horizontal wall modulation, and a main field material that appears to be
stucco. The south facing elevation also shows awnings and windows nearly the length of the
building lending itself to a modern storefront feel.
New commercial buildings require Administrative Design Review prior to building permit
submittal so Staff will perform a more complete analysis of the proposed elevations at the time
of that application submittal. Staff recommends the north facing elevation incorporate an
additional field material to satisfy one or more of the architectural standards.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed use is a dental office within a proposed commercial building approximately 10,000
square feet in size. This use is a permitted use within the requested L-O zoning district per UDC
Table 11-2B-2.
The existing DA provision that requires a 20'landscape buffer adjacent to the three existing
residences to the south and west. The submitted site plan shows this buffer with adequate
landscaping and therefore compliance with this provision.A number of the parking spaces are
facing directly towards one of the homes and there is an existing wood fence located along the
shared property lines. Because the proposed use would have more vehicular traffic than
residential, Staff finds that the proposed landscaping and existing wood fencing may not be
enough screening to mitigate light and noise pollution from the proposed dental office and
parking lot. City of Meridian does not allow double fencing so if any solid fencing were to be
required it would have to replace the existing fencing and may require this Applicant work with
the adjacent homeowner if the fence is not owned by this land owner, convoluting the process and
end result. The Applicant should work with the adjacent homeowners to replace the wood fencing
with privacy vinyl fencing.
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The proposed site plan shows compliance with all UDC dimensional standards per the submitted
plan for the proposed L-O zoning district as outlined in UDC Table 11-213-3.
The submitted site plan shows parking space at the required 19'depth and 9'width with all drive
aisles being at least 25'wide to accommodate two-way traffic and adequate space for emergency
services. In addition, the main drive aisle in the center of the site is at least 41'wide which is well
beyond the required width.
As noted above, the Applicant is showing the DA required 20'landscape buffer but Staff believes
there is a better use of the site area when the drive aisle width is also considered. For example, to
further mitigate any issues with the proposed office use and parking spaces abutting the
residential homes, the Applicant could widen the landscape buffer that abuts 3079 N. Firelight
Place (the home at the southwest corner of the site). The Applicant could widen this buffer to 30'
Page 6
Page 101
Item#3.
wide and pull the proposed parking spaces even further from the fence. Increasing the buffer
width and therefore requiring additional landscaping is a better alternative to replacing the
existing fencing. Staff recommends that a wider landscape buffer be required to help minimize
noise and light pollution.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4):
Access to the site is proposed via two connections to the adjacent arterials—one right-in only
access is proposed to Ustick and one right-in/right-out access is proposed to Ten Mile. The
proposed access to Ustick does not meet ACHD policies but was a negotiated access at the time
the property sold. The proposed access to Ten Mile does meet ACHD policy and is recommended
for approval by ACHD within their staff report. See their report in Section VIII.D for more
detailed information on the ACHD site specific conditions of approval.
Staff supports the proposed and limited access to Ten Mile Road commensurate with the
approval from ACHD. In addition to the access to Ustick not meeting ACHD policy, the City
can restrict access for the development further despite ACHD previously granting the access
with the sale of the property. The proposed access to Ustick is proposed as an entrance only
into site but there would be no true way to restrict vehicles from utilizing it as an exit as well.
In addition, this access point is directly within a right-hand turn lane on Ustick which furthers
the safety issues associated with this access point. Therefore, through UDC 11-3A-3,Staff
recommends the proposed Ustick access not be approved and instead utilize it as an emergency
only access barricaded with knockdown bollards, to be approved by Meridian Fire.
H. Parking(UDC 11-3C):
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table I I-
3C-6B for nonresidential uses. Commercial uses require 1 space for every 500 square feet of
gross floor area.
The Applicant's submitted site plan shows a total of 42 parking spaces which exceeds the 20
spaces that are required at a minimum for the proposed building size of approximately 10,000
square feet.
I. Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
5-foot wide detached sidewalks are existing along both arterial streets(Ustick and Ten Mile)in
accord with UDC 11-3A-17 and ACHD standards.No changes to these sidewalks are required or
proposed. The Applicant is also showing sidewalk connections from the front of the building to
the arterial sidewalks, as required by code.
Stafffinds the existing and proposed sidewalks meet UDC requirements.
J. Landscaping(UDC 11-3B):
The Applicant is proposing landscaping regulated by three code sections due to their locations,
Buffers Along Streets, Parking Lot Landscaping, and Landscape Buffers to Adjoining Uses (UDC
11-3B-7, 11-3B-8,& 11-3B-9,respectively).
The Applicant is proposing a 20'landscape buffer to the abutting residential uses as required by
the existing Development Agreement. However, the requested L-O zoning district also requires
this buffer per the dimensional standards of the zone.As noted in Section V.F, Staff recommends
this buffer be enlarged to 30'to place the proposed parking spaces further away from the
residences. The proposed parking lot landscaping appears to meet UDC requirements as outlined
in UDC 11-3B-8. The submitted site plan does not show landscaping between the existing
detached sidewalk and back of curb. This area of the site is also required to be landscaped in
Page 7
Page 102
Item#3.
accord with UDC 11-3B-7. Staff is recommending a condition of approval to correct this with the
CZC submittal.
K. Pressurized Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-I5):
The Applicant is required to provide a pressurized irrigation system for the required landscape
buffers in accord with 11-3A-15. This irrigation will provide for healthier and sustained
landscaping that is an integral buffer between the proposed use and the existing residences.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the requested Rezone and Development Agreement Modification
per the recommended DA provisions in Section VII and the Findings in Section IX of this staff
report.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard these items on April 1,2021. At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subject Rezone request.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing_
a. In favor: William Mason,Mason&Associates—Applicant Representative; Stephen
Rankin,Neighbor,
b. In opposition:None
C. Commenting: William Mason; Stephen Rankin.
d. Written testimony: One (1)piece-discussing potential of noise and light pollution to
adjacent residential; mention of a desire to require the Applicant replace the existing
wood fence with an 8-foot CMU block wall.
e. Staff presenting,application: Joseph Dodson,Associate Planner
f. Other Staff commenting on application:None
2. Key issue(s) public testimony
a. Concern over the location of the access to Ten Mile being too close to the existing
residence to the south.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Fire access concerns, if any,but specifically to the recommended reduction in drive aisle
width to approximately
The kind of uses that could reside within building beyond a dentist office;
Different options of mitigating noise and light beyond wideningtquired landscape
buffers adjacent to residential;
4. Commission changes)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
5. Outstandin issue(s)ssue(s)for City Council:
a. None
B. City Council:
To be heard at future date.
Page 8
Page 103
Item#3.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Rezone Exhibit and Legal Description
Ma_5c)n Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
924 V St.So.Nampa,ID 83651
A'5.5 Ph(208)454-0256 Fax(208)467-4130
e-mail:dholzh ginasonandr5sociales.us
FOR: McCarter-Moorehouse
JOB NO.:AU1920
DATE: October 15,2020
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A parcel of land being a portion of Government Lot 1 of Section 3,Township 3 North,Range 1 West
East,Boise Meridian,Ada County Idaho,more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Government Lot 1,said corner being S 89'07'06"E a distance
of 2640.66 feet from the N114 of Section 3;
'thence N 99'07'22"W a distance of 285.88 feet along the north boundary of Government Lot 1;
Thence S 00'23' 5 1"W a distance of 61.00 feet to a point on the northerly right of way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 30.12 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to the
POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence S 89'07'22"E a distance of 167.57 feet along the northcrly right of way of Ustick Road;
Thence S 47'20'44"E a distance of 42.40 feet along the northerly right of way of Ustick Road to a
point on the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road;
Thence S 00'24'09"W a distance of 27 5.5 7 feet along the westerly right of way of Ten Mile Road to a
point on the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates;
Thence along the northerly boundary of Firelight Estates the following courses and distances;
Thence N 89'36' 15"W a distance of 113.16 feet;
Thence N 00'23' 5 1"E a distance of 110.07 feet;
Mason &
AssvCiatcs 1'
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
Page 1 otl
Page 9
Page 104
Item#3.
Thence N 89'07'59"W a distance of 85.77 feet to the northwest corner of Lot 8 Block 2 of Firelight
Estates;
Thence N 00'23'5 1"E a distance of 194.72 feet along the easterly boundary of Lot 2 Block 5 of
Englewood Creek Estates Subdivision No. I extended to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
This parcel contains 1.16 acres more or less.
SUBJECT TO:All existing rights of way and casements of record or implied appearing on the above-
described parcel of land.
p,L LA
r
9' 6G
FfBI�`t��
�550CIr�t'e5 Incj
Professional Engineers,Land Surveyors and Planners
PAgC Z❑r2
Page 10
Page 105
Item#3.
PARCEL EXHIBIT
A PART OF THE NE 114,SECTION 3,T.3 N.,R. Y W.,BM
MERIDIAN,IDAHO
2020
0 50 100 200
I
Scofe� f"=100'
NW Corner
N1/4 Corner Govemment NE Comer
Section .3 58917bS9E Lot I 589'07'22"E USTICK ROAD Government
N89177'22'W4 R Lot f
--- I- �
I320.39' 285.88' -
1034,38' .-I
589
L2 'D7'2P E `rga, i L�2f]
167.57'
#? c� Lw
I
z
p
f�
Parcel Line cable o 1 O1 PARCEL 5
z I 11.16 AC.
I
Line Length Direc[ion 3 I IN �
L i 61.00 SO'23'51"W I v
L2 30.$2 589-07'22E N89-07'59"W q cRj
85-77'� 1
W I
I
NI� I
v I
REOEND a
n CALCULATED POINT N893615W I SE Corner
FOUND 8RA55 CAP MONUMENT 113-fS' �Gotvernment
FOUND ALUMINUM CAP MONUMENT
FOUND 518"IRON PIN
_ DEED LINE
5ECTI(NN I-INE
MCCARTER MOOREHOUSE
PARCEL EXHIBIT
im w.. AU1HZ0
Mason
+ ❑ne:ixx AU19PO MfHlGfT
;r�'Jason SCALE: 1' 100' RiY. A
pp cr�e,�pgwa
r. aA TE.
CS 1�d(f2020
Page 11
Page 106
»m�
B. Concept Site Plan
------ - - -?
I
' m. USQ CK RO
a»,. ! I
�
�
» c I
�
I
`.*
� E I
■*' .
a � I
¢ � z � n I
! w ,
e ._�, ._� 44 I
�+ ; _ ■ � \ w I
��� + � � ■# I
I
{�$ --------- ON
,} I
, | I
AV r3 _ I
+ C5 /+ a \9�/+$ .
� § —�
Page !2
�7�p
Item#3.
C. Conceptual Building Elevations
.7
0
v
M
N �
0
II
FI — j
O
N
O
Page 13
Page 108
Item#3.
U
1 I
� q
EJU -E
3
f I
❑I❑ E 0 �J
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
:. -J--III-I------I-IJJ--L-I-I-I---I-_I-J---L--I---L-I_-I---.I-I-J---L-J---
❑
0
0
f T
Rti
�. ❑❑ ti
- I
AL
-- _- - -- -
-I---I-=ICO
LLI ----I--I- -1---I-rl-I-I--L.•N••
}
❑ ❑
s
Page 14
Page 109
Item#3.
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. Prior to the City Council hearing,the Applicant shall apply for a concurrent Development
Agreement Modification application to run concurrently with this Rezone application and
replace the existing Development Agreement.At a minimum the following DA provisions
shall be included in the new DA:
a. Show the access to Ustick as an emergency only access;
b. The proposed access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be limited to a right-in/right-out only
access;
c. At the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application submittal,the landscape
plan shall show landscaping between the detached sidewalks and the back of curb
abutting the adjacent arterial streets,Ustick and Ten Mile Roads,per UDC 11-3B-7;
d. Show the required landscape buffer adjacent to the existing residential uses to be 30
feet wide instead of 20 feet;
e. The allowed uses on the subject site shall be limited to professional services,personal
services, and healthcare and social services.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
1.1 There is no water infrastructure shown in this application. There are however two existing
water stubs, one to the north off of Ustick Road, and one to the east off of Ten Mile Road.
Any stubs that are not to be used will need to be abandoned per Meridian Public Works
Standards.
1.2 Sanitary sewer service is available in W.Niemann Drive to the West.
1.3 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). By entering into a development agreement with the City of
Meridian,the applicant agrees to use the City of Meridians recycled water supply as the
source of irrigation water. Further,the applicant agrees to provide for secondary backup
water to provide service when recycled water is not available. Once development plans have
been submitted to the city for review,the city will model the recycled water system and make
a final determination regarding our ability to supply reclaimed water to the development. If
the city can serve the development with recycled water then recycled water must be utilized
as the irrigation source of water, a secondary or backup source must also be provided. If the
city can't serve the development then the primary source of irrigation water should come
from surface water irrigation sources if available. The applicant shall be responsible to
construct the recycled irrigation system in accordance with Department of Environmental
Quality(DEQ)recycled water rules and regulations, and Division 1200 of the City of
Meridian Supplemental Specifications and Drawings to the Idaho Standards for Public Works
Construction. These requirements do not wave the applicants responsibilities or obligations to
irrigation districts.
1.4 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and or building permit application.
Street light plan requirements are listed in section 6 of the City's Design Standards.
Page 15
Page 110
Item#3.
2. General Conditions of Approval
2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to
provide service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three
feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall
be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard
Specifications.
2.2 Per Meridian City Code(MCC),the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public
right of way(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet
wide for a single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via
the plat,but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard
forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit
an executed easement(on the form available from Public Works), a legal description
prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor,which must include the area of
the easement(marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2"x 11"map with bearings and distances
(marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this
document. All easements must be submitted,reviewed, and approved prior to development
plan approval.
2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water(MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing
surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a
single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point
connection is utilized,the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for
the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final
plat by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to
evaluation and possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be addressed
per UDC 11-3A-6. In performing such work,the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-
1207 and any other applicable law or regulation.
2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic
service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering
Department at(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used
for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of
Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at(208)334-2190.
2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment
procedures and inspections(208)375-5211.
2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and
activated,road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this
subdivision shall be recorded,prior to applying for building permits.
Page 16
Page 111
Item#3.
2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc.,prior to signature on the final plat.
2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to
occupancy of the structures.Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a
performance surety for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the
final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees,as determined during the plan review process,prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-311.
2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all
building pads receiving engineered backfill,where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to
ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation
district or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been
installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required
before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.20 At the completion of the project,the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings
per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and
approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the
project.
2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A
copy of the standards can be found at
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the
amount of 125%of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer,water and reuse
infrastructure prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost
estimate provided by the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety,
which can be found on the Community Development Department website. Please contact
Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.23 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,
Page 17
Page 112
Item#3.
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.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224336&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty
D. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
hgps://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=224863&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
hty-
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;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment to rezone the property from the R-4
zoning district to the L-O zoning district and subsequent development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined above.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed districts,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment and the proposed use comply with
the applicable regulations, specifically the purpose statement of the requested L-O zoning
district.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,
and welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment should not be detrimental to the
public health, safety and welfare, if the applicant complies with the requirements outlined
above.
4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the city including,but not
limited to,school districts; and
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment will not result in an adverse impact
on the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the
City.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Not applicable; application is for a Rezone.
Page 18
Page 113
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of
Conger Group, Located at 3487 E. Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots and 14 other lots
(i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 79.69 acres
of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts.
Page 125
Item#4.
E IDIAN:---
IDAHO
C�
PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION
Staff Contact:Alan Tiefenbach Meeting Date: May 25, 2021
Topic: Public Hearing for Skybreak Neighborhood (H-2020-0127) by Laren Bailey of
Conger Group, Located at 3487 E.Adler Hoff Ln. and 7020 S. Eagle Rd.
A. Request: Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with R-8 and R-15 zoning
districts.
B. Request: A Preliminary Plat consisting of 329 building lots, 40 common lots
and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot
for the existing home) on 79.69 acres of land in the R-8 and R-15 zoning
districts.
Information Resources:
Click Here for Application Materials
Click Here to Sign Up to Testify at the City Council Public Hearing
Page 126
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN IN SHEET
DATE : May 25 , 2021 ITEM # ON AGENDA : 4
PROJECT NAME : Skybreak Neighborhood ( W2020 - 0127 )
PRINTED FULL NAME For Against Neutral Want to Testify
YES OR NO
2
� w
3 n
4
5
V\, Me-)
6
L s l ( e, Ka oe, Vo
7
8
10
11
12
i
13
14
15
Item#4.
STAFF REPORT
C�WE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A H O
HEARING 5/25/2021 Legend
DATE: 0
Project Um-of km
TO: Mayor&City Council
FROM: Alan Tiefenbach,Associate Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2020-0127
Skybreak Subdivision IJ
--a
LOCATION: 7020 S. Eagle Rd. &3487 E. Adler Hof
Ln., in the south 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of
Section 4, T.2N.,R.IE. (Parcels#
S1404244250 & S1404233650) s r
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant has submitted the following applications:
• Annexation of 80.46 acres of land with an R-8 and R-15 zoning district;
• Preliminary plat consisting of 328 building lots,40 common lots and 14 other lots (i.e. 12 common
driveway lots, one(1)private street lot and one(1)lot for the existing home).
• Private streets in the gated portion of the development serving 112 residential units with two(2)gates; and,
• Alternative Compliance to UDC 11-3F-4A.6,which prohibits common driveways off private streets,to
allow such in three(3)locations within the gated area of the subdivision and UDC 11-3F-4A.b which
limits all proposed gated developments to 50 units.
The applicant submitted a previous proposal in June of 2020(H-2020-0079). This proposal consisted of 353
building lots, all of it single family detached. This proposal was scheduled for the October 15,2020
Planning Commission meeting. Following staffs report to the Commission recommending denial, the
applicant withdrew the application, and resubmitted the present one in January of 2021. This proposal is
virtually the same except for 24 less lots, slightly enlarged open space in several areas, and 30 single family
attached units in the northwest corner of the project.
Page 1
Page 127
Item#4.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
A. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 80.46
Existing/Proposed Zoning RUT in Ada County(existing),R-8 and R-15 proposed
Future Land Use Designation Low Density Residential(LDR)&Medium Density Residential(MDR)
Existing Land Use(s) Single-family residential/agricultural
Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential(SFR)
Lots(#and type; 328 SFR buildable lots/40 common lots/14 other lots(i.e. 12 common driveway
bldg./common) lots, 1 private street lot& 1 lot for the existing home)
Phasing Plan(#of phases) 9 phases
Number of Residential Units 30 attached SFR homes
(type of units) 298 detached SFR homes(one is existing)
Density 4.1 units/acre(gross)
Open Space(acres,total 14.99 acres(or 18.8%)qualified open space
[%]/buffer/qualified)
Amenities (2)dog parks;3/a acre park with play structure,climbing rocks,a shade structure
and benches;entry park, 1-acre sports park,passive open spaces and pathways
Physical Features The Farr Lateral crosses the southwest corner of this site;hillside/topography
(waterways,hazards,flood within southern rim area.
plain,hillside)
Neighborhood meeting date; 5/27/20; 14 attendees,December 16,2020;9 attendees
#of attendees:
History(previous approvals) Property boundary adjustment(Record of Survey#12358,Eisenman 2020),
previous proposal similar to this one was withdrawn just prior to Planning
Commission due to staff recommendation of denial. (H-2020-0079)
B. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
• Staff report(yes/no) Yes
• Requires ACHD I No
Commission Action
(yes/no)
Traffic Impact Study(yes/no) Yes
Access One(1)public street access(Street A)is proposed via S.Eagle Rd.,an arterial
(Arterial/Collectors/State street.Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and no curb,gutter or
Hwy/Local)(Existing and sidewalk.
Proposed)
Traffic Level of Service Eagle Rd.—Better than"E"(acceptable level of service)
Stub Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and
Street/Interconnectivity/Cross interconnectivity as depicted on the plat. Southern stub streets only have
Access emergency access.The area in the NEC of the proposed development(Phase 8)
Page 2
Page 128
Item#4.
Description Details Page
cannot develop until Pura Vida extends a public street;Phase 9 of the
development currently does not have the right to access the private lane and
cannot develop until a public street is extended to the proposed development
Existing Road Network There is an existing private street(E.Adler Hof Ln.)that provides access from S.
Eagle Rd.to the existing homes on this site.This roadway should terminate with
development of the site as proposed.
Existing Arterial Sidewalks/ None
Buffers
Proposed Road Capital Improvements Plan(CIP)I Integrated Five Year Work Plan(IFYWP):
Improvements • Lake Hazel Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Eagle Road to
Cloverdale Road in 2024.
• Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be widened to 5-lanes from Lake Hazel Road to
Amity Road in 2023.
• The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road is scheduled in the IFYWP to be
widened to 6-lanes on the north leg, 5-lanes on the south,7-lanes east,and 6-lanes on the
west leg,and reconstructed/signalized in 2023.
• Lake Hazel Road is listed in the 2016 C I P to be widened to 5-lanes from Locust Grove Road
to Eagle Road between 2026 and 2030.
• The intersection of Lake Hazel Road and Locust Grove Road is listed in the 2016 CIP to be
widened to 3-lanes on the north leg, 2-lanes on the south,2-lanes east,and 3-lanes on the
west leg,and signalized between 2026 and 2030,
Fire Service
• Distance to Fire Station 2.9 miles(Fire Station#4)
Fire has expressed concerns with only one point of access from S.Eagle Rd.Fire
would prefer a second access to the north to E.Lake Hazel Rd.
Fire has also expressed concerns with the private gates causing additional delays.
• Fire Response Time Most(3/4+l-)of this development falls outside of the 5 minute response time goal
from Fire Station#4.
• Resource Reliability Current reliability is 77%from Station#4 does not meet targeted goal of 80%or
greater
• Risk Identification 2—current resources would not be adequate to supply service.
A wildfire safety plan is required.
• Accessibility Project meets all required access,road widths and turnaround.
• Special/resource needs Project will not require an aerial device;can meet this need in the required
timeframe if a truck company is required(fire station is 5.9 miles away).
• Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for one hour,may be less if buildings are fully
sprinklered.
• Other In the event of a hazmat event,there will need to be mutual aid required for the
development.In the event of a structure fire,an additional truck company will be
required—this will require additional time delays as a second truck company is
not available in the City.
Police Service
• Distance to Police 5.5 miles
Station
• Police Response Time There is no call data in this area because the proposed development is at the edge
of City limits.
• Calls for Service 7(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20)
• %of calls for service See Section IX.D
split by priority
• Accessibility No concerns
Page 3
Page 129
Item#4.
Description Details Page
• Specialty/resource needs None at this time
• Crimes 1 (within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20)
• Crashes 9(within a mile of site—between 2/1/19 and 1/31/20)
• Other Although located near the edge of City limits,service can be provided if this
development is approved.
West Ada School District
• Distance(elem,ms,hs) Enrollment Ca par Miles
Dew.m school
• Capacity of Schools **Silver Sage Elementary" 230 425 5.1 miles
Lake Hazel Middle School 928 1000 2.4 miles
• #of Students Enrolled Mountain View High School 2302 2175 4.8 miles
**Enrollment at Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped. Students in this development will be attending Silver Sag
mmill Elementary until a new school is built to eliminate overcrowding at Hillsdale Elementary.
• Predicted#of students 247+/-
generated from
proposed development
Wastewater
• Distance to Sewer Sewer will be available with the development of Keep Subdivision on the West side of
Services Eagle Road.
• Sewer Shed South Black Cat Trunk Shed
• Estimated Project Sewer See Application
ERU's
• WRRF Declining 14.08
Balance
• Project Consistent with Yes
WW Master
Plan/Facility Plan
• Impacts/Concerns Water and sewer mains should not be in common driveways.
Concerns have been expressed regarding the width of the private streets and that the
required 30' easements may overlap onto private properties,rendering these areas
unbuildable.
The City is applying the following requirements for Common Driveways.
• Three or less lots—services from main in adjacent road
• Four or more lots—Sewer in common drive. Sewer will be private and will be
the responsibility of the HOA to maintain.Manhole needed in the common
drive at the property boundary with"Private"on the lid.
Water
• Distance to Water Directly adjacent
Services
• Pressure Zone 5
• Estimated Project Water See application
ERU's
Page 4
Page 130
Item#4.
• Water Quality No concerns
• Project Consistent with Yes
Water Master Plan
• Impacts/Concerns •Common drives that have both water and sewer mains will require a 30'easement
•As currently designed,most phases do not meet minimum fire flow pressure.There
are multiple options to meet fire flow including upsizing some water mains to 12"and a
secondary connections.
•Coordinate with PW Engineering on main sizes,connection at the SW corner and
connection at the NE corner.
C. Project Area Maps
Future Land Use Map Aerial Map
Legend r Legend
Prc"pmaci LcoafK>r ® t Locaioi
•H! .. ® I r
` - i14
- Y
Residential
IV iC
Medium
nW
IZ sidential Low Den .ihy
Rid�nti�l
r
Page 5
Page 131
Item#4.
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
Legend Legend r
Pro" i Lacai�ar i Location Jea �-$ Prima
11'-11 City urnitr
RU R-15 — Planned Parcels
5
i
R-4 R-2
�y �y
i
t i
i
i
t 1 R
RR Iwt1 �, r
r
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706
B. Owner:
Peter and Dana Eisenman—3487 E.Adler Hof Ln.,Meridian,ID 83642
C. Representative:
Laren Bailey, Conger Group—4824 W. Fairview Ave.,Boise, ID 83706
IV. NOTICING
Planning & Zoning City Council
Posting Date Posting Date
Notification published in 2/26/2021 5/7/2021
newspaper
Notification mailed to property 2/23/2021 5/4/2021
owners within 300 feet
Applicant posted public hearing 3/5/2021 5/13/2021
notice on site
Nextdoor posting 2/25/2021 5/3/2021
Page 6
Page 132
Item#4.
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
A. Future Land Use Map Designation
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan designates the 6+/-acres at the
southwest corner of the site, south of the Farr Lateral, as Low Density Residential(LDR)and the remaining
74+/-acres as Medium Density Residential(MDR).A City Park is designated in the general area at the
southwest corner of the site.
Per the Comprehensive Plan,the LDR designation allows for the development of single-family homes on large
and estate lots at gross densities of 3 dwelling units or less per acre. These areas often transition between
existing rural residential and urban properties. Developments need to respect agricultural heritage and
resources,recognize view sheds and open spaces, and maintain or improve the overall atmosphere of the area.
The use of open spaces,parks,trails and other appropriate means should enhance the character of the area.
Density bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or
land dedicated for public services.
The MDR designation allows for dwelling units at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre.Density
bonuses may be considered with the provision of additional public amenities such as a park, school, or land
dedicated for public services.
The Applicant proposes to develop this site with 328 single-family residential homes at an overall gross
density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre(An additional lot will contain the existing house).A total of 23 units are
proposed within the 6+/- acre LDR designated area for a gross density of 3.8 units per acre in that area,which
exceeds the density desired of 3 or fewer units per acre. Smaller lots, instead of the large or estate lots as
desired in LDR designated areas, are proposed along with open space areas along the southern boundary and
along the northern boundary adjacent to the Farr Lateral. There are several larger one-half acre lots proposed at
the southeast directly abutting the adjacent residences in Vantage Point Subdivision. However,the rectangular
lots are oriented as such that the abutting lot lines are half or less than the width of the neighboring residential
lots, so there are several lots abutting one neighboring lot. The applicant proposes to limit the height of the
houses in this area to one story to help protect view sheds.
The units proposed in the MDR designated area meet a gross density of 4.1 units per acre in that area,which is
consistent with that desired in MDR designated areas of 3 to 8 units per acre.A City park is not proposed,but
the Park's Department has determined a City park is not needed in this area.
B. Comprehensive Plan Analysis(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN)
The following Comprehensive Plan Policies are applicable to this development:
• "Encourage a variety of housing types that meet the needs, preferences, and financial capabilities of
Meridian's present and future residents."(2.01.02D)
The applicant isproposing 328 lots, with 30 of the lots containing single family attached at the northwest
portion of the site. The remainder of the 299 lots are intended for single family detached units.
The applicant's narrative references housing types such as large rim lot houses, two story golf course
houses, large lot homes, 255 single story homes and the attached single-family product. The single
family attached product does contribute to the variety of housing types in the overall area.However, the
remaining single family detached houses contribute to a diversity of housings les but notparticularly
the variety of housing Upes intended by the Comprehensive Plan for all needs,preferences and financial
capabilities.
Page 7
Page 133
Item#4.
• "Permit new development only where it can be adequately served by critical public facilities and urban
services at the time of final approval,and in accord with any adopted levels of service for public
facilities and services."(3.03.03F)
City water and sewer services are available and can be extended by the developer with development in
accord with UDC 11-3A-21.
Currently, this development can be served by the Fire Department. However, most of the development
is outside of response time goals, does not meet resource reliability goals, and has risk factors
including a steep hill with a potential for wildfire if the hillside isn't maintained(see the Fire
Department's comment in Section VII below). Additionally, with the main access and secondary
access both from Eagle Rd., if access is blocked from the north via Eagle Rd. it may delay emergency
services by having to travel 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site,potentially creating
a life safety issue. If the applicant is able to secure legal secondary access to the north this would
alleviate concerns but this would be contingent upon whether those properties develop, and staff might
recommend only some number of lots being developed until that occurs. The Southern Meridian Fire
Station adjacent to Discovery Park is anticipated for construction in 2023; if this occurs, there will be
significantly improved fire service to the subject property. The annexation is currently in process and
scheduled for a public hearing.
• "Require all new development to create a site design compatible with surrounding uses through
buffering, screening,transitional densities, and other best site design practices."(3.07.01A)
The subject property abuts Pura Vida Ridge Ranch to the northeast, the Boise Ranch Golf Course to
the east, and Vantage Pointe Subdivision to the south.
This development proposes R-8 zoning and lot sizes of approximately 5,000 sq.ft. to 6,000 sq.ft.
adjacent to Pura Vida Ridge Ranch, whereas Pura Vida Ranch includes lot sizes of comparable sizes
and the same R-8 zoning. To the southwest(Phase 9), the development proposes lot sizes of
approximately 6,000—6,500 sq.ft. whereas the adjacent Vantage Pointe Subdivision is comprised of
lots one-acre in size and greater(although there are four lots proposed with this development directly
abutting the south area and are % acre to 3/ acre in size).
The development does include private roads and common open space as a buffer of between 80 feet
and 120 feet between the smaller lots of the subject property and the one acre lots to the south in
Vantage Point. The development also proposes one story homes in this area. An abutting neighbor has
submitted written testimony stating the buffer as proposed and the lot sizes are not appropriate
transitions in this area. It is staff's opinion the lots should be at least one-acre in this area and have
property line lengths that better orient to adjacent off-site properties. The Planning Commission and
City Council should assess whether there is an appropriate transition in this area.
"Encourage compatible uses and site design to minimize conflicts and maximize use of land."
(3.07.00)
The proposed single-family attached homes at the northwest are generally compatible as they directly
abut S. Eagle Road and there are no adjacent homes directly to the north. The single family detached
homes are generally compatible with existing rural residential homes as they are all residential in
nature. However, with the exception of the larger lots and open space on the south boundary, the
proposed plat depicts smaller lots (i.e. 4,448-4,950 sf.) than those of the lots in the abutting Vantage
Pointe Subdivision. The Commission and Council should determine if the applicant has provided an
adequate transition.
Page 8
Page 134
Item#4.
• "With new subdivision plats,require the design and construction of pathway connections, easy
pedestrian and bicycle access to parks, safe routes to schools, and the incorporation of usable open
space with quality amenities."(2.02.01A)
The Pathways Plan depicts a segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along the eastern
boundary of the site; a 10 foot wide multi-use pathway is proposed in accord with the Plan on the
northern portion of the development but transitions to a 5-foot wide pathway to the south and does not
stub to the south for future extension as shown on the Plan. However, the Park's Dept. has indicated
they are supportive of the proposed design. This pathway will eventually provide a connection to
Discovery Park to the west and Hillside Elementary and the YMCA to the north. There is also a 10'
multi-use pathway proposed adjacent to the Farr Lateral, as is shown on the pathways plan. These
pathways will be valuable amenities to the project.A golf cart pathway is shown as Lot 41 on Block 5,
which terminates at the Boise Ranch Golf Course.
Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter,pathways, two
dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC
requirements, which are located along the northern and southern boundaries of the site and are not
centrally located.Although much of the open space meets the minimum dimensional requirements of the
UDC(i.e. at least 20'in width and 50'in length with an access on each end) a significant portion of
what is proposed as qualified open space consists of street buffers and end caps with parkways.Also, it
is important to note that the applicant's narrative contains a pedestrian connectivity exhibit which
shows narrow private roads with no sidewalks and common drives as `pedestrian connections"which
staff believes is somewhat misleading. However, the private street standards do not require them.
Additionally, staff believes the entire development should contain public streets which would require
the 5-foot sidewalks per City code. The Commission and Council should determine if the pedestrian
circulation plan is adequate for the proposed development with the inclusion of the private system.
• "Evaluate open space and amenity requirement and criteria for consistency with community needs and
values."(2.02.01B)
Because the average lot size proposed in the development is only 6,280 square feet, Staff is of the
opinion the end caps could be re-oriented/consolidated with other larger common lots to increase the
usable open space within the development. This was discussed during the pre-application meetings with
the applicant and they are of the opinion the open space as proposed exceeds UDC standards and is
designed to meet the needs of the development.
• "Ensure development is connected to City of Meridian water and sanitary sewer systems and the
extension to and through said developments are constructed in conformance with the City of Meridian
Water and Sewer System Master Plans in effect at the time of development."(3.03.03A)
The proposed development will connect to City water and sewer systems;services are required to be
provided to and through with this development.
• "Maximize public services by prioritizing infill development of vacant and underdeveloped parcels
within the City over parcels on the fringe."(2.02.02)
The subject property abuts portions of the city limits at the northwest and northeast corner, but the
majority of the property perimeter is surrounded by unincorporated Ada County. The proposed project
is located near the fringe of the City and does not meet the definition of an infill development.
• "Encourage the incorporation of creek corridors as amenities in development design."(4.05.02C)
The Ten Mile Creek crosses the northeast corner of the site; a common area is proposed for the creek
area and a multi-use pathway is proposed along the creek in accord with the Pathways Master Plan.
Page 9
Page 135
Item#4.
• "Require urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including curb and gutter,
sidewalks,water and sewer utilities."(3.03.03G)
City sewer and water infrastructure and curb, gutter and sidewalks are required to be provided with
the public road portion of this development. The cross sections provided for the private road portion
do not depict sidewalks. The applicant contends that the private streets provide an intimate setting for
the residents and narrower streets decrease traffic speeds which do not warrant the additional
improvements. It is important to note that the director has not approved the private street application,
thus the plat should be redesigned to incorporate public streets for the entire development.
• "Slow the outward progression of the City's limits by discouraging fringe area development; encourage
development of vacant or underutilized parcels currently within City limits."(4.05.03B)
The proposed project is in the City's `fringe"area; therefore, development in this area is not
encouraged as are vacant/underutilized parcels currently within City limits. However, the City has
recently approved several developments (Pura Vida and Poiema) north of the proposed development
making this property more desirable to develop.
• "Evaluate comprehensive impacts of growth and consider City Master Plans and Strategic Plans in all
land use decisions(e.g.,traffic impacts, school enrollment, and parks)."(3.01.01A)
Eagle Rd. is currently a 2-lane roadway with no curb, gutter or sidewalks; no improvements are
planned in the CIP/IFYWP to the segment of Eagle Rd. abutting this site. The Lake Hazel/Eagle Road
intersection north of the site is planned to be reconstructed and signalized in 2023. The ACHD report
states that the TIS estimates this development to generate an additional 3,343 trips per day resulting in
an acceptable level ofservice (i.e. better than "E').
WASD estimates this development will house approximately 247 school aged children—enrollment at
Hillsdale Elementary is currently capped so students in this development would attend Silver Sage,
which is currently under capacity; enrollment at Lake Hazel Middle School and Mountain View High
School would be over capacity at build-out of this development according to the Community
Development's school impact review included in Section VII.
Water and sewer are being extended consistent with the City's master plan as noted above.
Discovery Park, a 77+/-acre City Park, is located approximately a mile away from this site to the west
on Lake Hazel Rd., which should be adequate to serve this development.
• "Annex lands into the corporate boundaries of the City only when the annexation proposal conforms to
the City's vision and the necessary extension of public services and infrastructure is provided."
(3.03.03)
Two types of housing are proposed—single family detached and 30 single family attached units-which
will provide diversity in housing, and the density in the MDR designated area falls within the desired
range. The density proposed in the LDR designated area at the southwest corner of the site is above the
3 units or fewer per acre desired in that area. However, the Comprehensive Plan states future land use
designations are not parcel specific. An adjacent, abutting designation, when appropriate and
approved as part of a public hearing with a land development application, may be used.A designation
may not must not be used on a parcel not directly abutting the designation, and may not apply to more
than 50%of the land being developed. The predominate land use designation is MDR and the applicant
has the ability to design the project to meet density perimeters of the MDR designations provided other
goals of the Comprehensive Plan are being met.
Page 10
Page 136
Item#4.
As discussed below, R-15 zoning is proposed at the less dense eastern portion of the site to allow the
option ofprivate streets without sidewalks., Staff has concerns with the private streets, specifically the
long-term maintenance and interconnectivity with surrounding developments. If these roadways are not
constructed to ACHD standards, the likelihood ofACHD accepting these streets in the future is slim.
Also, stafffinds that although most of the open space meets the minimum dimensions, not all of it is
quality open space(please see the qualified open space section below). The Fire Department has noted
concerns with the access and serviceability of this project ahead of the fire station being constructed
next to Discovery Park. Finally,public services are proposed to be extended near the fringe of the City
rather than to vacant/underdeveloped infill parcels as desired. For these reasons, Staff is of the opinion
the proposed annexation may not be the best interest of the City at this time.
C. Annexation&Zoning:
Portions of the annexation area are contiguous to a portion of the current City limits boundary and within the
City's Area of City Impact at the east boundary. Most of the surrounding properties are still within
unincorporated Ada County.A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section
VI.A.
The proposed annexation area consists of two(2)tax parcels containing a total of 80.46 acres of land
designated as LDR and MDR on the FLUM and contains land to the section line of S. Eagle Rd. The Applicant
proposes to annex the two(2)parcels, zone the western 43.85 acres with an R-8 zoning district, and the eastern
36.60-acre portion with a R-15 zoning district.
The R-8 zoning district allows lots as small as 4,000 sq. ft. with a minimum street frontage of 40'. The western
43.85 acres of the plat proposed for R-8 zoning reflects lots that meet this minimum lot and frontages
requirements.
The R-15 zoning district allows lots as small as 2,000 sq. ft. and has no requirement for a minimum
street frontage. This zoning is typically reserved for higher densities,including single family attached,
townhomes and multifamily.It is important to note that with the previous application,staff informed
the applicant that the private streets that are proposed with a significant portion of this development
were not allowed under the R-8 zoning that was originally proposed for the entire development. The
provisions for private streets apply only to properties that do not have frontage on a public street or
where frontage is not required per UDC 11-3F-2.The applicant has subsequently revised their
application to propose R-15 zoning merely for the purpose of being eligible for private streets whereas
all other dimensional standards would comply with the requirements of the R-8 zone. Staff believes the
development should incorporate public streets within the entire development and zone the property in
accord with the more appropriate R-8 zone(Please see the access section below for more discussion
regarding the private streets).In previous discussions with the applicant, staff has suggested the
applicant either rezone to PUD, or initiate a code change in regard to requirements for private streets.
The applicant has chosen to move forward with a request to rezone to R-15.
D. Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are two (2) existing homes and outbuildings on this site—the 5,892 square foot home constructed in
2002 at the east end of the site is planned to remain on a lot(Lot 64,Block 5)in the proposed subdivision; the
home and accessory structures on the west end of the site are planned to be removed with development. These
homes are accessed via a private lane(E. Adler Hof Ln.) from S. Eagle Rd. If annexed,the home proposed to
remain is required to hook-up to City water and sewer service and change their address.
Page 11
Page 137
Item#4.
E. Proposed Use Analysis:
Single-family attached and detached dwellings are listed in UDC Table 11-2A-2 as a principal permitted use in
the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts. The proposed use,with two housing types,is mostly consistent with the
purpose statement of the residential district in that a range of housing opportunities and a variety of dwelling
types would be provided consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and UDC 11-2A-1 and 11-6A-1. However,
proposing to rezone a portion of the property to the R-15 zone when R-8 zone would suffice merely for the
reason of being eligible for private streets is not consistent with the purpose statement of UDC 11-3F-1. While
this isn't an uncommon practice,this section states that"it is not the intent to approve private streets for single-
family,duplex and/or townhouse developments other than those that create a common mew through the site
design or that propose a limited gated residential development"as no single family attached are in this area and
no common mews are proposed. Further, a limited gated community as specified in the UDC is 50 or fewer
homes. As noted below,the applicant is proposing that 112 homes utilize the proposed private street in an area
that doesn't have an established street network and limited access. Therefore,the director has denied the
private street application(see below for analysis).
F. Dimensional Standards(UDC 11-2):
The proposed preliminary plat consists of 328 building lots,40 common lots, and 14 other lots(i.e. common
driveway lots, 1 private street lot and 1 lot for the existing home) on 80.46 acres of land.
Development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in 11-2A-6 and 11-2A-7 for the R-8 and R-15
zoning districts. Lots in the western portion proposed for R-8 meet the minimum lot size of 4,000 sq. ft. with a
40' lot frontage. Although the lots in the 36.6-acre eastern portion proposed for R-15 meet the dimensional
standards of that zone district(minimum lot size of 2,000 sq. ft. and no minimum frontage requirement)as
presently proposed,they would also meet the minimum requirements of the R-8 zoning district.
Subdivision Design and Improvement Standards(UDC I1-6C-3)
Development of the subdivision is required to comply with the subdivision design and improvement standards
listed in UDC 11-6C-3, including but not limited to streets,common driveways and block face.
Block length is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3F. Block faces should not exceed
750' in length without an intersecting street or alley unless a pedestrian connection is provided,then the block
face may be extended up to 1,000' in length. The City Council may approve a block face up to 1,200' in length
where block design is constrained by certain site conditions as specified in UDC 11-6C-3F.3b. The face of
Block 9 on the north side of the Farr Lateral is 1,000'+/-and does not contain a pathway or intersecting
street or alley.This is also true of the section of Block 5 that is south of private street A of more than 850
feet. Council approval would be needed, or the plat would need to be revised to comply with the
standard.
At the northeast corner of the site, a street ending in a cul-de-sac is proposed which will likely exceed the
maximum 500' length allowed in UDC 11-6C-3B.4 depending on how the property to the north develops. Staff
had recommended an internal street access to this portion of the development rather than the sole access being
provided via a stub street from the north. The applicant has responded due to the topography in this area,they
cannot provide the recommended internal access. However,just to the north of this cul-de-sac,the plat shows a
golf cart path in this general area.
Twelve(12) common driveways are proposed; such driveways should be constructed in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.A perpetual ingress/egress easement shall be filed with the Ada County
Recorder,which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface capable of supporting fire
vehicles and equipment.An exhibit should be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the
setbacks, fencing,building envelope, and orientation of the lots and structures accessed via the common
Page 12
Page 138
Item#4.
driveway; if a property abuts a common driveway but has the required minimum street frontage and is taking
access via the public street,the driveway should be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line
from the common driveway. Address signage should be provided at the public street for homes accessed via
common driveways for emergency wayfinding purposes. Where two(2)common driveways are proposed that
adjoin,bollards(or other barrier approved by the Fire Dept.) should be placed at the common lot line to
prevent a through connection between streets.
The applicant has submitted a phasing plan. The phasing plan shows nine phases,with the first phase occurring
directly adjacent to S. Eagle Rd at the proposed public street.Number of lots being built out vary between 59
at the first phase,to 23 at the last phase. Phase 8 and Phase 9 are both disconnected from the rest of the
subdivision, although staff does believe an access could be constructed across the Farr Lateral between Phase 1
or 2 and Phase 9.
UDC 11-3F-4 prohibits common driveways off of private streets whereas this proposal includes three
common driveways served by private streets. The applicant has requested alternative compliance from
this standard.
G. Access(UDC 11-3A-3)
The existing roadways in this area are rural in nature. Eagle Rd. is currently improved with 2 travel lanes and
no curb, gutter or sidewalk. Improvements and a signal are planned for the Lake Hazel/Eagle Rd. intersection
in 2023. Lake Hazel is planned to be widened to 5-lanes between Eagle and Cloverdale Roads in 2024; and to
5-lanes from Locust Grove to Eagle Roads between 2026 and 2030;no improvements are planned to Eagle Rd.
south of Lake Hazel abutting the site. The applicant will be required to construct 5-foot-wide sidewalk on S.
Eagle Rd abutting the site.
One(1)public street, Street A, is proposed for access via S. Eagle Rd. as a collector street to the intersection of
Street C, also a public street. Three(3) stub streets are proposed at the north, and two(2) stub street are
proposed at the south boundaries of the site for future extension in accord with UDC 11-3A-3. One of these
southern stubs is a secondary emergency access to E. Vantage Pointe Ln. to be constructed with the first phase
of development. There is also a cul-de-sac at the extreme northeast serving 15 additional lots,which is
intended to connect to a public road through the recently approved Pura Vida Ridge Ranch. This area is shown
as Phase 8 and does not connect to the rest of the Skybreak Subdivision, except for the connected pathway
system.
There are two southern roads shown to connect from the subject property to E.Vantage Pointe Lane to the
south. E.Vantage Point Lane is a private road, and the applicant has only demonstrated the legal right to use
this road for emergency access(Inst. #2020-063349);public access is not allowed. This is adequate for
emergency access to occur from the cul-de-sac shown at the end of the public street shown as Street J.
However,this application also shows an additional 23 lots being served from a double cul-de-sac shown as
Phase 9. The applicant has not demonstrated they have primary legal access to these lots via E.Vantage
Pointe Lane.The applicant has responded that they intend to eventually obtain this access and will build
out this later phase when it is obtained,but staff is concerned with an application which proposes
annexing and zoning 23 lots into the City without proof of access.The applicant should construct a
roadway across the Farr Lateral to provide access to the portion of the development for better
integration.
The Fire Department has noted in a letter dated February 16,2021 that they are concerned with a large
subdivision with only one access out to S.Eagle Rd. Two of the three northern stubs go to properties
within unincorporated Ada County which are not proposed for development at this time. The third
northern stub only serves Phase 8 which does not connect to the rest of the subdivision.If access from
the north via Eagle Rd.is blocked,in the event of an emergency,emergency vehicles would have to
travel an additional 3.5+/-miles around the square mile to access the site creating a potential life safety
Page 13
Page 139
Item#4.
issue due to a delayed response time. Staff has recommended the applicant pursue a northern access to
allow access from this subdivision via the public road in the Pura Vida Subdivision and to E.Lake Hazel
Rd,but the applicant has responded that due to topography this is not feasible, although the applicant
has managed to configure a golf cart path to the golf course at the north.In addition,the Fire
Department has mentioned the majority of the subdivision is outside of the 5-minute response area, and
the nearest station(Station 4)has a low reliability rating.This would improve if and when the
southwestern fire station adjacent to Discovery Park is constructed in 2023.The applicant has submitted
a phasing plan which shows each phase has at least two accesses for emergency service,but as
mentioned,except for Phase 8 at the northeast corner,all the other phases rely on only S.Eagle Rd for
access. Staff is aware that access will improve in this area over time however,it is contingent on other
properties developing in the area to provide the necessary road network.
A combination of public and private streets are proposed for access within the development—public streets are
proposed on the west and private streets serving 112 lots are proposed on the east end of the subdivision. Three
(3) common driveways are proposed for access off private streets(see analysis below).
The applicant has provided sections of the private streets with this plat application(see Section VI).
Although the plat does not indicate exactly which private street cross sections are proposed in which
area,the street sections show private streets as narrow as 27',none of which include sidewalks. Since the
time of the pre-application meetings,staff has responded that staff does not support this many lots being
served by private streets. This is because this results in streets that would pass the maintenance costs on
to the homeowners through the HOA, as ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were
financial constraints. Staff has requested the developer state the reason for requesting private streets
other than the additional costs to build them to the standard template,and the only responses staff has
received thus far is that there is a demographic of senior home buyers that prefer the security a gated
community can provide and that the gates and private streets will provide a more intimate setting. Staff
agrees that there are probably buyers that would prefer gated communities and private streets,but still
does not understand why narrow private streets are preferable to streets built to standard templates and
containing landscaping and sidewalk.As noted above,staff finds the proposal is not a limited gated
community,exceeds more than 50 homes.Therefore,the plat should be resigned to incorporate public
streets for the entire development.As noted below the applicant has requested alternative compliance
(ALT)to allow 112 homes as proposed. The director has denied the applicant's ALT request.
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
The applicant proposes 112 gated lots, and 3 common driveways off a private street.UDC 11-3F-4 states a
proposed(gated) development shall have no more than 50 dwelling units, and no common driveways shall be
allowed off of a private street. However, 11-3F-4 also allows the director to approve, or recommend approval
of alternative design or construction standards when the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed overall
design meets or exceeds the intent of the required standards of this article and shall not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare.
Requests for alternative compliance are allowed only when one(1)or more of the following conditions exist:
a. Topography, soil,vegetation, or other site conditions are such that full compliance is impossible or
impractical;
b. The site involves space limitations or an unusually shaped lot;
c. Safety considerations make alternative compliance desirable;
d. Other regulatory agencies or departments having jurisdiction are requiring design standards that conflict
with the requirements of this article;
Page 14
Page 140
Item#4.
e. The proposed design includes innovative design features based on "new urbanism", "neotraditional
design",or other architectural and/or site designs that promote walkable and mixed use neighborhoods;
f. Additional environmental quality improvements would result from the alternative compliance.
In order to grant approval for an alternative compliance application,the Director shall determine the following:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the requirements; and
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses
and character of surrounding properties.
The applicant's alternative compliance letter mentions there is a demographic ofsenior home buyers that
prefer the security a gated community can provide and that the gates andprivate streets will provide a more
intimate setting. Staff agrees that there is probably a demographic that would prefer gated communities, but
this is not a condition required for alternative compliance. The Director finds the applicant has not
demonstrated the need for a private versus public streets as noted above.
The plat indicates private street sections with no sidewalks and minimal landscaping, whereas ACHD
templates require 5'sidewalks and landscaping. Also, the applicant proposes alternative compliance to allow
three common driveways from the private streets, whereas this is not allowed by UDC 11-3F-4-6. Staff does
not understand how what is beingproposed is an equal or superior means to meeting requirements. Providing
narrow private streets with no sidewalks, minimal landscaping, and common driveways from these private
streets is not an innovative design features that promotes walkable neighborhoods.
Finally, as was already mentioned, gating the community will also slow response times when there are already
fire access concerns, which would be materially detrimental to the public welfare.
H. Parking (UDC 11-3C :
Off-street parking is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6 for
single-family detached dwellings based on the number of bedrooms per unit. A parking plan is included in
Section VIII.J that depicts a total of 334 on-street parking spaces along public and private streets;parking
along private streets must be approved by the Fire Marshall.
1. Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
The Pathways Master Plan(PMP)depicts a north/south segment of the City's multi-use pathway system along
the east side of the subject property and along the south side of the Farr Lateral at the southwest corner of the
site. The Applicant has worked with the Park's Dept.pathway coordinator on the design proposed along the
east boundary; the pathway along the south side of the Farr Lateral is consistent with the PMP. The pathways
are required to be placed in a 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement or a note should be added to the plat
which allows public access in the common lots intended for pathways.
Ten-foot(10')wide segments of the City's multi-use pathway are proposed within the street buffer along
Eagle Rd., along the south side of the Farr Lateral, along the Ten Mile Creek and the northern portion of the
east boundary of the site and a golf cart path. Other pathway connections are also proposed for pedestrian
interconnectivity and access to common areas within the development.A pathway connection is proposed
between the pathway on the eastern portion of the site to the sidewalks along internal public streets on the west
end of the site. A total of 5,167 linear feet of pathways are proposed in this development(see exhibit in Section
VI).All pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 and
landscaped per the standards in UDC 11-3B-12C.
Page 15
Page 141
Item#4.
Where pathways are proposed in common driveways(i.e. Lot 25,Block 9)they should be located in separate
common lots with landscaping on either side in accord with UDC 11-3B-12C.
I Sidewalks(UDC 11-3A-17):
A 10' pathway is proposed along S. Eagle Rd. with a combination of detached and attached sidewalks along
the internal public streets.No sidewalks are required or proposed along private streets except for along private
Streets K& S where a detached sidewalk is proposed for a pedestrian connection between the pathway on the
east end of the site to the sidewalk along public Street I on the west end of the site.
K. Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17 :
Eight-foot wide parkways with detached sidewalks are proposed along the entry street(Street A)and in a few
other areas; sidewalks are mostly attached with no parkways in this development.All parkways are required to
be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17 and landscaped in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
L. Landscaping (UDC 11-3B):
A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to S. Eagle Rd., an arterial street; a 20-foot wide street buffer
is required along Street A where it is designated as a collector street(i.e. from Eagle Rd. to the intersection of
Street C), landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 50' foot+/- wide buffer is proposed along
Eagle Rd. and a 30-foot wide buffer is proposed along the collector street(Street A)landscaped with grass and
deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs in excess of the minimum standards.
Parkways are required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. Landscaping is
proposed within parkways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table that
demonstrate compliance with UDC standards.
Landscaping is required along all pathways in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-12C.
Landscaping is proposed along pathways; calculations should be included in the Landscape Calculations table
that demonstrate compliance with UDC standards.
Common open space is required to be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3E.
Landscaping is depicted in common areas in excess of UDC standards except along the Farr Lateral and Lot
46,Block 5 (the ridge lot with the trail).
There are existing trees on the site within proposed building lots that are proposed to be removed that may
require mitigation. The Applicant should coordinate with Matt Perkins,the City Arborist,to determine
mitigation requirements per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-1OC.5.
M. Qualified Open Space(UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of 10%qualified open space meeting the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B is required. Based on
the area of the proposed plat(80+/- acres), a minimum of 8 acres of qualified open space should be provided.
The Applicant landscape plan notes the development provides 14.99 acres (or 18.4%) of qualified open space.
This open space consists of parks, street buffers,linear open space,parkways and common areas greater than
50' x 100' in area, including the slope area on the east end of the site (see qualified open space exhibit in
Section VI).Although the open space complies with the minimum UDC standards in regard to dimensions,
Page 16
Page 142
Item#4.
some of the open space area being credited consists of unusable arterial/collector street buffers and end caps
with parkways,the easement for the Farr Lateral, and areas that aren't centrally located for easy access. It is
staff s opinion that the applicant has the opportunity to reconfigure the plat to consolidate additional open
space to make it more accessible and useable.
UDC 11-3G-3-E requires that at a minimum, common open space areas shall include one(1)deciduous shade
tree per eight thousand(8,000) square feet and lawn, either seed or sod. There are areas being credited on the
applicant's open space exhibit as qualified open space, such as land within the Farr Lateral easement, and all
the challenging and steeply sloping land in Lot 45,Block 5 at the east that do not meet the minimum landscape
requirements. In addition,the pathway shown along Lot 45,Block 5 would need to be landscaped with one tree
per 100 linear feet of pathway as required per UDC 11-3B-3-12 in order to be credited for qualified open
space.
N. Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G
Based on the area of the proposed plat(80+/-acres), a minimum of four(4) qualified site amenities are
required to be provided per the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3C.
Proposed site amenities consist of children's play equipment/structures, a picnic shelter/shade structure,
pathways,two dog parks and additional open space of at least 20,000 square feet above the minimum UDC
requirements. Dog owner facilities are required to be improved with a dog washing station with a drain to
sanitary sewer system and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal; or fencing to enclose a minimum
0.75 acre of open space for an off-leash dog park and trash receptacles and bags for dog waste disposal per
UDC 11-3G-3C.h. Although the proposed amenities meet the minimum standards,they are primarily located
along the northern and southern boundaries of the site or in the gated portion of the development and are not
centrally located(see details in Section VII.D),which Staff is of the opinion is not ideal. Staff would prefer the
open space be reconfigured to allow more useable open space and amenities toward the center of the
development. Further,UDC 11-3G-3D.3 requires common open space and site amenities to be located in areas
of high visibility to avoid hidden areas and corners, dark areas,unusable space and reduce the opportunity for
crime. Staff does believe the sports park,playground and pathways are adequate amenities,but as mentioned
above,believes more useable open space and centrally located amenities should be incorporated into this
project.
O. Storm Drainage(UDC 11-3A-18):
An adequate storm drainage system is required in accord with the City's adopted standards, specifications and
ordinances. Design and construction is required to follow Best Management Practice as adopted by the City.
P. Irrigation(UDC 11-3A-15)
An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided with development to each lot within
the subdivision in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-15. Irrigation water is provided from the
New York Irrigation District.
Q. Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6):
The Farr Lateral runs across the southwest corner of this site within a common lot(Lot 51,Block 9) and Ten
Mile Creek runs along the northeast corner of the site. The Applicant proposes to leave these waterways open
and improve them as linear open space with a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway. However, if these waterways
are intended to be improved and credited as linear open spaces,they should be accessible and usable, and
Page 17
Page 143
Item#4.
landscaped in accordance with UDC 11-313-12 and UDC 11-3G-3-E, including one tree per 100 pathway feet
and one tree per 8,000 square feet of open area,as well as vegetated with seed or sod.
R. Fencing(UDC 11-3A-7):
All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6C and 11-3A-7.
Six-foot tall open vision vinyl slat top fencing is proposed along connection pathways and the Farr Lateral,4-
foot tall open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed adjacent to the dog parks and 6-foot tall vinyl fencing is
proposed along street buffers and the perimeter of the subdivision as shown on the landscape plan. UDC 1I-
3A-6C.3 requires open laterals to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-foot in height and having an
11-gauge,2-inch mesh or other construction equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral. Staff
recommends open fencing is installed between the lateral and the pathway to preserve public safety.
S. Building Elevations (UDC I I-3A-19 1 Architectural Standards Manual):
The Applicant submitted sample photo elevations of the types of homes planned to be constructed in this
development which are included in Section VI. Homes depicted are predominantly single-story, some with a
bonus room,with a few that are 2-stories in height proposed on the east end of the development on or near the
rim. All but 44 of the homes are proposed to be restricted to single-story with the option of a bonus room;the
larger lots on the east end of the development are not restricted to single-story homes (see exhibit in Section
VII.J). Building materials consist of a mix of finish materials(i.e.horizontal and vertical siding and stucco)
with stone/brick veneer accents.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends DENIAL of the requested annexation and preliminary plat based on the Findings in
section IX. and the Director has denied the private street and alternative compliance based on the Findings
in section IX.
B. The Meridian Planning&Zoning Commission heard this item on April 1, 202L At the public
hearing,the Commission moved to recommend DENIAL on the subject annexation request.
I. Summary of the Commission public hearing
a. In favor: Deborah Nelson
b. In opposition: Kathy White, Stephen Rankin
C. Commenting: Deborah Nelson
d. Written testimony: Staff received 13 letters in opposition. Issues expressed include
density, lack of transition to Vantage Pointe Subdivision, lack of sidewalks and
narrowness of private roads, developer trying to fit in as many lots as possible without
providing quality amenities and necessary infrastructure, emergency access,lack of
cooperation with the adjacent neighbors, and a large higher density project being
located on the fringe of the City.
e. Staff presenting application: Alan Tiefenbach
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons,Joe Bon ig orno
Page 18
Page 144
Item#4.
2. Key issue(s) testimony
a. Density and lack of sidewalks.
3. Key issue(s)of discussion by Commission:
a. Commissioners expressed issues related to density, lack of transition, lack of sidewalks,
amount of private roads, low fire station reliability and whether Station 4 will even be
built and staffed,trying to pack in as many houses as possible,not walkable, lack of
amenities, emergency access issues,past problems with HOAs taking on costs
associated with private streets, and the project not being a"premier"community.
4. Commission change(s)to Staff recommendation:
a. None
Page 19
Page 145
Item#4.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Annexation Legal Description&Exhibit Map (date 1/20/21)
AAk 5; wtvoth Larid 5urvin lriq, PLC
�j Z. A46r,,�r 7-, fur. Ealmrr.t ID ��f�i I
Skybreak Annexation Legal Description
BASIS Old BEAFUNGS 15 S. 01,12'S2"VV. betwRnn a fount#alurn4wirm tap marking the W114 corner and 6 found
alurninum cav marking ttM NW comer of 5ect.4n ap,T. 2 J., R. 1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho,
A penal of(land locates In the 51{2 nF Me 144Ij4 0 Section 4 Township 2 North, Range 1 East Boise Meridian,
Aaa Coanty, Idaho, more particularly desu!bW as Foll :
COMMENCING at an akiminum cap marking the NW coinfir of s.90 Section 4;
Thence.S. 0912'52"W., ceindderrt with Lice w2sr line or said NWII 1 and the caravline of S. Eagle Road, 1352.07
feet to an alurnInurp rap PLS 13550, markiW the N 4 16 rqfn r or said Seetkon 4 arsd the POINT OF
BEGINNING;
Thence S. BcrS2'22°f~, to incident with tha mrth Irnr*4F Said 5112 cf the NYr+114, d dl-qance od 1321.03 feet tD a
Sf8"remrlcap PI-5 645. marking the NV4I f t6 comer of wick Sedion 4j,
Thence N, 89°56'41"'E.,colnoderit with said narttr kirm, 13Z1.1a feet to a 510"rebar/cap PIS 4347, rnarkir% the
CN11tE carnet of said Seclran 4;
Thence 5-CG'37'07"W-, ca+nudLIA whir t1-re Iasi Brie of s-.fd NVVV4, a&Wrica of 1313.72 k-et to a 3M'
mbar/cap Pt;645, rTmarWliq the C1/4 omrrier of Said Sebtion 4;
Thence N.89 4d'12"W-Wncldent Apth the south fine of said Se-tron 4.a d1stanrje of 26U2,7t reef tD air kgime
aluminum ram, marking the YVIJ4 of said SecLlbn 4;
Thenpe N. 00012'52-[,, cvlricldent With said viest Inner 1328.27 Feet to the J#GINTOF RE6Ii'INING.
The above described parmJ cofltains 00.4GI -scan More:ok N-m.
a 1 ,574
f I'D
BEA "
Page 20
Page 146
Item#4.
R Of ffL R„T_r.
h,i77lu x� t
rq
W Lk
I
_ � I
I
a
F I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
u $ - - - - - --- - ----- x
'�I I [.fdfF�177�1
~ I 1k
Page 21
Page 147
Item#4.
B. Rezoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map (date: 1/20/21)
ti
.. awwctt Larld urveyirfe�jT LLC x -
�_ - YF1 P (2Liba 59&•b 1 1)4 F: 1.208;1 3 98-81 05 CL
Q �] �tuigtop eve F,rl4l�rr Q 856 1 r' 11574
Skybreak R-8 Zoning Descripbon IN
GASM OF BEARINGS Is 10912'SZ"W. to meen a found ailumIDum cap trlaeking th-e W1)4 ccwvr and a Nund
alurminurn-cap marklog the NAY mmer-of Seabn 4, T. :4 N., R. 1 E,, 1,M„ AOa County, Cdaho.
A pam6 of rand iocaLed in the S112 of the NV11�4&Semen I ToWpiship I No the Marge 1 East, 13015e Meridlanr
Ada County, Tdahr), snora parULVarfy destri;hed ag Follows:
COMM601110MG at nn aluminum cap marking thp-NW corner of said`action 4,
Thincv 5. 401V52"W.{cuiMicident Mth the west floe al said NW114. a distance or 1352.07 feet to an alumrnum
-�ap PL5 13559, marking the 14111.corner eF mpd Section 4 aM thf! POINT OF BEGINNING.1
Tlw-nw 5. WP52'17" F., cconcidlent with the north Hne 8F-said 5112 of the NWI?4, a dRstanre of 132103 feet tQ a
5}8"rebarftap KS 645, marking the NW1}16 Cartier aF said Sech4sr 4;
Thence N. 139P5W41"F., crkc#dent WO Said north Iln-e, 2bl.7$Feet;
y`herice 5, 00131252"U, par-511W wrth said west 111ne, 1137;56 Feet;
fhe Ce fl_WV'OEI"W-r 5.43 FM;
Fhence S. W"12'5Z"W., paralat:t wb sold wit Mine, 454.'M fm ;
Therm N.891341'23"W.r 73.73 feet;
rtrence N. 711155'29"W.j 35.46 fiatat;
'174W[� N.9"4250 W., tP.79 Teets
fence S. 000121521'W-r paraftel with 5W0 west line, 146.02 ftvt;
Thence S. 89047,0$rt E,r ax ret;
Thence S. 40111 'S2" W. pamMlei WO safd m5t line, 601 r95 Feet ko the south IFnV-dP-raid 6WIC 4;
Thence N. :1390W1 Zn V1,, Winddent with said--youth line, MC42 feet. hn an iftg1 [se aiuminurn cap, narking
WI/4 01 said Section 4;
TheKe N. 00,112'52" E., cuinddent with salt#wesr line, 1326.27 Feet to the PO T OF$E[;f MING_
The above dmtibed Varcel aontaim 411158 acres more cr less.
Page 22
Page 148
Gm�
_ _NZAMW
• --—--_-- & -- - ,_ �'Irm-
� � -
71
� � p � �■§ � |
� |
. r
. ,
I{ �§i ,
§�q 9
�
2�
A � i
2 | �
� . .
. .
_ |
g�■ �.£ @ m
� - -
in a
� -. � ■� / ` �
� � - -- -- �--
� 2 ,
/ j §j I
q �§
\ 3t E
.�(
&&2
%2w2 k� I
} �k
,& �w � ,
§� i kt
I
�
Page 23
�7�q
{
Item#4. 1ot� I. ndlry1n�}; L LC
E: r208) 39&-i"' 104 + t b7 3�6 510,5
� �
Skybroak -15 Zoning Description
BASS OF BEARINGS Ls S. V12'52" W. betw4mn a f(jUnd aluminLtro cap marking the W114 torrWr arkd a fOr,nd
slLarnirrurn rap marking the hiV4 corner-of SCCt-Dn 4, f. � N,, R. t E,F 13,M., Ada Qounty, Idaho
A parcel of JarwJ UwAted in the 5112 of tttie NVY114 of 920jun 4 T-ownsh"rp 2 NDrthr Range 1 EOSL Boise merldon,
Ada County, WaW, rmure particularly describiO as rollDws:
COMMENCING at are io14mlrium cap nmrking the NW carner-Df said Shan 4�
-tnenoe 5. 0012'52"W, ❑nlnddent with the west Ilrle Of Shld NVV1{4, a dlskuncQ or 1352,07 Teet w are alummL�m
Cap Pi_S 13550r marking [he NI11b corw-r of sawj Secoon 4;
irlenW S. 69PS222"-E., w1wident with the north Ilrhe 01 said 5112 of the NYV1jj, a distame or 1321,03 Net Lu a
5JH"feharltap PL.S 645, rTwrkir-g the NW1115 comer Df sold Section q I-
Tpieoce N. W5641"�-: , a ine+dEnt wltti said -iorth lime, 26.1.79 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING,
TherEt tontlnuinr}74, 69155'41" F, coinc]Oent wiNi said north lir», 1,059.11 Feet W a W-5" rabarICaID Pl-5 A34J,
rri,rklrtg th N CN3/16 wrher of said Simon 4;
Dwrlce S. O01137'07"W, CnincidenC"kh the east ilre of said Secboh 4, i� distanim Qf 1S33-72 Feet hi 1!4"
rebar/cap RS 545r marking thr-C114 curler ot. and Section 4;
Thence N, 891148'12" W., roincrOenC with the sotO lhne ior sa-d NW LMP a di5tance et 1 ZP9.29 leTk;
Tr+ae N. 00"12'52" E., parallel with said we5t ihw, 601.95 feetr
Therkce N. 991247'08"W.. 2Z,3 J! feet;
Thence N. t10412 "E., parallel with said west flrie, i 46_01. reerr
Thwwa 5, 89"44"25" E., !57.79 feet,
Tbanum S, 7105529" 1-, 31.,;6 feet;
Thence S. S41141 23" E-, 13.11 fear,
Th,enm N. OULIn2-E,, parallej with said west Prm, 4,94.70 feel;
Ttxnce S. 134047'QS" L, 5.43 fret,;
Thence N. 00p12r52"L,r parallel wlth said WPZt IiM, 137.56 fft-L10 Me POINT OF BEGIN WING_
-rl,e above dewibed oarcei cantAjns 36.604 acres MOM or ass.
Page 24
Page 150
Item#4.
at"UR X*kwlmT
apu-
07
h 1l213I' ui�u
y I I
R
1511- 4
�uoI
I I
w
I� I�
I I
� I I
� I
I
w
I
I m w
4q
h
ILI
PAMLrm
i
i
� I
z
oa
+rr
Page 25
Page 151
Item#4.
C. Preliminary Plat(date: 12/11/2020)
5M'52'M'E 12919Q' NN-,' E !?'AV .
L 3 + • 1 � . I . . o �i u�x p 5i i
,x
TP
PS i - � � �� • � � {�'� �" 'Y'+ r7 J J ` I 'iP�f' I los i„ y i
IMa
M- In 1A NalbII
} id
t
f x
�-
I � lk
w
u b si M �� �� y
fff I f,x
I '
N747E'x671'12Y7.76' NBP'�$'18•W 131$.3B'
A Landscape Plan (date: 12/11/2020)
Page 26
Page 152
Item#4.
E. Gated versus Non Gated(date: 2/11/2020)
All streets shown in gated portion are private streets
rr .1
art
1�
. I
Traditional ighborholad Gated Community
F. Open Space Exhibit(date: 12/30/2020)
L-------
z --J
Item#4.
G. Zoning Exhibit(date: 12/10/2020)
- - -- - R-8 Single - . . R-15 two Story,
j Attached ` � � I [ 1 Single Family j
R-15 Large Rim Lot
I I_ 1�_ �•� I��"' CCEG Housing„)
• f _- 1 � ' f �� I—
r. ��1`�� !W_ �I .I. _� R-15 Gated Single
_-- _ Story. Single
-�
II, - — R-8 Single Story, ] ~�'I _ Family
-
Single Family _ - -
f ! J w "j` -R-15 Gated,—.— -- — — — I Single Family
- - f _Custom l
H. Phasing Plan (date 2/10/21)
„FE nar.E: ;•.
— — —--- — — — — — ---
li
i
III, � �' � •
ill ` �ryry` i e
Page 154
I. Proposed Private Street Sections
L L
LL
TM li I TE T.-
W
PRiVATE-YMM7&E,-nC)P+ATC,ATEHIDLU-- 2
AZ I-T T: :'YU ;IP!
L L
Trf-li
PRMVATE MaT SKnCN WTH MEDM MLAND
7-LE ,frT-. .+LE PP3.D
L
L
t4--un o I
L IL L
Tr V
29 PqIVATESTREMM�+FFfAd
ALE Jr Ti, kE �FF ID J.
PRIVATE M-ET(STREETS L.J61, N 0. P.a.P) to
....0 -.Tr .{,L FiS.F.-
L
L M,.LL
JL
41f%
E? rm
2 7'FR I VATE STUEET Wj 0 ETAC H ED WALK 0 N2:9 DE(9-M EETS K AND S) I
{ALE- +r T'T ' LLE F-3T
Page 29
Item#4.
J. Phasing Description (date: 12/10/21)
PROJECTED PROJECT TIMELINE
Milestone Date
Z021 -
■ City Council Approval est. Aril 2021
■ Eagle Road-Amiqr to Victor Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2021
2022 -
■ 20 Homes Occupied 151 home available April 2022 Au ust 2022
2023 -
■ Lake Hazel Road and Eagle Road Intersection Construction 2023
■ Eagle Road-Victory to Amity Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2023
■ Fire Station #8 - Completed and Staffed December 2023
■ 50 Homes Occupied September 2023
Z024 -
■ Lake Hazel Road - Ea le to Cloverdale Road Widening to 5 Lanes 2024
■ 100 Homes Occupied June 2024
Z025 -
■ 150 Hoines Occupied June 2025
Z026 -
■ 200 Homes Occupied June 2026
2027 -
■ 250 Homes Occupied June 2027
Z028 -
■ 300 Homes Occupied June 2028
2029 -
■ Com letion December 2029
Page 30
Page 156
Item#4.
K. Proposed Amenities (date: 2/10/21 —please refer to Narrative for more details)
oo
-1
• r-. ram.. _�i. "+- _..._ - � .�
I —
A. Large 3 f4-Acre,Tot Park(Block 9, Lot 52)—The 35,142 5gft 5kybreak Neighborhood park V"Ill
contain the following recreation facilities:
• Play Structure
• Seating Beaches -
• Shade Structure
• Climbing Rocks
• Large Grass play area
• Attractive Landscaping
• Playground fencing for safety -
B. pathways—The Skyhreak Neighborhood
will include the following pedestrian
pathways:
• 10'Wide Regional Pathway
Along Eagle Road—1,326 LF
• 10'Wide Regional Pathway
Along the Farr Lateral—1,120 LF
• 10'Wide Regional Pathway
Along Ten Mile Creek -526 LF
• 10'Wide Golf Cart Path - 760 LF
• Natural Path—1,4.35 LF
Pedestrian pathways within the
5kybreak Neighborhood will total
nearly one mile in length.
Page 31
Page 157
Item#a. Parks 'Black 2, Lot I and Black 5, Lot 121) - The 5kylareak Neigh barhood pa rk wil I centa i n two
} .1/4 Ac small dog,, dog parks th at wil l in cl ud e ;h e fol lowing:
• 0I)e n Vision Fencing _
• Dual Gate System
x _
• Seating Areas 1W E ATO
• Attractive Landsc'al)ing
1rI ` � L
h
D. Entry Park(BI-ock 5,lot 114)—The �
main Collector Roadway will -
terminate in an attractively
landscaped open space that will
provide for an aesthetically _ r
a ppe a I i ng e nt ry statement that ••, _ _-f
will convey a sense of arrival, -
• Specimen Tree -
Plantings
• Seating Areas
• Attractive Landscaping
• Pathway
E.Open Sports Park (Blo(k 5, Lot
- 97)—This park will include:
* Large 1-a cre ope n s ports a rea
* Pathway Connection
• Seating Areas
� - • . - • Attractive Landscaping
Page 32
Page 158
Item#4. Il cis capeci Passive Open Space —Located throughorut tyke Eleighborhood:
* Attractive Land9caping
* Buffering of side yards -
Premier 5ignage and Entry Monuments t
k
H. Pedestrian Connection Exhibit
k k
--------------
PI
jvbnk
Pi: _vsrian Coineclion internal Pathway System
Rno6r.al Pathway i Pedestr?an+GoN Cart
Path
Page 33
Page 159
Item#4.
L. Parking Plan
I
L
On-Street Parking
334 Spaces
Page 34
Page 160
Item#4.
M. Common Driveway Exhibits
I-- -A—I
J
8L[JCIC 4 r I
t s I I wAta EAseuEvr
I. is 3
I
14 I
_ AO.ca'm�wwr � J 12
— I3
� s,do'S1pc
sEle•cx arc
UN FASI 51°E OF
I
30Aii FRONT L�� _
-
f �
17 — —
n,yl f
is
r.... f .. .. -
To � LD AM, --
1 5
SI E F LPi,
4N M29M P 4 —
I
g �fGp'D�rVF a
F I �
jI �Burro
i`FfH•.CFS T4P 3[I,aP' H'ATf T 7 I 15
S�IIEg�4E7.r i¢
° I ,9 I
` j I y� 9PETfp
I ' E'er T-NEWAYIEL(T.h ED
EET
ON Ehgr SIDE OF LOT.
�R
rages
Page 161
Item#4.
F—————-1
BLOCK 5 I Ij h'MEE
QN'SIDE w,10655. MNEW LGCAlEP
-+-l;ETl)-Cv Tip Gi5 EkTr SILT GF LOT.
34 35 I I 15
3T
REYMEM M EMEQQNL+'AMESS MY
33
F-
F——————
12.M' RrAN
SETW-J� TI&
21 32
LET 2- TAKES DIREL7-rREEF LOT M TAKES URECr STREET
ArCESS. INVEWAv LUCAlEt UlftlrEV
ON zntr[H 'ADE OF Lgr. ON 50LIRi 3rDE OF LOT.
--- - -------
LOT 24 TAXES DRECT-rRErr
A= EIRNEftv MUM)
GIM5KTH 9ME UF LM
RE&W
5iuw-x T"
S.a
ti
-7
26
5.00' 51OF
L'T 7 TA KE-9 PREU YREEF
i ACCESS.DMVFWI LOCATED
27 ON W-%PC u LJYT.
M
rages o
Item#4.
I
r 1-t7T Si T4CEs'A=sWET
I XlrE55. DRTYErAY LDCATED r.
On"OMH SrE OF LOT I'
al ILL.,.:;
I I
ti
i
Ba
TIRIYE
7
12.UD' RErR I PED PAIPWAY ————
� IwmAnk
L6T 77 TES DIRECT 3—MEEr
ArCES5. ngIW"'f U3r-AMM
'• - f N EOST ME OF LCR
77
I I
I 3.0, Aut
SEriIECR �
LQi IRS TFKn 7I4Q mzEET I _� Imo. smE Y I BLOCK 5 —
nN WEiD5P OF ChTED
I I I I a I I LAi +6a iNSES ]PECi STT+EEf
l l l I ON EEA5T 31D EWAY �,E,'
LDr
Tea I T61 ls7 15e T55
1 154 153
'UrM"Eb 70 NEW EHV KN-MS ONLY
I - sW REM
LMYCCK 9 I !
- I 179 154 f r f f
� i w
Lpi 1 N TAX aINEri STkEE T I MX"E p tYE'loArR o[A.TVVtrT
E
AC1',ESS C—!EWgY LUATQ1
I ON sDuTH SIDE CF Lur. —— — 19N 9tlU H S hE ]F LOT ———
I:
1 126 1�g
gr
Page 3 8
Page 164
Item#4.
I
LO'r 19 TWES UREGT STREET
hmESL DRf4EW+4w LDcKrm
.4W HOYTH NPE :]F LOT
I � I
I+.• I I
i
I 17
0.05 MOO"
M {{
RUF'F'EH I -- - - - -- - -
I '
13
rrp
LM 13 T-WES OIREM %MEET
�. EAKEWAV LDC4TM I SETBMtk
']W WESTI ti41E MW LM.
I
,.nm' sraE
TRACK T—
a
Sa
r��J
7G
Page 39
Page 165
',fF -, s,%-� I LA,
MEN
LW
so iii�w I NMEN
NE ri
�, i•■� . See 0
Twa
r k
..r
ra■i OF ill tij t m
-J�= Fes: °t.
5 ■
x {7{7
i�� I�■ �. 1
���i- _� � w..,• ���� i��, � Iw �r lei ��� 1 m l �W I�� r� sl .ti ii �.—. --■ ���
i!l.77 .
R�i R'�'�i �i� • I■ i�� �i R!'Y iLR ris'illl.!isi�
ys��n iai�. s�r� ii�'� kl,�i :� I � ��, ��' r � i ;�� �� � � I �: i�l{ �+�_��. �.� �i■� '���,
Page 42
Item#4.
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial.
B. PUBLIC WORDS
No conditions of approval are included due to Staffs recommendation of denial.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.oLvlWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=223367&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222919&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
E. PARK'S DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=214368&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity&cr=1
F. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO(COMPASS)
https://weblink.meridianciU.ork/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193035&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
G. ADA COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
https://weblink.meridianciU.otylWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=222788&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
H. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT(ACHD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
L NAMPA&MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT(NMID)
https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=193631&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
J. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridianciU.or lWebLinkIDocView.aspx?id=219402&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCitX
K. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT(WASD)
https://weblink.meridianciU.or zlWebLink/Doc View.aspx?id=203469&dbid=0&re2o=MeridianCity
L. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SCHOOL IMPACT REVIEW:
https://weblink.meridianciU.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=203 755&dbid=0&r0o=MeridianCitX
M. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY(DEQ)
https.11weblink.meridiancity.orQ/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=222984&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
Page 43
Page 169
Item#4.
N. BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL
https:llweblink.meridiancity.org/WebLinkIDocView.aF x?id=222907&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCity
IX. FINDINGS
A. Annexation and/or Rezone(UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: Upon recommendation from the commission,the council shall make a full
investigation and shall,at the public hearing,review the application.In order to grant an annexation
and/or rezone,the council shall make the following findings:
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Commission finds the proposed map amendment to R-8 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
density recommendations of 3-8 dwelling units per acre for the majority of the site except for the
southern portion adjacent to the Vantage Pointe Subdivision where there is an inadequate transition in
lot sizes. Staff finds zoning the property to the R-15 district for purpose of allowing private streets is
not suitable for providing the necessary infrastructure. As mentioned in Section V above, the 30
attached dwelling units would contribute to more diversity of houses, but the remaining 299 would not.
The development does exceed what is required in regard to amenities, however Commission finds
some of the open space is not the useable open space as anticipated by the Plan and believes better
orientation and consolidation of open space could occur. The property is near the fringe of the City
only adjacent to the City limits in a select fewplaces; this development would not be considered infill.
The proposed private streets serving a significant portion of the site would not meet the intent of the
Plan in regard to requiring urban infrastructure be provided for all new developments, including
sidewalks.
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Commission finds the lack of variety in housing types (i.e. all single-family detached homes except for
30 attached) and lack of diversity in lot sizes is not consistent with the purpose statement of the
residential districts, which states a range of housing opportunities should be provided consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health,safety,and
welfare;
Commission finds the proposed zoning map amendment could be detrimental to the public health,
safety and welfare. The significant portion of the development proposed for private streets may pass
the maintenance costs on to homeowners through the HOA, and because private streets are proposed
with inadequate templates,ACHD would not accept these roads in the future if there were financial
constraints. Also, the Fire District has voiced concerns with service to this development until the
southern fire station is constructed, has concerns with all but Phase 8 having S. Eagle Rd as the sole
point of access, and does not prefer the proposed number of lots being served by gates.
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
Both West Ada County School District and the Community Development School Impact Review
indicate this proposal would increase the number of students on schools that are already over
capacity.
Page 44
Page 170
Item#4.
5. The annexation(as applicable)is in the best interest of city.
Commission finds the proposed annexation is not in the best interest of the City at this time as it is
located near the fringe of the City and may not maximize existing public services. Further,
Commission finds the design of the proposed development plan is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as discussed above in Section V.
B. Preliminary Plat(UDC 11-6B-6):
In consideration of a preliminary plat,combined preliminary and final plat,or short plat,the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Commission finds that the proposed plat is not in substantial conformance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan in regard to maximizing public services by prioritizing infill development over
parcels on the fringe, provision of a variety of housing types, density in the LDR designated area,
transitional densities, adequate provision of services (Fire Dept.), usable open space, and construction
of infrastructure without sidewalks, etc. (Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies in, Section V of this
report for more information)
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Commission finds that public services are available and can be extended to accommodate the proposed
development although services would be maximized by development of infill or underdeveloped parcels
already in the City instead of on the fringe as is the subject property (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report
for more details from public service providers)
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital
improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the development at their own
cost, Commission finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement
funds.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Commission finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development based upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire,ACHD, etc).
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health,safety or general welfare; and,
Commission is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting
of this property. Public testimony has been submitted from adjacent residents to the south on 1-acre lots
stating there is not an adequate transition in lot sizes or zoning to their properties/subdivision. ACHD
considers road safety issues in their analysis.
Page 45
Page 171
Item#4.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Commission finds the proposed developmentpreserves the natural topography/hillside along the eastern
boundary of the site. Staff is unaware of any other significant natural, scenic or historic features that
exist on this site that require preserving.
C. Private Streets(UDC 11-3F-5):
In order to approve the application,the Director shall find the following:
A. 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, and meeting the minimum width of 27 feet.However, the
proposal exceeds the limitation of no more than 50 units being served by a gated development, and three
common driveways are proposed whereas UDE 1103F-4-5 states common driveways cannot be allowed
on private streets.
B. Granting approval of the private street would not cause damage, hazard, or nuisance, or other
detriment to persons,property, or uses in the vicinity
The Director has safety concerns in regard to whether there could be pedestrian safety issues with
residents usingprivate streets with no sidewalks and believes, at the minimum, there should be sidewalks
on at least one side, or pathways that connect to all residential lots in the gated area. The Fire
Department has commented they do not prefer 112 gated lots.
C. The use and location of the private street shall not conflict with the comprehensive plan and/or
the regional transportation plan.
Proposing private streets with no sidewalks does not Comprehensive Plan policies such as requiring
new residential neighborhoods to provide complete streets, developing a connected, comfortable, and
comprehensive network of multi purpose pathways, ensuring safe routes and access, encouraging safe,
physical activity for pedestrians and bicyclists, and fostering a walkable and bikeable community and
providing necessary infrastructure.
D. The proposed residential development(if applicable)is a mew or gated development.
The proposed development is a gated development, but exceeds the provisions of UDC 11-3F-4.b which
limits gated developments to no more than 50 dwelling units.
Page 46
Page 172
Applicant Presentation
SKYBREAK A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY
SITE PLAN
PROJECT EVOLUTION far more open space and amenities than required.and providing losing 25 lotsAdded attached homes and open space areas per staff request, Meridian Fire’s request.devices
per OpticomAdded emergency access to south, 2 emergency access gates, and ncreased setbacksI•oved pathway per neighbors’ requestM•ncreased lots to 1/2 acre per staff direction I•–ounty
subdivisioncTransition to un/ac per staff direction.8 -range of 3MDRwithin density Planned
RESPONSES TO STAFF’S CONCERNS
STAFF CONCERN #1 for the 23 lots in Phase 9.”applicant has not demonstrated legal access and one access road for all but 15 lots, “Only : ACCESS
RESPONSE: ACCESS 7 total accesses at buildout.conditions.access to south, per ACHD Phase 9 not developed until accesses meet Fire Code.6
STAFF CONCERN “Inadequate transition of lots to the south.”TRANSITION#2:
RESPONSE other best site design practices.”and , , screening, transitional densitiesbufferingcompatible with surrounding uses through Require all development to create a site design
“22 -3COMPREHENSIVE PLAN :
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN SW Pointe Lane.by privacy fence and E. Vantage Only 2 abutting lots, separated Transition with open space.(up to 3 un/ac).LDRdesignated Adjoining land is vacant;
3.4 in SW corner; 4.1 overall. –Meets Comp Plan density
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN increased setbacks.min. 1/2 acre and Only 4 abutting lots: street.space and buffered Transition with open density.Meets Comp Plan SE
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN South Property Line108.5’77’SE
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN SE
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN SE
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN SE LOT 74LOT 75LOT 77LOT 76
RESPONSE: TRANSITION IN SE screening.Garages provide additional 75’.-County homes set back 50’
STAFF CONCERN #3 8 would suffice.”-15 when R-to Rrezoning lower density zoning for higher density, Higher density zoning for lower density area, “ZONING:
RESPONSE: ZONING 8-R15-R Density = 4.1 un/ac..stdsdimensional R8All lots meet minimums.zones with no frontage communities require direction that gated Follows staff’s new
STAFF CONCERN #4 an infill development.”not adjacent to City limits in portions; only “Located on the fringe; LOCATION:
RESPONSE: LOCATION roads.ACHD widening area & new Fire Station.1/2 mile to regional park Udevelopment.surrounded by new In SE priority growth area,
STAFF CONCERN #providing necessary infrastructure.”community and bikeablefostering a walkable and does not meet Comprehensive Plan policies… –sidewalks “Narrow private street with no
PRIVATE STREETS5:
RESPONSE: PRIVATE STREETS 105 homes, 2 gates–Movado 98 homes, 2 gates–East Ridge 196 homes, 2 gates–Paramount 165 homes, 2 gates–Bainbridge (2 full + 2 emerg.)112 homes, 4 gates –Skybreak
21
RESPONSE: PRIVATE STREETS walkable community., bikeablethroughout = edestrian connectivity P.sidewalkswith no allows 24’ UDCPrivate streets are 27’; .cartsgates and golf for streets
required Private
RESPONSE: PRIVATE STREETS
RESPONSE: Vantage Pointe to SENo street connection available in •Golf course to East•Vida to NEPuraSteep hillside in Skybreak and •gated area:No street connectivity available beyond
Perfect location for gated community.STREETSPRIVATE
STAFF CONCERN #have expressed concerns.”they “Although Fire says they can serve, FIRE6:
RESPONSE: FIRE Miles2.75 –Skybreak Miles2.94 –Pioma2.72 Miles–Vida Pura3.25 Miles–Lavender Heights 3.25 Miles–Pinnacle istance to Station 4:D.planned to open 20231/2 mile to new Fire
Station, Accesses meet Fire Code. conditions.MFDMeet all
STAFF CONCERN #if it meets minimum requirements.”even space being credited not useable open Some quality open space, but much of the “OPEN SPACE7:
RESPONSE: park, next to golf courseacre City -1/2 mile to 77internal pathwayspathways + 1/2 mile ver 1/2 mile regional Oonly 4 required14 amenities; only 10% required15 ac / 18.8% qualified;
OPEN SPACE
OPEN SPACE IN NW
OPEN SPACE IN NE
OPEN SPACE IN SE
OPEN SPACE IN SW
STAFF CONCERN #unless deed restricted this is not enforceable.”be an issue because it will be age targeted, but “Applicant has noted school capacity will not SCHOOLS8:
RESPONSE: SCHOOLS Gem Prep Charter School opening next year in Pinnacle.•Per City staff, High School has capacity for additional 450 students.•2175 2210Mountain View High School 1000920Middle
School Hazel Lake 700645Hillsdale ElementaryCapacityEnrollment Area schools can serve Skybreak:
REASONS TO APPROVE levels of service road network will meet Surrounding 9.schoolsnot burden area Will 8.stationmile to new fire Accesses meet Fire Code; 1/2 7.Density and zoning meet
the Future Land Use Map6.Quality development with open space and amenities in excess of Code5.natural hillside path and golf cart accesspaths with unique -ped1 mile of community with
over bikeablealkable / W4.Over 1/2 mile of regional pathways3.Diverse housing 2.lineHigh priority growth area; maximizing end of sewer trunk 1.goals:Plan Comp Skybreak fulfills
COUNCIL WAIVERS 1027’ length 4(B)(3).-3F-3 and 11-6C-11UDChomes, per with 3 common drives and 112 Request approval of private streets .3F-6C-11UDC(to 1027’), per 9 to exceed 750’ Block
request Due to constraint of Farr Lateral, .3B-6C-11UDC(to 577’), per sac to exceed 500’ -de-request cul, constraint of hillsideto Due
PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Private streets with 3 common drives and 112 homes3.Block 9 to exceed 750’2.sac to exceed 500’-de-hase 8 culP1.: Request Council to allowdevices on gates.OpticomInstal
l 5.plat. final first to prior MFDby hillside to be approved safety plan for Submit wildland 4.Block 5, abutting Vantage Pointe.and increased rear setback (as shown by applicant) for
Lot 74, yard setback Provide 15’ side 3.abutting Vantage Pointe.77, Block 5, -Lots 75on yard setbacks Provide 30’ rear 2.8 zoning district.-minimum dimensional standards for RMeet 1.Conditions
of Approval:Proposed
SKYBREAK Thank you 38 A PRIEMER GOLF COMMUNITY
RSTANDARDS2 ZONE -
HOUSING DIVERSITY 52%Story Homes = -55’ x 105’ Single–40’ -171 Homes = 26%Story -55’ x 110’ Gated Single–45’ -84 Attached Single Family Homes = 9.1%-30 Large lot homes 80’ x 120’=
4.3%-14 Two Story Golf Course Homes = 4.5%-15 ½ acre 4.5%-Large Rim Lots +/-15 DiversityHousing
END CAPS 41 NO END CAPS VS.
SOUTHERN RIM SLOPE 60’–50’
SKYBREAK FIRE LETTER
PINNACLE (APEX) FIRE NorthPinnacleSouthPinnacle LETTER
WASDCAPACITY
WASDBOUNDARIES
TRANSPORTATION Consent AgendaACHD Programed Road ImprovementsCloverdale to Eagle, 5 lanes –Lake Hazel -2024 Eagle Road and Hazel Intersection-2023 Amity to Lake Hazel, 5 lanes–Eagle
Road -2023 Amity to Victory, 5 lanes –Eagle Road -2021
TRANSITION
QUALIFIED OPEN SPACE required)more than 14 amenities (10 required)% more than (88Space 18.8% Open Open Space14.99 AC. Qualified
ADDITIONAL ON-
PATHWAY MASTERPLAN
NEIGHBORHOOD HOMES
EXISTING HOME TO REMAIN
HOUSING STORIES
7/tem 77
(:>
E IDIAN*-----,
AGENDA ITEM
ITEM TOPIC: Ordinance No. 21-1929: An Ordinance (H-2020-0046—Gateway at 10 Mile)
for Annexation of a Parcel of Land Situated in the West %Z of the Southwest%, Section 11,
Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as Described in
Attachment "A" and Annexing Certain Lands and Territory, Situated in Ada County, Idaho, and
Adjacent and Contiguous to the Corporate Limits of the City of Meridian as Requested by the City
of Meridian; Establishing and Determining the Land Use Zoning Classification of 41.284 Acres of
Land from RUT to R-40 (High Density Residential)(17.273 Acres) and C-G (General Retail and
Service Commercial)(24.001 Acres) Zoning Districts in the Meridian City Code; Providing that
Copies of this Ordinance shall be Filed with the Ada County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder,
and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as Required by Law; and Providing for a Summary of the
Ordinance; and Providing for a Waiver of the Reading Rules; and Providing an Effective Date
Page 196
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Phil McGrane 2021-082777
BOISE IDAHO Pgs=8 NIKOLA OLSON 05/26/2021 12:33 PM
CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO NO FEE
CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 21-1929
BERNT, BORTON, CAVENER,
BY THE CITY COUNCIL: HOAGLUN, PERREAULT, STRADER
AN ORDINANCE(H-2020-0046—GATEWAY AT TEN MILE)FOR ANNEXATION
OF A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE WEST V2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4,
SECTION 11 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA
COUNTY,IDAHO,AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT"A"AND ANNEXING CERTAIN
LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND ADJACENT
AND CONTIGUOUS TO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AS
REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING
THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF 41.284 ACRES OF LAND FROM RUT
TO R-40 (HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)(17.273 ACRES) AND C-G (GENERAL
RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL)(24.001 ACRES) ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE
MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL
BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER,
AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND
PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A
WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO:
SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal
Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" are within the corporate limits of the
City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation
and re-zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: GFI—Meridian Investments III, LLC.
SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby annexed and re-zoned from
RUT to R-40(High Density Residential)and C-G(General Retail and Service Commercial)Zoning
Districts in the Meridian City Code.
SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the
Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and zone said property.
SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the
laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to annex and re-zone said
property.
SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as
well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning
districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance.
SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are
hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. Page I of 3
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Gateway at Ten Mile(H 2O20-0046)
Item#5.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage,
approval and publication, according to law.
SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the
effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a
draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County
of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file
simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the
State of Idaho.
SECTION 9. That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half(1/2) plus one (1) of the
Members of the full Council,the rule requiring two(2)separate readings by title and one(1)reading
in full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full
force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO,
this 25th day of May, 2021
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this 25th
day of May, 2021.
MAYOR ROBERT E. SIMISON
ATTEST:
CHRIS JOHNSON, CITY CLERK
STATE OF IDAHO,
County of Ada ) ss:
On this 25th day of May ,2021,before me,the undersigned,a Notary Public in and for said
State,personally appeared ROBERT E.SIMISON and CHRIS JOHNSON known to me to be the Mayor and City
Clerk,respectively,of the City of Meridian,Idaho,and who executed the within instrument,and acknowledged to me
that the City of Meridian executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first
above written.
NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO
RESIDING AT: Meridian,Idaho
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 3-28-2022
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE—Gateway at Ten Mile(H 2O20-0046) Page 2 of 3
Page 198
Item#5.
Exhibit A
Annexation and Zoning Legal Descriptions
kin
9233 WEST STATE STREET J BOISE,ID 83714 J 208.639.6939 J FAX 208.639.6930
April 20,2020
Project No.:20-005
Legal Description
CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXATION
A parcel of land situated in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4,Section 11,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap marking the southwest corner of said Section 11,which bears S00°52'00"W a
distance of 2,646.23 feet from a found brass cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 11,thence
followingthe westerly line of said Section 11,N00'52'00"E a distance of 1,546,96 feet;
Thence leaving said westerly section line,SSB'28'33"E a distance of 48.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar
marking the northwest corner of a parcel described as Parcel A of Record of Survey No.6883,(Records of Ada
County,Idaho)on the southerly right-of way line of the Union Pacific Railroad;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line,S88'28'33"E a distance of 1,183.65 feet to a found 5/8-inch
rebar marking the northeast corner of said Parcel A;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and following the easterly boundary line of said Parcel A,
500'40'38"W a distance of 1,318.22 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary line,N88'37'58"W a distance of 237.14 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence N00'41'48"E a distance of 5.00 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence N88'37'58"W a distance of 227.97 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence S00'40'38"W a distance of 193.32 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly right-of-way line of
W.Franklin Road;
Thence 500'50'24"W a distance of 30.00 feet to the southerly line of said Section 11;
Thence following said southerly section line,N89'09'36"W a distance of 771.48 feet to the BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 41.284 Acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of
record or implied.
SAL LA&D
E� ,'C E N Se0 U�4
a
a 6662
Y1� OF
F� Y KIVEL
qua
ENGINEERS J SURVEYORS I PLANNERS
www.kmengilp.com
Gateway at Ten Mile H-2020-0046 page 1
Page 200
Item#5.
km
E N G I N E E R I N G
October 15,2020
Project No.:20-005
Exhibit A
Legal Description for
C-G Zone
A parcel of land situated in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 11,which bears S00°52'00"W a
distance of 2,646.23 feet from a found brass cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 11,thence
following the westerly line of said Section 11,NO0"52'00"E a distance of 1,546.96 feet;
Thence leaving said westerly line,588'28'33"E a distance of48.00 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar marking the
Northwest corner of a parcel of land described as Parcel A of Record of Survey No.6883,on the southerly
right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad;
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line,S88°28'33"E a distance of 643.44 feet;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line,S00°52'00"W a distance of306.93 feet;
Thence N89°06'49"W a distance of 19.91 feet,
Thence 576"01'35"W a distance of 203.26 feet;
Thence S00°52'00"W a distance of 497.48 feet,
Thence 397.66 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the left,said curve having a radius of 250.00 feet,a delta
angle of 91°08'14",a chord bearing of S44°42'07"E and a chord distance of 357.04 feet;
Thence S89°09'12"E a distance of 505.25 feet to the easterly boundary line of said Parcel A;
Thence following said easterly boundary line,S00°40'38"W a distance of 218.18 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary line,N88"37'58"W a distance of 237.14 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence NOO'41'48"E a distance of 5.00 feet to a found iron pipe;
Thence N88"37'58"W a distance of 227.97 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar;
Thence S00'40'38"W a distance of 193.32 feet to a found 5/8-inch rebar on the northerly right-of-way line of
W.Franklin Road;
Thence S00°50'24"W a distance of 30.00 feet to the southerly line of said Section 11;
Thence following said southerly line,N89°09'36"W a distance of 771.48 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 24.011 Acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of
record or implied.
Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of.
All subdivisions,deeds, records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded
documents of the county in which these described lands are situated in.
pL LANO
N Sep SG9�
6662
s� �o
f'rf OF �OP�
F�rlh�r K��R�
9233 West State Street • Boise,Idaho 83714 • 208.639.6939 • kmengllp.com `v I V)
Page 201
Item#5.
ENGIkm
NEE RING
October 15,2020
Project No.:20-005
Exhibit A
Legal Description for
R-40 Zone
A parcel of land situated in the West 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 11,Township 3 North,Range 1 West,
Boise Meridian,Ada County,Idaho and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a found brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 11,which bears S00°52'00"W
a distance of 2,646.23 feet from a found brass cap marking the West 1/4 corner of said Section 11,thence
following the westerly line of said Section 11,N00°52'00"E a distance of 1,539.02 feet;
Thence leaving said westerly line,S89°08'00"E a distance of 691.40 feet to the northerly boundary line of a
parcel of land described as Parcel A on Record of Survey No.6883,on the southerly right-of-way line of the
Union Pacific Railroad and being the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Thence following said southerly right-of-way line,S88°28'33"E a distance of 540.21 feet to a found 5/8-inch
rebar marking the Northeast corner of said Parcel A;
Thence leaving said southerly right-of-way line and following the easterly boundary line of said Parcel A,
SOO°40'38"W a distance of 1,100.04 feet;
Thence leaving said easterly boundary line,N89°09'12"W a distance of 505.25 feet;
Thence 397.66 feet along the arc of a circular curve to the right,said curve having a radius of 250,00 feet,a
delta angle of 91°08'14",a chord bearing of N44°42'07"W and a chord distance of 357.04 feet;
Thence N00°52'00"E a distance of 497.48 feet;
Thence N76°01'35"E a distance of 203.26 feet;
Thence S89`06'49"E a distance of 19.91 feet;
Thence N00°52'00"E a distance of 306.93 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel contains 17.273 Acres,more or less,and is subject to all existing easements and/or rights-of-way of
record or implied.
Attached hereto is Exhibit B and by this reference is hereby made a part of.
Ali subdivisions,deeds,records of surveys,and other instruments of record referenced herein are recorded
documents of the county in which these described lands are situated in.
pL LANos
C5 4\GENSE� GPG
6662 A
Jf9jF OF
It
9233 West State Street Boise,Idaho 83714 • 208.639.6939 • kmengilp.com
Page 202
Item#5.
Exhibit B
Annexation and Zoning Exhibit Maps
10
0 125 250 500
f 11 WEST 1/4 CORNER
N SECTION 11
Scale: 1" = 250'
I^
Cl!
cn Union Pacific Railroad
S88'28'33"E 1183.65'
LAk�s Legend
y5 �CENS£ Gy
k Q FOUND IRON PIPE
CL
1 662 O FOUND 5/8" REBAR
fr -1
I FOUND BRASS CAP
CALCULATED POINTOF 0
ti
<Y K�H� — — — SECTION LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
-_! — — ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE
- 14 [!7 N
O Z't N
co
a:N Franklin&Ten Mile Dom rnI LLC r7
LL
o c O C) 'ID
n Iw En C'I 00
Ui
Q b C7
Z m N.T.S. a
I o
o
/ U)
a \
o I NOO'41'48"E 5.00' 1
0
f 1
LINE TABLE
LINE BEARING DISTANCE \ /�
i
L1 588'28'33'E 48.00 \�
o \ -
a L2 NBB 37'58"W 237.14 \
POINT OF BEGINNING ^
o L3 N88'37'58"W 227.97 \7ACHD
SOUTHWEST CORNER }=
- SECTION 11 L4 SO.40-38-W 193.32 y a
o L5 SO'50'24-W 30.00 John H.
-`` Morton mo x
2 15 14 N89'09'36"W 771.48'
W. Franklin Road
' km
4 E N G I N E E R I N G
n 9233 WEST STATE STREET
4 BOISE,IDAHO 83716
y PHONE 1208y639-6939 City of Meridian Annexation
kmengllp.com
W Ada County, Idaho
DATE: April 20,2020
O PROJECT: 20-WS
SHEET: A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4,Section 11,T.3 N.,R.1 W.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho
1 OF 1
Gateway at Ten Mile H-2020-0046 page 1
Page 203
Item#5.
ppl LANpS
10 ��y ��INS£40 G�fi
7 11 WEST 1/4 CORNER o ,c
SECTION 11 a 6662
i� s9J� 4f `OP�o
�F(C Y K HR��
�Llnion Pacific Railroad
S88'28'33"E 843.44'
� I
I I
t Franklin&Ten Mile
L3 LLC
Oo
com CD to
N d
O z"t rn
�w
aaN
65 W
a m rn1 N a
LL co o
o a
x o d o L
a
V)� C-G
o z mp o
v' 0 125 250 500 I
I Scale: 1" = 250,
0
S89'09'12"E 505.25'
L5
o L7
Ln
I ��o
= POINT OF BEGINNING L8 16 ° >o
a SOUTHWEST CORNER rn 8
m
SECTION 11 ACHD John H. E
0
Morton o r
5
15 14 N89'09'36"W 771.48' L10Ion — — —
w W. Franklin Road
E N G I N E E R I N G
9233 WEST STATE STRFEr
0
BOISE,IDAH083714
PHONE I208J639-6939 C-G Zone
k—g0p.com
Ada County, Idaho
DATE: octoher 15,2020
S
PROJECT: 20-0cs
SHEET: Exhibit B
1 OF 2. A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4,Section 11,T.3 N.,R.1 W.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho
Page 204
CERTIFICATION OF SUMMARY :
William L.M . Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho , hereby certifies that the
summary below is true and complete and upon its publication will provide adequate notice to
the public .
L**44*�w /. .
William L . M . Nary, City Attoi
SUMMARY OF CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 214929
An ordinance (H-2020 -0046 Gateway at Ten Mile) for annexation of a parcel of land as defined in
the map published herewith; establishing and determining the land use zoning classification from
RUT zoning district to R40 (high density residential) and C-G (General Retail and Service
Commercial) zoning districts ; providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada
County Assessor, the Ada County Recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by
law; and providing an effective date . A full text of this ordinance is available for inspection at City
Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho . This ordinance shall be
effective as of the date of publication of this summary.
[Publication to include map as set forth in Exhibit B . ]
I
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE — Gateway at Ten Mile (H 2O20A046) Page 3 of 3
Item#5.
10 NL LAND
! `�WEST 1/4 CORNER
13 SECTION 11Ce
o
6662
0 �o
I 9lF OF SOP
— o — — gUnion Pacific Railroad — �F,L
S88'28'33"E 540.21' 1011b���
LI (TlE)
POINT OF BEGINNING
�F
I J
I + Franklin&Ten Mile L3
LLC
a
M 170 o
O U2 N _0
(O U`(O h
QQl J
ll0ilN I T
-� C)I
a
u 00 "'o' cv R-40 0 t7
FCIj N(Nn I Q a
Coot z to
0
o to
I �
0 CT
W 104 13
4
15 14 N89'09'12"W 505.25'
a
0
POINT OF COMMENCEMENT
x SOUTHWEST CORNER
v SECTION 11 N
Legend
z
® FOUND 5/8" REBAR
_ $ FOUND BRASS CAP
z
2 CALCULATED POINT
— SECTION LINE 0 125 250 500
<a BOUNDARY LINE
lam
E N G I N E E R I N G - - ADJACENT BOUNDARY LINE Scale: 1" = 250'
g 9233WESTSTATE STREET
p BD ISE,IDAHO 83714
PHONE(Z08)639-6939 R-40 Zone
kmengllp—
Ada County, Idaho
DATE: October 15,2020
PROJECT: 20-005
SHEET: Exhibit B
5 1 OF 2 A portion of the West 1/2 of the SW 1/4,Section 11,T.3 N.,R.1 W.,B.M.,Ada County,Idaho
Page 205