2015 11-19Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 19, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 19, 2015, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present:, Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner
Gregory Wilson.
Members Absent: Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Others Present: Machelle Hilll, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters,
Clint Dolsby and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
___X__ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
_____ Rhonda McCarvel _____ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning Zoning Commission for the
hearing date of November 19, 2015, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. First item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and at this
time we have no changes, so could I get a motion to approve -- or adopt the agenda as
presented?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to adopt the agenda as presented.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of November 5, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 2 of 44
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and the only thing we have on
that is to approve the meeting minutes of November 5th, 2015, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. Are there any changes to that or comment? If that, could I get a
motion to approve the Consent Agenda?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, before we begin, let me explain the process of how we will move forward
with this today. So, we are going to open each one of these items one at a time and we
will start off with the staff report. The staff will present their findings and regarding how it
adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff
recommendations. After that point the applicant will have time to come forward and
present their case for approval. The applicant -- and respond to any staff comment and
so the applicant will have 15 minutes to do so, to respond to those comments. After the
applicant has come forward we will open it up to everybody in the room. There is a signup
sheet. Those wishing to testify in the back please sign up and we will also -- if anybody
hasn't signed up, but wants to testify we will allow them come up as well. Those speaking
for themselves will be given up to three minutes to testify. If they are speaking on a larger
group for like an HOA or a bigger group and there is a show of hands they will be given
ten minutes to speak. After the public testimony has been heard the applicant has a
chance to come back up and comment on or rebut comments from the public and he will
be given ten minutes to do so and af ter that point we will close the public hearing and the
Commission will have an opportunity to discuss and deliberate and hopefully be able to
make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing for TM Creek East (H-2015-0018) by SCS Brighton,
LLC Located Southeast Corner of S. Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 14.93 Acres of Land
with an R-40 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 3 of 44
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing on TM Creek East and that
is file number H-2015-0018 and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The first
application before you tonight is a request for annexation and zoning. This site consists of
14.93 acres of land, currently zoned RUT in Ada County, and is generally located on the
south side of West Franklin Road, approximately a quarter mile east of South Ten Mile
Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is West Franklin Road and a rural
residential property and an auto repair shop zoned I-L. To the east is agricultural
property, zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is also agricultural property, but it has
been annexed as the Ten Mile Center application, zoned C-G, and to the west is vacant,
undeveloped property, zoned C-G, TN-C and R-40. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for this site is high density residential. The applicant is requesting
approval to annex and zone 14.93 acres of land with an R-40 zoning district, consistent
with the corresponding future land use map designation of high density residential for this
site. The applicant proposes to develop multi-family residential uses on this site. A
concept development plan was submitted as shown that depicts high density, multi-family
residential use of the subject property with arrows depicting internal and external
circulation and the general alignment of a future mid mile collector on the property to the
east. So, this is the subject property here with the star on it and this is the future collector
street shown here with these arrows. A subsequent conditional use permit application will
be required for approval of the multi-family development in the R-40 zoning district. Staff
is not recommending a new development agreement as a provision of annexation.
However, the applicant is proposing a concurrent modification to the development
agreement for the TM Creek project, the development approved to the west of this site,
but is under the same ownership, to incorporate the subject property in that agreement.
Staff recommends a few new provisions are added to the agreement that pertain to
development of the subject property, including, but not limited to the following: Provision
of cross-access between properties. Construction of a multi-use pathway along the north
side of the Ten Mile Creek. Subdivide the property prior to issuance of any building permit
and provide an overall target density of at least 16 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Written
testimony has been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in
response to the staff report and staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request
per the staff report and a requirement of a development agreement modification. Staff will
stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Would the applicant like to come
forward? Would you, please, state your name and address for the record.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in
Boise. Appreciate the information from staff, but, in reality, this is fully compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan. The uses proposed are for high density residential. So, unless you
have questions, I would simply encourage the Commission to recommend approval to the
City Council for both the annexation and zoning and the development agreement
modification to incorporate this into the property to the west. Happy to answer any
questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 4 of 44
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I don't have any either. Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: We are waiting for the sign-up sheet, so -- so, I don't have anybody signed up
to testify on this application. Is there anybody wanting to come forward and to comment
or testify to this application? Please come forward and, please, state your name and
address for the record.
Hanson: Gary Hanson. 1921 East Mary Lane, Meridian. Kind of. My only concern is you
are putting a high density housing, I didn't hear anybody make any comments about the
schooling system or the infrastructure of the city for it. That's a concern I have about all
these developments that seem to come up over and over again tonight and in the future.
We have seen things happen and single schools being put in to accommodate for
thousands of houses that are being put in. Unless a -- some kind of a system or
methodology is put in, either impact fees or something, I don't think the schools can keep
up with it. They can't now. We are going through levy and levy to try and keep up with
what's needed and the taxpayers are getting real tired of it.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you.
Hanson: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else? So, with that we would invite the applicant to come
back up and that respond.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again, Mike Wardle. We understand
Mr. Hanson's concerns. Obviously, when this project goes forward and densities and so
forth are known, there would be some consideration, but Brighton actually has a good
track record of working initially with the school districts. Most of our projects actually
include school sites that were donated for that purpose. Schools, unfortunately, come
after the people are there, so until somebody lives there, there is not a need or demand.
With regard to infrastructure, I would just note that the Idaho Transportation Department
did full improvements on Ten Mile up through the intersection of Franklin Road and ACHD
about two years ago completed -- or within at least the last two years completed the full
improvements on Franklin Road, all of the utilities -- required utilities, water and sewer,
are stubbed into this and adjacent parcels. So, infrastructure needs have been addressed
already. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. So, with that can I get
a motion to close the public hearing on H-2015-0018?
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 5 of 44
Wilson: I move that we close the public hearing.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: Anyone want to go first? I will go first, actually. You know, it's a very simple
application. It's just a request for annexation. He is not asking for any rezone and it
meets the Comprehensive Plan. I understand the gentleman's concern about schools.
My kids go to the West Ada School District and concerned about how that all plays out
and as a planning and zoning commission we have no control over what the school district
does. I know the city works directly with the school on infrastructure and others, but that's
a responsibility of the school and so that's not an item that I guess I can -- we can address
at this point, because it's not under our purview. So, I'm in favor of it and I think it's a --
you know, it meets city code.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree with what you're saying, is that I know that it will increase the population
that will eventually be going to Peregrine and the surrounding schools, the elementary
schools and whatnot, but I believe that, again, this is a good project and I think it will work,
so I'm all for it.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I absolutely agree. I mean this is straight forward in line with the FLUM and I will
also be supporting it.
Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2015-0018 as presented in the staff report
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 6 of 44
for the hearing date of November 19th, 2015, with the following modifications by the staff,
recommending a few provisions that were on the application as well.
Yearsley: Actually, is that already in the staff report?
Oliver: It's already there.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Oliver: So --
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second and to approve the application. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Calnon Properties (H-2015-0017) by Kostka &
Calnon, LLC / Calnon Enterprises, LTD Located 2215 W. Franklin
Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 55.55 Acres of Land
with C-C (40.06 Acres), TN-C (5.46 Acres) and TN-R (10.03
Acres) Zoning Districts
2. Request: Amendment to the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan to
Change the Land Use Designation on 40.06 Acres of Land
from Medium High and High Density Residential to Mixed Use
Commercial; and 15.49 Acres of Land from Medium, Medium -
High and High Density Residential to Mixed Use Residential
Yearsley: Next on the list is the public hearing of Calnon Properties. File number H-2015-
0017. And let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The next applications
before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a Comprehensive Plan map
amendment. This site consists of approximately 54 acres of land. It's currently zoned
RUT in Ada County, located at 2215 West Franklin Road, directly to the east of the
property you just heard. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is West Franklin
Road, and industrial property zoned I-L. To the east is land that's in the development
process, zoned TN-R and C-C and single familiar residential properties in Whitestone
Estates Subdivision, zoned R-4. To the south is agricultural property, annexed as the Ten
Mile Center, zoned C-G, TN-C, TN-R, and R-8 and to the west is currently agricultural
property zoned RUT in Ada County that is proposed to be developed as multi-family in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 7 of 44
future. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this site is all
residential currently. Fourteen acres of medium density residential, 17 acres of medium
high density residential, and 24 acres of high density residential. The applicant is
proposing to amend the future land use map to change the land use designation on
approximately 40 acres of land from medium high density residential and high density
residential to mixed use commercial and 15.49 acres of land from medium density
residential, medium high density residential and high density residential to mixed use
residential. The applicant's proposed changes are on the diagram shown on your upper
right-hand corner of the screen there. The larger map is the existing future land use map.
A concept plan was submitted that depicts retail, office, and service commercial uses
within the proposed MUC area and provisional office and medium high density residential
uses within a proposed mixed use residential area. Arrows depicting internal and external
circulation and the general alignment of a future mid mile collector street are also
depicted. In mixed use areas development is required to integrate the three major use
categories, residential, commercial and employment. The mixed use commercial area
does not include a residential co mponent and the mixed use residential area does not
include a commercial component as required. Professional office combined with medium
high density residential at a density of eight to 15 units per acre is depicted on a small
portion of the site, but does not commit to a minimum number of units. As is the current
residential land use designations, a target density of 508 dwelling units could be expected
to develop in this area. With the proposed change to the future land use map, this
number is substantially decreased to approximately 136 units. These calculations
assume development with a 25 percent loss to infrastructure and open space and an
average target density of each land use designation, less the land owned by MMID where
the Vaughn Lateral is located and the creek. The Vaughn Lateral is owned by the
irrigation district and runs along the north boundary of the site and across the northeast
corner. As a compromise between the applicant's proposal and the higher density
residential uses desired in this area, staff recommends a change from the mixed use
commercial land use designation proposed south of the Ten Mile Creek and west of the
future collector street to mixed use residential consistent with that proposed on the east
side of the collector street. So, that is this area right here. The creek, as you can see on
this map, runs in that little area there and it just runs up here. This will insure a higher
density of residential uses in this area, which will contribute to the mix of use requir ed in
the mixed use residential designated area. Within mixed use commercial areas no more
than 30 percent of the land area should be residential and within mixed use residential
areas no more than 40 percent of the land use area should be nonresidential. While not
necessarily the burden of this application area, it should be understood that cumulative
changes to this area of the Ten Mile plan east of Ten Mile Road have likely resulted in that
loss of employment and residential densities needed to support transit supportive
development. The loss of employment and residential acreage and the loss of transit
supportive densities may limit future transportation services and have long range
transportation implications. However, realizing a significant higher density residential
component is still important to the long term viability of the area. Cumulative changes to
the future land uses within the Ten Mile interchange have resulted in significantly more
commercial property than originally planned, with both employment and residential
densities lessened in this application area and elsewhere within the specific area plan, it is
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 8 of 44
unclear how a further reduction of residential acreage and increased commercial acreage
can be supported within this area of Meridian. The applicant is requesting annexation and
zoning of 55.55 acres of land with a C-C zoning district, which is approximately 40.06
acres of that and TN-C zoning of approximately 5.46 acres and TN-R zoning, which is
10.03 acres. In accord with staff's recommended changes to the future land use map, the
-- for the 9.3 acre area south of the creek and west of the future collector street, staff
recommends a zoning change from the proposed C-C to the R-40 district. This is a
zoning map here of the proposed changes, with staff's recommended changes on the
right. Staff recommends a slight reconfiguration on the proposed TN-C and TN-R districts
as follows: A total of 6.9 acres of TN-C zoning, located on either side of the future
collector street south of the creek, at a depth of 300 feet from the center line and six and a
half acres of TN-R zoning on the remainder of the site south of the creek and east of the
collector street and TN-C zoning. This leaves approximately 33 acres of C-C zoning on
the north side of the creek. The R-4 zoning will enable the development of high density
residential uses as desired in this area, which will merge with that to the west for a larger
development area. This zoning should be compatible with future development to the
south to the C-G and TN-C districts, to the north in the C-C district and to the east in the
TN-C district. The TN-C and TN-R zoning will accommodate the office medium high
density residential uses proposed by the applicant. The TN -C zoning will allow traditional
neighborhood style development on either side of the collector street, which will provide a
transition from development in the C-C zone to the north and will merge with the future
traditional neighborhood uses to the south. It will also allow for a wide variety of small
scale retail, commercial and community service uses. The TN-R zoning will allow for the
development of a daycare center, as well as other residential types, for example, single
family, townhouse, duplex, multi-family and vertically integrated residential uses. Able to
provide a transitioning in uses and zoning to existing and future medium density single
family residential properties to the east and south. The C-C zoning will allow small scale
retail office and service commercial uses as proposed, as well as a wide variety of
commercial uses, such a restaurants, drive -thru establishments, and personal and
professional services. Employment uses, such as offices, day care center and industry
information and hotel-motel and residential uses, such as multi-family and vertically
integrated residential. Overall there is nothing proposed by the applicant as defined by
staff that will allow for the development of a mix of residential, commercial and
employment uses a required in the MUC and M UR designated areas if the site is
developed in accord with the provisions in the development agreement as recommended
by staff. To insure a density compatible with the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan
for this area, while still compromising on the overall land uses for this area, staff
recommends a minimum of 380 dwelling units are provided on the overall site. In order to
insure the site develops as proposed and as recommended by staff, staff recommends a
development agreement is required as a provision of annexation that includes, but is not
limited to the following provisions: The DA shall be modified prior to any development
occurring on the site to include a more detailed conceptual development plan that is
consistent with the MUC and MUR land use designations and includes a mix of uses from
each major use category, commercial, residential and employment. Future development
is required to incorporate the design elements contained in the Ten Mile plan for the MUC
and MUR designated areas. The property shall be subdivided prior to applicant
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 9 of 44
submitting building permits. A minimum of 308 residential dwelling units of varying types
are required to be provided. A ten foot wide multi-use pathway is required along the north
side of the Ten Mile Creek and to the property to the south per the pathways master plan .
Direct access to Franklin Road is prohibited, except for the future collector street and
cross-access is required to the properties to the east and west. Written testimony has
been received from Mike Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff
report and staff -- staff recommendation is that without a specific development plan and a
substantial agreement for changing the future land use plan for this area, staff does no t
recommend approval of the map amendment and zoning proposed by the applicant.
However, staff does support the changes to the applicant's request recommended in the
staff report and is recommending approval of those changes with the requirement of a
development agreement. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Okay. Would the applicant like
to come forward?
Wardle; Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, once again Mike Wardle, actually, for
Brighton Corporation, acting on behalf of the Kostka Calnon property owner and I'm just
going to note that the Calnon family is represented here this evening by Kathy Kostka and
other representatives of her group, but I guess I ought to put also for the record my
address at 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. It's a little bit of a unique situation,
because this stems from a meeting requested by the City of Meridian in June of this year
in which they proposed to both the Brighton property, as well as the Calnon that they
consider annexation in order to become part of the urban renewal district program that is
being currently proposed and as a result of that discussion it was deemed that Brighton
was certainly willing to -- to move forward, but the Calnon property owner indicated that,
well, not really in -- ready for development, but Brighton agreed to assist by kind of joining
these two applications together in order to get all of this property brought into the city, so
that they could become a portion of the urban renewal district that hopefully will be
occurring within the next few months. So, I want to just come back and explain a few
things, but I would note that we are in agreement with the proposed changes that staff
iterated a few minutes ago. We actually had a meeting one week ago today in which we
really looked at the -- the overall land uses and the zoning and the modifications that staff
has proposed have been accepted by the Calnon property's ownership. But let me go
back now and just talk a little bit about -- Sonya, the second slide, if you would, please.
Part of the reason for the changes moving away from virtually all residential, the medium
density, medium high and high density residential classifications of the Ten Mile
interchange specific area plan really relate to the fact that the property its along a major
arterial facing industrial. Certainly there will be a residential component built into this,
because there is -- by the compromise agreement with staff there is still R-40 zoning,
there is TN-R zoning, which is a medium density eight to 15 units per acre. So, the
component for residential, however, is south of the Ten Mile Creek. There is a very strong
demarcation between the northerly portion that faces Franklin Road and the industrial
and, quite frankly, when you look at the zoning that's already cast along there, while we
certainly understand some of the long-term objectives for more residential, we have to
also be practical and realistic. So, the application that came forward as kind of a joint
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 10 of 44
proposal between Brighton and Calnon was that we would bring our property in west of
Calnon for the high density residential, because we already had plans underway that will
be submitted soon for a conditional use permit for that use. But Calnon's property is not
really ready. It was -- it was deemed that it needs to be given flexibility by what the future
may bring to that corridor, but in order to bring it into the city we had to take a more
realistic approach on what exactly the potential uses could be and provide flexibility for
that future item or future consideration. So, it was with encouragement that this
application came forward. The next slide actually shows in green the combination of both
the Brighton and the Calnon properties and this actually comes directly out of the draft
urban renewal plan proposal that we will be processing through the city in the next few
months. And, finally, the last slide actually is the one that Sonya showed last that
illustrates the recommended changes with C-C zoning within the MUC land use
designation for the area north of Ten Mile Creek and the MUR land use designation for
the area south of the creek with R-40, TN-C, and TN-R zoning. The only issue that we
have really deals with development agreement recommendation or requirement 1.1.1D
and that relates to the statement that Sonya talked about, a minimum of 380 residential
units as an objective and while we understand that objective, we also want to note that in
accordance with the Comprehensive Plan the formulation that we actually have proposed
calls for a minimum residential unit count of 188 for that project site in the future. It's
certainly not to say that that would be all, but when you look at the cut sheets for the
Comprehensive Plan -- and these are taken directly off the city's website -- the mix used
commercial has a couple of qualifications and these actually, interestingly enough, are
stated in the -- Item B in that same development agreement requirement. It notes that -- it
talks about no more than 30 percent of the ground in the MUC should be for residence
and no more than 40 percent of the MUR should be for nonresidential. So, when you
simply take the formula from the Comprehensive Plan, it notes that the area for the MUC
would actually generate at a minimum, utilizing the acreage of 32.9 times 30 percent
being the -- the maxim threshold times eight units per acre, which is the minimum,
generates 79 and, then, for the MUR, that's a total of 22.7 acres, with at least 60 percent
times the eight units per acre, which is the minimum threshold, 109 units. And so we are
simply asking that there be a modification of DA requirement 1.1.1D to remove -- to
reduce the proposed density minimum from 380 to 188. Now, again, I would note that we
certainly would anticipate that in the future with the R-40 zoning and the TN-R zoning that
there will be more units than that, but we want the threshold to be compliant with the
Comprehensive Plan statements found on the city's website. Would just also note that
there was some discussion about the access and cross-access issues. We have dealt
with ACHD and with regard to Franklin Road frontage certainly the focus of this
development, as well as adjacent developments would be encouraged to go to that mid
mile collector roadway that's designated there on the schematic. That would not,
however, preclude the potential for right-in, right-out, depending on what the uses are,
what the -- okay. There you go. Thank you, Sonya. We, in fact, on the Brighton parcel
have a statement from ACHD noting that there would be consideration when the
development plan comes forward for a right-in, right-out specifically to Franklin Road there
depicted on the west. Certainly cross-access will be required by both the city and ACHD
as development applications come forward, but there also may be found to be some
conflicts between the uses that would necessitate some alternatives and I would just
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 11 of 44
comment that one item noted by ACHD was encouragement that at the northwest corner
of the Calnon and northeast corner of the Brighton parcels that there be consideration of a
joint access and certainly design activities in the future that will be looked at. So, we
would, once again, conclude by noting that we are in agreement with the
recommendations worked out with staff a week ago for mixed use commercial land use
designation north of Ten Mile Creek, mixed use residential to the south, and the zoning of
C-C to the north and the mixture of uses zoning south of the R-40, TN-R and TN-C and
with the proposed change to 1.1.1D, reducing the minimum number of residential units to
188 from 380 I would ask for your approval and your recommendation to the City Council
for that action. I would be happy to answer your questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? None? I actually -- I would like to actually ask staff a
little bit and maybe since you're here. That's quite a discrepancy between 380 and 188.
Can you help me understand the differences?
Watters: Yes, Chairman, Commissioners. Staff calculated -- if you look in the staff report
-- I was trying to find it.
Wardle: It's on page 12.
Watters: Thank you, Mike. There is a very detailed area for my calculations. It does
include a higher density residential area -- I think it was around 233 units or so in the R-40
designated area --
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: -- as well as calculations on the -- on the C-C area to the north and the TN-R
area to the east.
Yearsley: Okay. So, what Mr. Wardle was saying is he was looking at the future land use
and you were actually looking at the zoning and that's kind of how I kind of anticipate the
differences there kind of?
Watters: Broadly, yes. Mr. Wardle was anticipating -- or calculating the -- basically the
general minimums in the MUC and the MUR designations.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: Staff was looking between the two with the future land use designation and the
zoning, taking those both into consideration in bumping the residential densities up in this
area.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, one last item. Since this is part of the DA agreement, our
motion would be maybe to make a recommendation to Council for that. We can't actually
-- because a DA is not part of our purview, that's a Council action; is that correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 12 of 44
Watters: Absolutely it's part of your purview. It's associated with the annexation. So, it is.
And that is how staff is recommending in the DA provisions that if you're recommending a
change from staff's recommendation be sure to note that.
Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understood and clarified that, so --
Watters: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. Thanks. I think with that I think I actually understand that. So, any other
questions at that point? Thank you very much.
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this. Is there anybody wishing to testify on
this application? With that I don't think we need the applicant to come forward again. So,
I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on H-2015-0017.
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move we close the public hearing.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, your thoughts? I guess I will go first. I'm not quite sure where to go with
this. They are in agreement. So, really, the biggest discussion we have is what number
do we target for residential units and I don't have a good feel for it. I guess you guys'
thoughts?
Oliver: I had the same thought. I was very confused as far as what you were saying with
Sonya and Brighton as far as what number do we look at.
Wilson: And there is a spread between the two numbers. I don't even know where the
sweet spot is, so --
Yearsley: And I don't know quite either with that. You know, you could split the
difference. You could do a range. I don't know -- or we can just leave it at the 380 and let
the City Council hash that out, so --
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 13 of 44
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I would probably agree with that course of action.
Yearsley: Okay. So, I guess with that -- I don't see anything -- I like the -- the mixed use
split along the -- the boundary of the canal or the lateral. I think that makes sense and I
think the city and the applicant has worked it out. I think just the final number needs to be
hashed out and at this point maybe we make a -- in the motion that -- I kind of want to,
you know, at least give the applicant some latitude with this to let them know that I guess
Council could -- to Council when they make their decision that we were kind of in conflict
of how to do that. So, I don't know how to make that in that motion, so -- but maybe staff
can relay that to Council if they would. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend
for approval to City Council of file number H -2015-0017 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 19th -- I guess as is.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: 017 or 019?
Yearsley: It's 0017.
Oliver: I will second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2015-0017. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for South Meridian Annexation (H-2015-0019) by
City of Meridian Located Along Amity Road, East of Linder Road,
West of Eagle Road and North of Columbia Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 1,322.14 Acres of Land
with R-4 (1,241.10 Acres), R-8 (10.37 Acres), R-15 (30.10
Acres) and C-G (40.57 Acres) Zoning Designations
Yearsley: Next on the agenda is the public hearing for the South Meridian Annexation, file
number H-2015-0019 and let's begin with the staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 14 of 44
Hood: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, Caleb Hood, planning division
manager, here to talk to you about just a little annexation. This is 1,322 acres. There are
42 parcels and 22 property owners that are involved. The City of Meridian is the
applicant, with consent from all the subject property owners. The land is currently zoned
RUT in Ada County. There are multiple zones proposed. A vast majority of that being
R-4, so 1,241 of the 1,322 acres are proposed for R-4. 10.37 acres is proposed for R-8.
The R-15 there are 30.10 acres and in the C-G, the general retail and service commercial
district, there are 40.57 acres. All of the subject property is within the City of Meridian's
established area of city impact. The subject 1,300 acres are -- as I mentioned before,
located in Ada County along West Amity Road, east of South Linder Road, west of South
Eagle Road and north of East Columbia Road. But as you can see from this map not all
those properties between those arterials are included in the annexation. There are some
-- some parcels that aren't included. There are several parcels that aren't included in
between those roads that I just mentioned. I do also want to note in the -- one of the
forms of notice that went out there were a couple of properties that were left off of the post
card. So, we notice public hearings in the City of Meridian via three forms. We have a
post card or letter that goes out to everybody that's within 300 feet of the property. We
post the subject site with a big four foot by four foot public hearing notice sign and it's
published in the newspaper two times before each public hearing. So, in the one form --
in the post card that went to the neighbors that are all within 300 feet of the boundary,
these two properties were inadvertently left off of that vicinity map. There is a vicinity map
that's on the post card and there is a map that's about that big on there and so it's pretty
hard to tell what properties are there. It's meant to let the people know what part of town
you're in. It's not a plat map. It's kind of to orient people. So, I did want to call that out.
We did look at it and every property owner that would have received that post card within
our area of city impact. So, for example, these two no one knew would have got a notice.
All of the property owners already were getting one because of the other properties that
were being noticed. Same with over here. The additional of these two -- this property
owner was already getting one, this property owner touched this property and they already
got that notice. So, no additional properties would have received a post card, even if
these properties would have been included there within Meridian area of impact, so -- but I
did just want to point that out and we have corrected that now and the notice that was off
to City Council will, obviously, have those included. So, it was an oversight, but it can be
cleaned up. Just one more point on that. I mentioned the three forms. State code,
actually, only requires the one form in the newspaper. By city ordinance, just local
practice, we have decided in Meridian to send out two other forms. The other two forms I
mentioned, this being one of them. So, it goes above and beyond to let everybody know
in the community when a project is going forward. But I did want to call that out to
everyone's attention. So, the Comprehensive Plan future land use map, there are several
different designations. In fact, there are seven different designations. But two of them
dominate as, again, the R-4 zone that's proposed, kind of reflects low density, medium
density are the two most prevalent here and, again, the R-4 zone reflects a lot of that. We
do have medium high density, some mixed use community, some mixed use regional,
some mixed use nonresidential and some civic. The civic is the 77 acres that the City of
Meridian already owns for a park. So, there are multiple properties, multiple land use
designations, multiple zoning districts proposed. So, the subject annexation does meet
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 15 of 44
the eligibility requirements for category annexation as set forth in Idaho Code Section 50-
222. The subject annexation is being processed in accord with city code. Each property
owner has submitted a consent to annex form. These written consent to annex forms
have been recorded. The property owners desire to annex, so their respective properties
can be developed to urban densities at some time in the near future. However, no new
development is proposed at this time. Over the past year city staff has worked with the
property owners and some of them have actually ended up not being part of this subject
annexation, but we have talked to multiple property owners down in this area over the
past year or so, each of the property owners that's part of this annexation has submitted a
signed development agreement as well that addresses their current uses and future
development of their properties. Each development was customized for each property
owner. Sometimes it was as simple as just changing the name on the document in the
footer, but a lot of them we did look at the current land use that's out there, what they are
doing now, and anything that may violate city code if and when they are annexed. So,
that's documented in these. The development agreements do vest the property owners
with their -- with their land uses that they currently have on site. A good example is
livestock. There is livestock out here and so the development agreements, again,
grandfather in that property saying you're okay to keep running livestock, although that's
prohibited by city code, until development is proposed on your property in the future. So,
there are other provisions like that, that's just an example to let you know that -- of what
we did working with these property owners was ask them tell us everything they have got
going on, maybe it's some junk vehicles that they run because they are, you know,
farming out there and they have got some pickup truck or whatever, some piles, and those
are documented in these. So, if and when and after the City Council approves the subject
annexation those development agreements will be recorded. Part of -- a large part of
working with the property owners involves an active role by our Public Works Department
in an extension of city utilities, specifically sewer and water. Clint Dolsby is here tonight if
there is any questions, particularly about sewer, but any of those utilities, so -- there are a
couple of different sewer sheds in this area and in the development agreement it talks
about those two different phases, so a vast majority of these properties will be serviced by
a sewer main that runs down Meridian Road and, then, eventually comes off Meridian
Road and, then, also the Linder trunk line and so there is a section in each development
agreement -- a section titled commitments and conditions by the City of Meridian. This
section outlines the advancement of sewer and water infrastructure for the benefit of the
subject properties. This section goes on to explain the city's role in planning, designing,
and construction of the infrastructure over time. Again, there are two phases. The first
phase along Meridian Road we anticipate the extension of the sewer line, which is
currently near the intersection of -- and it's not even on -- let's see if I have got it on
another map here. Yeah. It's off the map. So, at Victory and Meridian Road is where the
current line is, sewer trunk, for a vast majority of the sewer shed. So, what's envisioned is
within two years of the annexation that line -- the city will extend that line down and bring it
to the west side of Meridian Road in approximately this location. There is already work --
our Public Works Department has contracted with JUB on designing that, so that's already
-- they are already moving forward towards this and talking with property owners that are
in the path of that about getting the easements and elevations to make that happen. So,
it's about a mile and a half or so of -- of sewer trunk line that's envisioned with phase one.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 16 of 44
Phase two -- and, again, I apologize I didn't put an exhibit in here that kind of shows the
existing condition. But at the Ridenbaugh Canal on Linder Road is where that sewer trunk
line is for phase two and so what's envisioned within four years of the annexation , if, you
know, private development doesn't take care of it, the city has agreed to go ahead and
take that trunk line down just south of Victory, I believe, or is it Amity? To about the
quarter mile designation. There is an exhibit map in the staff report as well that shows
that a little cleaner, in clearer detail. So, the additional extensions of those utilities is
needed in the future to serve all of these properties. Obviously, bringing those -- those
services to that location, won't be able to serve all of the subject properties. It's
envisioned that the additional extension of these utilities will be done by and with
developers in the future. Future development of these properties will have to adhere to
the characteristics of their underlying land uses and all of the City of Meridian ordinances
in effect at the time of development, including any necessary utility extensions and a more
thorough review of those utility needs and the land uses, again, will be performed once we
actually have a development plan on those properties. So, I believe that's -- that's all that
I have this evening for the Commission. I'm kind of representing the homeowners a little
bit. I have worked so closely with them over the past several months. I do have Kent
Mills is one of the property owners that volunteered to speak. I think there is other
property owners here that may also have something, but he kind of volunteered to be
somewhat of a spokesperson for the group. I don't know that everybody concurs with
that, but he raised his hand when I said is anyone willing to come and address the
Commission on this topic. So, Mr. Mills is here tonight and unless there is any questions
of me right now I would like to turn over the remaining time to him to kind of get his
perspective on this project. So, with that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Would Mr. Mills, please, come forward. And if
you would, please, state your name and address for the record.
Mills: My name is Kent Mills. My address is 799 West Amity Road in Meridian. I guess
from a property owners perspective -- and maybe I just speak for myself -- we relate much
more to the City of Meridian than to Kuna. It felt like we were in that impact area. It feels
like development is starting to happen again finally and that it was -- we just felt like we
related better to Meridian and felt better in that impact area and as we began to talk to
some of the city folks it appeared that now was a good time to kind of put it together and
move in that direction, so -- and I think just based on the fact that there are 22 property
owners and 1,300 odd acres, it's an indication that it makes sense to several folks, so --
that's all I had. It just makes sense.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Are there any questions? Thank you.
Mills: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have a lot of people signed up, but I notice there is a lot of them that are for
that may not want to testify, so instead of calling each one of these by name, I would just
like to open it up. For those who want to testify just raise your hands and I will call you to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 17 of 44
come forward. Is there anybody who would like to testify? The gentleman that testified
first. Please come forward. Wait until you get to the microphone, please.
Hanson: Okay. Gary Hanson. 1921 East Mary Lane, Meridian. My residence is pretty
darn close to 300 yards from where this -- these properties are and I believe that Mr. -- is
it Mills? Was out on Amity out this way. I'm up over here.
Yearsley: Okay.
Hanson: My same concerns are out there. My concern is for Meridian. Meridian --
people that live out in these areas live out there because they want to live there and if the
property owners are willing to sell the property off and develop it their way, that's their job.
That's their position. They have a right to do that and I won't object to that at all. But from
a Meridian standpoint, the school system is the best in Idaho, because it was made to be
the best in Idaho back when you had the population densities, they were commensurate
with the type of environment they had. Right now P&Z, City Council, everybody is on a --
on a rush to develop and they have been doing an excellent job of it, pushing the
population up, pushing activities and things up and taking care of things the same way.
But the school system is suffering very badly. My wife works with some instructors in the
valley and they cannot keep up. The influx of people and the --the development of the
schools and things like that, they are just having a very difficult time keeping up.
Teachers are ready to quit because they just can't take the pressure anymore and I don't
see anything alleviating that in the future. Working with the things I have done with Sonya
and Caleb -- I have talked with ACHD and they can't keep up or they say they can't. And
the people that are doing the lines and the pipes and stuff, they are saying the same thing
and they don't understand it. Another issue that comes up here -- I have got pictures that
I took today of the wonderful white four by three signs that say there is a meeting dated
from July 16th, August 27th, that are still out there. So, the significance of those signs
even goes away and I wonder if people that actually live in these areas are seeing this
and are able to come to these meetings, because they don't get them. The one sign that I
saw to come to this one here, I saw last Monday -- no. Last Sunday, because we took a
wrong turn and went a different way from our house. Otherwise we never would have
seen it. And, then, I wouldn't have even bothered you all. I think that's something
Meridian has to think about and I think from the top down, from planning and zoning, they
have to keep in mind what the character, what the nature of Meridian is. At the same
time, if the property owners want to sell their property, that's what they can do.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Hanson: Oh, perfect.
Yearsley: Who is next? This gentleman in the red tie. So, name and address for the
record, please.
Christensen: 5050 South Linder, Meridian, Idaho. Jay Christensen. This is Linder?
Then I'm not one of the properties, so I feel my comments are unnecessary.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 18 of 44
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. The gentleman in the back. Please state your name and
address for the record.
Taysom: My name is Dave Taysom. 175 West Paint Horse Lane, Meridian. My property
is the four acres -- the southern most part of this project on the west side of Meridian
Road. It's only four acres and I'm 93 years old, so why the hell would I care, but anyway --
first it does help the value of that property for who lives there after I do. But I have been
involved and been a close observer of planning in Ada County for over 50 years. I
remember when Leon Fairbanks, the Ada County Highway District chairman, was really
the planner. He would build a road and the developers would follow and that was back in
the '60s. Shortly after that a guy by the name of Fisher brought in the first zoning
ordinance from California. It didn't fit very well, but there was a start. From there it was
anybody's guess. This year you can sell off one acre a year. Next year you might just be
able to sell two acres. It was yo-yo. Nobody knew what their property was worth.
Developers, as the progress went forward, some would try to follow what rules there were,
some would try to circumvent them and many just disregarded it. One worked as well as
the other. Over those years I have served several terms on the Ada County Planning
Commission and I have seen changes gradually, slowly. In Idaho State law 1997 -- 1977,
pardon me, began to make sense out of it. Began to require hearings like this. Require
notification like you have done. It was opposed by a lot. Right now today I have seen
with this proposal the best long range planning I have ever seen in Ada County. Meridian
is going to grow, like it or not. You can't stop it. So, you better make it good right and if
you plan in a large segment like this you can plan, people know what their property is
going to be, developers know what can be done and Meridian will stay the best city in the
country to live in. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? This gentleman right up here. Name and address
for the record, please.
Hamilton: Gordon Hamilton. 3496 South Arcaro Avenue and I'm here representing
Williams Northwest Pipeline and you may be aware, one of the things I like to think we do
our job well because most people don't even know where the pipeline is. But when
something like this comes up it's very important to me that we get out in front of it. The
pipeline that I represent is a -- is a major piece of infrastructure for energy used in the
northwest, not just for all of southern Idaho, but for Seattle, Portland, and other cities and
along those lines it's very important to us as the development occurs, as it progresses that
that's taken into account. I think there has been an excellent effort by the city over the
years -- everything from the -- from the planning effort that went in at Ten Mile Road to
other areas, but it seems like the developments are just now really starting to reach the
easements and I brought some documents that I would like to leave with the Commission
you can take a look at that talks about how development can occur and -- safely around
pipelines.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 19 of 44
Hamilton: So, that's what I have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else wanting to testify? Please.
Raap: My name is Aaron Raap. R-a-a-p. I live at 6519 South Rapp Ranch Lane, which
is directly east of this. So, I guess my -- thank God it's not Kuna. You know, I'm glad you
guys are finally stopping their land grab, so I'm glad to see that. I'm not necessarily
opposed to the annexation, I guess my concern is more -- I'm hearing a lot of things -- you
know, there is a lot of rumors out of what's going on and I haven't seen any of that tonight,
so I'm assuming that's going to come at a different time, but I'm primarily -- I guess I just
didn't want to -- I guess relinquish my right to -- to complain when I see what's going in
next to me. You know, the ball fields I'm concerned about a little bit, because of lighting
and the noise and I see the soccer field down at the bottom of the hill that turns into a one
lane street every weekend and so I guess my -- I'm just hoping that you guys as you
proceed with this that you -- that you consider just doing it responsibly with parking and
lighting and considering the neighbors. So, I'm not opposed to it. I'm kind of to be
determined.
Yearsley: Well -- and let me just talk to that as -- from my understanding is this is just
annexation. If they do want to develop they have to come back in through a public
hearing process, which you would be notified if it was adjacent to your property, so you
would have another opportunity to comment at that time as well.
Raap: Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else? I guess with that, Caleb, is there anything you would like to
comment to those?
Hood: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I can -- again, sort of a weird -- a different position anyways, but I
can address some of those concerns. I want to just start by, again, thanking Mr. Mills and
all the property owners for their time and effort in this -- in this project and for attending
tonight and, again, the handful of meetings and the one-on-one meetings that we have
had. So, it's been -- they have been great to work with. Regarding Mr. Hanson's
comments, I know you guys kind of addressed that a little bit in your earlier hearing. I
have talked to Bill about his -- one of the other issues that he mentioned about the public
hearing signs staying up longer than they should and that's something we are on and we
are trying to get better enforcement of that in compliance with our code. And, actually, our
code requires that the sign come down three days -- within three days after the hearing.
So, it's not a code issue, it's an enforcement issue and we need to get better at that and
we are trying to get better at that, but a lot of it is we rely on the developer to go and take
that down and code enforcement has other things to do, but we realize that that's an issue
and they do over time just kind of blend in and you may not even know that you saw a
new one, because you're just used to seeing them all over town. So, we are aware of that
and I do apologize that those stay up longer than others. Regarding Mr. Taysom's -- and
I'm not just going to say this because he complimented us in saying this is -- he has been
so helpful in this whole thing. Even before this came about, working with him and his
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 20 of 44
history and knowledge of planning in Ada County and just to the time that he spent with
myself and the director, just on state code and different things, I just wanted to personally
thank him for his time. So, that's -- yeah, he was just amazing in this whole process. So,
unfortunately, we have got some family members that at the end of the day didn't come
along, but I look forward to them -- their properties being annexed here in the future as
well, so -- and, then, regarding Mr. Hamilton's comments, I did flash it up on the screen,
but comments are included in the staff report, referencing the -- the gas line easement in
compliance with the Northwest Pipeline development guidelines. So, well aware of that.
We get the literature from them. We try to educate as well p roperty owners on that and
where those easements do come through we will, you know, again, work with them to
make sure that there is no permanent buildings put over, you know, the pipeline or
anything like that, because that's not good for anybody. So, Mr. Raap, yeah, as he stated
-- the one thing I was going to look up, just to kind of clarify, is the one caveat to all of this
is the city does own this property. I pointed that out earlier. And in the proposed zone of
R-4 a park is a principally permitted use and we are not proposing that the city enter into a
development agreement with ourselves. So, all of the other properties there is an
agreement between the city and the property owner. The one caveat, again, is this -- a
park could be developed here without another public hearing, because it's principally
permitted in the zone proposed. So, I don't know if -- if you want to have some concern --
you mentioned ball field lighting and that made me think, you know what, the one -- the
one place -- and I don't know -- quite frankly, I don’t know if ball fields are even planned
here, I haven't been paying that close attention to the parks master plan, but this property
could potentially develop without a new public hearing, because, again, it's principally
permitted in that zone and the city isn't going to enter into an agreement with itself. So,
again, I don't know of that changes anything for him or where it sits, but -- yeah. So -- and
that's something where we can -- I have your information or we can reach out to you and
make sure site design and stuff, so there may not be a -- this forum to have your
comments heard, but, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I can make sure that the parks
director knows that he's concerned about that and -- and, you know, we will reach out to
him in particular and through any master planning -- and I know they are doing that now,
so --
Yearsley: And I have been to those master plans, so I -- they do have a master plan of
what they want that to look like and I would recommen d you reach out to the planning and
-- or the parks department for that information.
Hood: So, I think with that those are the notes that I had. You know, if there is anything
else that the Commission has.
Yearsley: Any other comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 21 of 44
Oliver: Caleb, I just have to ask the question. It used to be that Lake Hazel was kind of
the divider line between Meridian and Kuna and now you're pushing south of Lake Hazel.
So, that will be not only our area of impact, but will that also be fire will go that -- is that as
well; right?
Caleb: The fire district -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, this does not change the
fire district boundaries, so those won't change with the annexation.
Yearsley: And I think on this map that blue dotted line is our area of impact; is that
correct?
Hood: Yeah. And so if I can maybe back up a little bit and I will talk some more about the
fire district boundaries if you like, but the city's -- and the county line -- again, it's cropped
off, because we don't go all the way, but the area of city impact at McDermott, the county
line, does follow Lake Hazel. So, for the first three and a half miles or four miles or so it
does generally follow Lake Hazel. Then when you approach Meridian Road it does dip
down here, you know, it does this stair step number and so that is our -- and, then, it's
Columbia for a little over a mile and that has been that way since 2008. So, this has been
our area of city impact line approved by Ada County in 2008. So, this is our established
line. Now, the reason Lake Hazel was generally chosen was because of school district
boundaries, fire district boundaries, postal zip codes -- the problem is they don’t all use
Lake Hazel, but it was the best that we could do to kind of line that up and consider what
we could sewer as well back in 2006 and '7 when we were talking about this. So,
topography plays in, but, yeah, all those other district boundaries, library district,
recreational district boundaries, those were all considered when this -- when it was
chosen and personal preference of the property owners were all considered when this
area of city impact was moved down -- it used to be just south of Victory about a quarter
of a mile and, then, in 2008 it moved down to be generally Lake Hazel, but, yes, it goes go
down to Columbia and, then, further south here, so --
Oliver: Does that same thing apply for schools then?
Hood: Yeah. It doesn't change -- it doesn't change school district boundaries, it doesn't
change anybody's address, it doesn't change any of that, so --
Oliver: So, again, this was originally in the Meridian School District, that far down or --
Hood: I believe all of these properties are in the Meridian School -- I don't have -- I
didn't bring those maps with me. And originally -- I don't know what you mean by
originally, but --
Oliver: Well, I'm just, again, you say a change -- the boundaries changed in 2000 --
Hood: The city's area of city impact boundary changed.
Oliver: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 22 of 44
Hood: So, our planning area changed from just south of Victory to what you see on this
map now in 2008.
Oliver: Yeah.
Hood: And the reason that this line was chosen was for the things that I mentioned.
School district boundaries were part of the community identity and so we generally try to
follow those boundaries. But, again, if you look at fire district boundaries and the school
district boundaries, they -- nobody uses the same boundaries that anybody else does --
Oliver: Yeah.
Hood: -- and so there is no clean line that any city could just pick, because they all leave
gaps or overlap each other.
Oliver: I guess my point being is that the gentleman over here was saying that how much
impact we have in the Meridian School District every time we put one of these things in
and I keep looking at it and I think, well, is some of this down below Lake Hazel already in
the Kuna School District, you know, and so it really doesn't apply to all of the
developments that you want to have -- take in. Does that make sense?
Hood: Yeah. I'm just looking up the school district boundary again. I have those maps
printed out, I just -- I don't remember where the line is.
Oliver: Because it does make a difference as far as, you know, when, eventually, the
development happens as far as that below Lake Hazel may still be going into the Kuna
School District and applying to what we are talking about tonight as far as putting more
pressure on the district. Does that make sense?
Hood: I don't know how reliable this website is, but it was the first one that popped up, so
-- here we go. So, what you see highlighted there is -- so, there is Meridian Road and
Columbia. So, again, generally, you know, it -- we are in the same -- well, you can see
the line. I mean the lines for Kuna School District comes all the way up north of Victory.
Oliver: Yeah.
Hood: I mean there are some -- there are future properties in Meridian that will have --
that are in the Kuna School District and they will be serviced by the Kuna School District.
Annexation does not change the school district boundary.
Oliver: Okay. Yeah.
Yearsley: And if you look, it looks like part of Columbia will be in the Kuna School District.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 23 of 44
Oliver: Yeah. So, I guess that was my point being is that not all that annexation will be
Meridian schools, it will still be affecting Kuna schools when it gets there, so --
Hood: I would venture to guess so and some people may know more about this than I do,
but I think the Kuna School District is in a similar situation as Meridian. They are growing
pretty rapidly as well and I think they are experiencing similar growth to what we are, so,
you know, I'm not saying, ah, it's their problem, but, you know, it is -- you know, they are
going to be in a similar situation, as are most school districts in the Treasure Valley. I
mean the area is growing pretty rapidly. So, I think Mr. Hanson's points still are -- you
know, it probably still applies to Kuna School District, altho ugh I'm not speaking for him,
so --
Oliver: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? All right. Thank you. With that I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing for South Meridian Annexation, file number H-2015-
0019.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we close South Meridian H-2015-0019.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: You know, this is actually a first for me. It's probably one of the largest
annexations I have done my five year history on the Planning and Zoning Commission.
When I first saw the application come through I was like, wow, that's a big development,
but, then, I looked at it and saw -- and I think it makes sense, you know, and all these
residents agreed -- you know, not that we forced them to come in, we asked do you want
to come in and they said yes. So, I think it was done. I like the way the development
agreement was put together and I think it's a good way to -- and I guess in some ways
protect the city's investment in the -- their investment in the water and sewer that they are
planning to -- to install in the next two to four years. So, I'm in favor with it.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 24 of 44
Oliver: I agree. I think it's got some great possibilities for future growth out in that section
of land and it would be a nice addition to Meridian. I also do appreciate Mr. Taysom's
comments, what he had to say. I think that that's very nice to hear that, going to go enjoy
being part of Meridian. So, with that I'm very much in favor of this.
Wilson: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver -- or Wilson. Sorry.
Wilson:. I -- I agree, too, and I'm glad I'm not the only one up here who was impressed
and -- I mean the presentation was brief. Obviously a lot of work went into it and I will be
voting to approve.
Yearsley: Thank you. With no further comments I would entertain a motion.
Wilson: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver or -- it's been a long night. Commissioner Wilson. Sorry.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number H-2015-0019 as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of November 19th, 2015.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the public hearing. All in favor say
aye. Motion carries. Thanks. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. TWO ABSENT.
Yearsley: We will take a few minutes. I'm assuming that most people probably don't want
to stay for the next one, so we will give them a chance to clear out, so we will take ab out
a five minute break.
(Recess: 7:27 p.m. to 7:33 p.m.)
D. Public Hearing for UDC Text Amendment 2015 & Meridian Design
Manual Revamp (H-2015-0011) by City of Meridian Planning Division
1. Request: Text Amendment to the Unified Development
Code (UDC) as follows:
a) UDC Sections: Definitions; Residential Dimensional
Standards; Fencing; Structure and Site and Multi-Family
Design Standards; Common Open Space and Site
Amenity Requirements; Specific Use Standards for
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 25 of 44
Drinking Establishments, Flex Space and Home
Occupations; Timelines for Signatures on Development
Agreements; Subdivision Design and Improvement
Standards and Other Miscellaneous Sections; AND
b) Reformat of the Meridian Design Manual Including
Reducing Duplicate Guidelines; Removing Site Design
and Transportation Related Guidelines; Emphasize
Architectural Elements and Change the Name of the
Design Manual to the City of Meridian Architectural
Standards Manual
Yearsley: So, we are going to go ahead and get started again. At this time I would like to
open the public hearing for the UDC text amendment for 2015 and the Meridian design
manual revamp, file number H-2015-0011 and let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission I am happy to be here
this evening to present this application to you. It has been probably a good year since we
have been before you all on a UDC text amendment change . So, tonight's presentation
will be broken up into two parts. The first part will be my section, of course, which will kind
of highlight the bigger UDC text changes. When I sent out that staff report we did attach
some pdf documents for your review. We didn't want to give you a 300 page staff report
to review, so we did everything in individual pdf formats for your review. So, again, my --
my portion of the presentation tonight will just highlight the pertinent sections that you
guys deal with on a regular basis and, then, also I will have Brian McClure here who was
the primary lead on the revamp of the design manual. So, what I will try to do is go
through my portion of the presentation, answer any questions you have and, then, I will
segue Brian into his presentation to you and, then, he can answer any questions you have
regarding the changes to the design manual. So, with that lets get started. So, tonight --
or at least the last application that's before you this evening there are quite a few changes
to the UDC. If you had a chance to look at that table, that was attached with the staff
report. There is approximately nine pages of UDC text amendments or language changes
that we are proposing. The graphic before you currently shows some of those items that
-- affected areas that are being proposed to change, so we are having -- we are adding
some definitions and modifying some of our definitions. We have looked at all of our
dimensional standards in the UDC. We are going to be proposing removal of gra vel
mining from the UDC, add some language about common lot fences , we will talk about
design standard changes, as well as Brian's presentation with the changes to the design
manual. We have some minor landscape standard changes, some parking lot standard
changes, specific use standard changes, time for signatures on developments and, then,
of course, there is other various miscellaneous changes to the UDC that I won't touch on
tonight. I did want to let you know that last year when we first started this process the City
Council actually tasked staff to come up and form a UDC focus group, you know, so that
we could get this out in front of -- be more transparent as we move through hearing
process and propose changes to our Comprehensive Plan and our zoning ordinance and
here is the group -- that group we named UDC focus group and it was made up of a group
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 26 of 44
of developers, architects, engineers, landowners, planners, city staff and we actually had
a meeting with them on May 28th where we shared the same inform ation with them. A lot
of those comments that we received have been incorporated into the changes that are
presented to you this evening or as part of this packet this evening. Not all of them, but a
majority of them are. And, then, also as a courtesy to the Building Council of Southwest
Idaho, we also took these changes to them and let them know what was coming down the
pipeline with the city, not only the UDC changes, but also Brian accompanied me to that
meeting and shared with them the changes to the design manual. A brief overview of
that. So, we did also provide this information to them in a pdf format as well back after
meeting in August 11th, 2015. So, the first item that I want to discuss with you this
evening -- or one of the major changes that you will see this evening -- with your purview
as far as subdivision improvements -- we are always talking about dimensional standards
and density when we come and present to you and so these are the proposed changes to
what's currently -- what we are proposing to change and what's -- so, we have an
underlined format of the proposed change in the strike out version of what current code is
and you can see here that that ranges all the way from the R-2 district to our R-40 district.
I want to point out to the Commission that when this was presented to the Council back in
October they had some reservations with some of the dimensional standard changes that
we were proposing. They thought some of the lot sizes and the frontages were getting
small, so they actually tasked staff to come up with some graphics that I want to share
with you this evening that show you the differences in how a development can look and
feel based on existing dimensional standards and the proposed dimensional standards
and that's only pertinent to the R-8 district. We did not do any other renderings for the R-2
or the R-4 or the R-15 or the R-40 zoning districts. So, any questions on this slide as I
move forward to the graphic? So, as stated, currently our R-8 dimensional standards are
50 feet of street frontage and 5,000 square foot minimum lot sizes, unless you have an
alley lot or a MEW lot and you can go 40 feet of street frontage and 4,000 square foot lots.
So, this graphic here -- and both graphics that are going to be presented to you this
evening are the same acreage. It's a box. I mean there is nothing different here, it's just
basically a representation, it doesn’t take any site constraints into consideration. This is
basically just to show you what the difference is and what you can net as far as density
with the proposed changes and that really is the goal with our recommendations for these
changes to our dimensional standards to try to get the development to align more closely
with the density requirements in the Comprehensive Plan. And so this graphic before you
shows the current R-8 dimensional standards. We took that 50 feet of street frontage and
that 5,000 square foot minimum lot size and so you can see here is the sample size, 17
acres, at total 97 units and here is the gross density of 5.6 dwelling units to the acre.
Using that same concept with the proposed changes that we are looking at, you can see
you have a larger number of units, open space has increased, but your density also has
increased as well and this is something that we also took to our -- Caleb actually
presented this at one of city's town hall meetings, too, to let the public know of what the
city was trying to do and how -- how density relates to a development and what you could
achieve with those changes as well. As I touched on to you -- and I think this Commission
-- some of you can remember when the gravel mining came through the city, it was pretty
contentious. Several -- each time it came before you -- I think it was a total of three -- two
or three times, so we looked at that, we have analyzed that, and staff really couldn't come
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 27 of 44
to some specific use standards that we could agree upon and so we all pondered and said
do we really want gravel mining within the city's boundaries and the lo ng -- the short story
is, no, we felt like a couple -- last year we actually did a UDC text amendment and we
actually removed gravel mining from our residential districts. This is that next progression.
We are actually removing it entirely from the zoning district altogether, but we are keeping
a definition in our ordinance just to confirm that if there are any complaints from adjacent
neighbors we can go to that definition and say this is what we would consider gravel
mining. It's allowed in the city, but in order for us to act on something -- a complaint, they
would have to meet this definition.
Yearsley: So, in your focus group did they -- did they -- any of them have heartburn
removing this out of their --
Parsons: Yes and no. Some of the developers wondered what will happen is sometimes
when you're grading a site you have extra material that you need to get rid of and move to
other sites and so they were concerned that this -- as long -- this wasn't affecting them,
allowing them to just kind of grade their site and remove that material to another site, they
were fine with the change and I think we have actually had a recent example of this and
we found -- made that determination that if you are just taking it from one site and putting
it to another site and it's the same owner, the same developer, just moving to a different
property and grading the site, we don't really have a grading ordinance, we determined
that that was not gravel mining. So, you have to really meet those -- that definition in the
UDC to really be classified as that use. But grading and removing materials, it's not
mining.
Yearsley: So, I'm assuming that it had to deal with some sort of a crushing operation.
Parsons: Yeah. I don't know the specifics of that, but it does speak to the dredging and
crushing and those things that you alluded to.
Hood: Mr. Chair, maybe before Bill moves on, just on that point. So, you touched on it,
Bill, but I just want to highlight that we are taking it out as a conditionally allowed use or
principally allowed use anywhere in the city. However, the definition still remains. The
definition will still be in 11-1, so there are really three different sub designations of
construction sand and gravel mining and it has to do with the commercial operation. So, if
you're -- if you are preparing it for commercial sale is really when you get in trouble with
our code.
Yearsley: I see.
Hood: You can -- you can grade it down and down and down and down, but if you're on
site and you're crushing it, you're sorting it, you're doing those types of things, that's when
you're going to get crossways with our code and we are going to say you're no longer just
grading your site, you have got scales, you have got dredging and, you know, some of
those other commercial -- and commercial shows up multiple times in our definition, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 28 of 44
Yearsley: Okay.
Hood: -- I just wanted to clarify that, that everything has been said is accurate, but we will
leave that and that's really what it comes down to, is a commercial operation.
Yearsley: And since no one is here, I'm -- can we go back to the lot size stuff?
Parsons: Absolutely.
Yearsley: Well, I didn't mean that.
Hood: Dave Yorgason is here.
Yearsley: I know a lot of times we have had in the past that they want the R-4 standard,
but they need the R-8 for offsets. Did we clean that up a little bit better or -- or how did --
did we touch on any of that?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that -- again, that's what this is
trying to do as well. That's one of the other justifications or recommendations of why we
are doing this. We are trying to not -- someone coming with an R-8 zoning, even though
they are developing R-4 density and R-4 size lot, they just don't meet the frontage
requirements or the actual lot size --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- and so we are trying to get that -- this is attempting to get closer to that.
Yearsley: And, then, I will -- this is my personal preference. I -- I struggle with reducing it.
For me I want land. I want space. But knowing that, from what I understand, the -- the
other people I guess they -- a lot of people want a house with little maintenance and, you
know, I struggle with my -- you know, my preference versus what a lot of p eople would
want. So, I guess that's my -- I have to reconcile that with myself, but I think that's what a
lot of people are wanting is the bigger house with a very small lot, so --
Oliver: I don't know if I totally agree with that either, because I thi nk when you go and you
see -- you can almost jump from roof to roof because they are so close, I think a lot of
people just don't like that. They want a little bit more space between their neighbors. So,
I'm not sure reducing it is --
Yearsley: And I guess I struggle with that, too, but I don't know -- you know, I understand
what your intent was to -- you know, someone wants an R-4 or zoning that he can actually
meet an R -- or close to an R-4 or an R-8 zoning, so -- I don't know. Go ahead.
Hood: Mr. Chair, I just wanted a little bit more -- and, again, I think Bill covered most of it,
but some of the comments that I heard in the working group and even outside the working
group, from the neighborhoods as, you know, we get the phone calls, why are they asking
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 29 of 44
for R-15 zoning? Fifteen dwelling units per acre, oh, my goodness, you know -- well, no,
they are at seven. Usually they can't -- you know, you can't develop seven dwelling units
per acre in an R-8, so they have to ask for the R-15. So, part of the -- and Dave Yorgason
is here and so he can speak I think a little bit to that, what I have heard from the
development community -- from some of them anyways, is I scare the neighbors off right
away when I ask for R-8, yet I'm only developing at 3.54 dwelling units per acre.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Hood: So, along with what Bill said. But it really is the perception of the neighbors and
them not trusting maybe a developer, because, well, then, why are you asking for R -8.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Hood: It says eight dwelling units per acre. Because that's the zone you're asking for and
so there is a disconnect between the name and the zone. I do want to make a comment,
too, about the jumping from house to house. None of this changes any of the setbacks.
Still going to be a five foot setback on either side for most of these zones. The R -15 and,
then, you go down to three maybe now with some of that --
Parsons: In R-40.
Hood: In R-40. So, this doesn't change your setback. It changes the minimum lot size --
the separation between buildings is going to be the same. Whatever it is now -- this
doesn't propose any changes to any setbacks. So, if your concern is about the structures
potentially being too close, this doesn't -- this doesn't address that. The other thing -- and,
Bill, if you could go to the second diagram. I just want to point something else out here.
Call it a worst case, call it a best case, I kind of -- it depends on what you're -- what you're
trying to do. But this example anyways -- to get this, this is showing maximization of the --
the lot, basically. Your buildable area. It's showing the minimum setbacks and with this
you have to build a two story home, because you're required on the ground floor to have
some livable space, your garage is going to take up 20 feet side -- now, again, we are
back to 40 foot lots. You got a five foot setback on either side -- there is only ten feet left.
Your garage face -- your door, if you have got a two car garage, is going to be that or in
most places a three car garage, you have to go vertical with these.
Yearsley: Oh, yeah.
Hood: I envision -- again, I will say worst case, because people kind of freak out a little,
they say, oh, you know, I don't see 20 acres of all 40 foot wide lot s. Could it happen?
Yeah, it could, because their zoning would allow it. But a developer most likely is going to
transition from some -- have some large lots, internally maybe they have some smaller
lots. This is just meant to show, okay, if we are going to say R-8 is close to eight dwelling
units per acre, this is really what our zoning -- our dimensions should be. The other way
to skin this cat -- and I'm not proposing it right now, but we could simply take some of that
language out in our -- in our zoning code that makes people believe that they can get to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 30 of 44
eight dwelling units per acre. We can just tell them eight is a number. It doesn't mean
you can get eight dwelling units per acre. If we take the text out that says eight, you
know, just lay out three different single family zones, you know, a two, a four and an eight,
they are all single family zones. The two doesn't mean anything, four doesn't mean -- you
know, it's -- it doesn't have anything to do -- we don't have to equate that name with a
number of dwelling units per acre.
Yearsley: Right.
Hood: I mean if that's what some of this confusion and scaring off neighbors is about,
those would still have dimensional standards within them and functionally, yeah, you could
only get a certain amount of density, but it doesn't mislead anyone to what they could
actually construct. So, you know, just a couple of things to -- to more of what we heard
and why the proposal, but there are other potential solutions, too.
Yearsley: No -- oh, go ahead.
Oliver: Well, just real quick. Bill mentioned that you met with a group of people from the
community and kind of went through this presentation?
Hood: Uh-huh.
Oliver: What was their response?
Hood: Well, you got a letter and I think Bill is getting to that, from the BCA, who Mr.
Yorgason -- I don't know what hat he's wearing this evening, but I imagine that he's here
on behalf of the BCA. They are supportive of what you see here. So, this is something,
again -- you know, there is -- from my just personal opinion there is pros and cons to this.
But at the end of the day we were comfortable pushing this forward. You know, there is --
there is a -- you know, there is a potential you could get this. Somebody could develop
17.22 acres and do all 40 foot wide lots and if they have their zoning in place, there is not
a lot we can do to stop them from doing that.
Oliver: Yeah.
Hood: But, again, just knowing the development community, most of them are going to
have a mix of different size lots, because they know a lot of the market is going to be what
you guys are talking about. There is people that want this size of lot, too.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Hood: But most of the time you got to transition away from existing homes that are on
larger lots and if you propose something like this to the neighbors, you're going to get shot
down. They are going to say, ah, you know, I don't want that in my backyard; right?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 31 of 44
Hood: So, I mean that's some of what we talked about, but gene rally -- and I won't put
words in his mouth since he's here -- the BCA and the development community, the
engineers, the surveyors that we talked through this with, liked it. It wasn't part of the
question, but I will let you know others that are in that community don't like it so much.
Part of what Bill mentioned putting this together, I attended the -- at the request of the
Mayor she asked when we went to last workshop the Mayor and Council asked that I
come to the next town hall meeting and make this a vailable to the public to get Joe
Public's comments on this. I will be honest, I didn't have a whole bunch of people that
stopped by, but the handful that did -- none of them really like it. And I tried to go through,
you know, all the pros and the cons of what we are doing and all this and I got -- you
know, a lot of the feedback was kind of -- you know, I wouldn't want to live there.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Parsons: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, just another comment before we
move on from this discussion is -- and I want to thank Brian for putting this together, but
the one thing that we have to really look at this, too, if this is the worst case scenario and
we get a 40 foot wide lot, it's really going to come down to the design of the homes, as
you mentioned, because the house will be narrow, it will be two story, and that's where
staff to the city is going to have to say are we going to want -- staff to look at every one of
these elevations and insure that the design is attractive -- an attractive streetscape where
you want all front door and a garage? I know we -- a lot of that is happening throughout
the valley as in fill and we have done some of those projects for the Solterra development.
I don't think it's necessarily unattractive, I think it's -- there is a place for it, but it's certainly
-- we have to look at it from the city's perspective on the design and if someone does
come in with something -- with all 40 foot wide lots, just really focus in on that and those
building elevations and insure that they aren't basically rectangular boxes getting put on
these. One of the items that we are -- this is something -- actually a new section that we
are adding -- or looking at thinking about adding or at least propose with this amendment
and I think some of you on the Commission have dealt with this where we have these
large irrigation facilities and they end up -- some of them end up on buildable lots, some of
them end up as common lots and we always struggle to -- we don't want them on
buildable lots, because we want to make sure that they are either maintained or the
homeowner doesn’t inadvertently put a structure or do -- put something in the easement
that the irrigation district doesn't want there or they haven't executed a license agreement
with the irrigation district for those improvements and so this is staff's attempt at coming
up with some language to insure that where possible try to work with irrigation easements
again in -- as -- you know, plat them as common lots and make them a n amenity as part
of the development to be owned and maintained by the HOA. Again, we have given the --
we have built some flexibility here. There may be circumstances where it can't be done, it
can't be achieved, and so we have given the developer or la ndowner some flexibility that if
that can't be achieved, then, take your request up to -- one, for your recommendation, but,
two, ultimately City Council could act on a waiver and approve it as part of the buildable
lot or different type of design or concept as part of the subdivision, but at least we wanted
to put that out there and let you know we did take that under advisement and I know some
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 32 of 44
of the developers had a little bit of reservation with this requirement as well. You just can't
-- you can't predict every situation that's going to happen out there.
Yearsley: Right. Well -- and I guess irrigation company wise I would think that they would
prefer it this way, too, wouldn't they? Or do they care? Or do you know?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I haven't heard a comment from
them. We didn't really send this out to them for their approval, but that's one of the
concerns we heard from the development community is irrigation district doesn't care
whether they can -- they just want to make sure their easement is protected and, Mr.
Yorgason -- again, he's an expert on this as well, dealing with some of these issues and
that -- that is a concern. Certainly we want it owned and maintained, but the irrigation
district just wants access and you have seen it and we have gotten letters from the
irrigation district's attorneys saying -- out to homeowners saying you got sheds, you have
got trees, you have got landscaping over our easement. You need to work with us. And
so we are trying to avoid those type of situations by creating this language here.
Yearsley: Understand.
Parsons: The next topic is -- for consideration is our common lot fencing. Currently the
way the ordinance is written we allow two types of fencing along microp aths or pathways
and interior common open space. That being either a six foot tall vinyl or open vision
fencing or four foot solid fencing. Those are the two options. So, we are proposing -- and
these are some graphics that we want to add to our UDC to inform the public that these
were -- we are trying to provide greater flexibility to the development community and the
homeowner that apply to common open space and/or pathway, micropath, same thing.
So, we will give them the option of either keeping with six foot open vision, which is the
style on the left, a semi-privacy fence, which is 50 percent open, and we have a new
definition of that as well.
Yearsley: Do you have a height requirement on that?
Parsons: All of the fencing in the residential districts are limited to six feet.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: They cannot exceed that height limit.
Yearsley: And if it's all solid it has to be four feet or five feet?
Parsons: At this time it has to be four feet.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: But this will give you the option of a six foot open vision, six foot semi-privacy --
which is 50 percent -- or a combination of four foot tall solid fencing and two feet of open
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 33 of 44
vision on top of it. So -- but again -- and these are the graphics. I mean there is probably
multiple variations of this fencing out there that you could do to meet that, but these were
the simplest ones for us to explain in a graphic and so we have modified our -- or the
changes that we have for this section of our fencing ordinance we feel this would eliminate
-- a lot of times staff will get upset property owners that they can't build a six foot fence,
because they are up against a park and they are tired of -- they have dogs and they are
barking at everyone playing in the park and they don't understand why they can't build a
fix foot tall fence.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Parsons: Solid fence anyway, so we are trying to eliminate that. Now, I will point out to
you that one of the changes that comes with this fencing flexibility is we are modifying our
fencing ordinance to require the developer to put in all of that fencing -- interior common
lot fencing and pathway and micropath fencing in with the development of their property.
So, that is one change that we are also clarifying and I know that is one of the concerns
that we received from the BCA in their letter to us as well. Next -- just kind of going in
order here, we have the design standards. As I touched on at the beginning of my
presentation, Brian will go into his changes in more depth, but currently right now we are
going to take a -- planning is going to take a two prong approach to this. Phase one right
now is to update the design manual, remove some of those architectural design standards
from the UDC and we have rolled them into the design manual currently and, then, phase
two we will come back at a later date and modify some of the existing site design
standards that remain or we will either have to add some or modify some of those. So, we
are not losing all of those design standards, we are just losing a portion of it, because we
have rolled them into the design manual. Here is another one that we added on. We
didn't really quite vet this through with the UDC focus group, but it's something that's come
to our attention and we wanted to get out in front of it early with this current round of text
changes. Currently our code requires a developer to landscape unimproved right of way if
it's not part of ACHD's five year work program. So, we want that landscape, because we
don't know what the future plans are, but we know that it might be pushed out 20 years, so
we don't want 30 feet of right of way that's unimproved and gravel and weeds. So, we
make the developer landscape that with gravel and, then, 20 feet of lands caping is the
intent behind the ordinance. With the recent road widening projects it's between Locust
Grove -- when McMillan Road was widened between Locust Grove and Eagle Road
ACHD went in and widened that from two lane to three lanes to five lanes and some of the
landscaping that was removed -- because landscaping wasn't installed with some of those
developments ACHD wasn't obligated to put in their landscaping back and they said they
would not entertain putting landscaping. So, we actually got compact ed dirt, basically,
along our roadway for a segment of that road and so what we are trying to do here is
make sure that the developer, regardless of when that road is being widened, that they
put that landscaping in. If landscaping is put in with their su bdivision or their project, then
ACHD has to work with the city and the developer and make sure that landscaping gets
reinstalled with the road widening project. So, that's really the intent behind this change
here is moving -- regardless of when the timing of the road is happening, we want the
landscaping in. And certainly that was the other comment we received from the BCA
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 34 of 44
about having this done sooner, rather than later, so -- I'm sure Dave can touch on that as
well as he gets up to testify. And this is the -- really the last one that I wanted to highlight
for you is our open space and amenity standards. Current standards, as you can see
here, anything five acres -- under five acres nothing -- no amenities, no open space
required. Between five and 20 we want ten percent open space and one amenity and,
then, any additional 20 acres after that we got another amenity for every 20 acres. We
have heard from the development community that if you had a large lot -- an R-2
subdivision, why do I need ten percent open space? People have bigger back yards, they
don't need as much open space and so we said, well, we have tried to come up with a
solution to resolve that. So, this is -- what we are looking at now, so going off what we are
proposing with the R-2 dimensional standards, is someone was to come in with an R -2
development, for example, and the lot size average 10,000 square feet or larger and they
are within a quarter mile of a regional park or an eighth of a mile of a community park,
they wouldn't need to provide the ten percent open space, they would only have to comply
with the amenity requirements based on the acreage of their development. That seemed
to go over very well for the development -- development community as well, so they liked
this proposed change. The other thing that we realized is we didn't have quite -- some of
our amenities we didn't have defined very well in the ordinance and so when someone
proposes a picnic area, for example, as a qualifying open space or amenity or as open
space, then, we want to make sure there is tables, there is benches, there is shade
structures. So, you got to have all those components in order for it to meet that
requirement. The other thing was once the other amenities you could use as qualifying --
for open space is if you provided five percent additional open space you could count that,
but it wasn't very well defined in the ordinance, so we tried to put a -- we still allow that to
be counted towards your open space, but we have an area of at least 20,0 00 square feet
in order for that to be counted as amenity slash additional open space for the
development. So, again, these are vetted out through everyone. It seemed to be a good
compromise for the development community at this point, so we are asking you to support
these changes this evening. And so with that I don't really have much to add. I think we
have highlighted and went back and discussed some of these. If you have any other
questions on my presentation I'm certainly happy to stand for them a nd answer them at
this time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any other questions? Can you go back one? I'm still
kind of -- while you were talking I did my math and my lot sits about at 10,000 square feet
and have to I tell you, I like my open space. We have a lot of open space and given that
my -- my lot -- not all of them are 10,000, so there is some less than ten and stuff. I
struggle with that one, just because I think that open space makes your subdivision. So, I
don't know. Did -- was it your developers that were pushing that or is that a residence or
-- I'm trying to get a feel for -- for that.
Parsons: Certainly I can give you some background --
Yearsley: Well, let me ask one more question. So, this is only for R -2 development;
correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 35 of 44
Parsons: The way it's structured it's for any development that has -- you have to meet this
criteria, so more than likely it would have to be an R-2, yes.
Yearsley: So, basically, all of the homes have to be 10,000 square feet or greater; is
that --
Parsons: Well, this says average right now. So, we envision 10,000 or greater at this
point, yes.
Yearsley: Well, I think we ought to probably --
Parsons: I could be wrong, but I think that's -- the intent here is we want 10,000 or larger.
Yearsley: Okay. So, the average lot is 10,000 square feet?
Parsons: Or more.
Yearsley: Or more. Okay. All right. I will think about that. Let's -- I don't want to dwell on
it. So, let's --
Parsons: Well, let me give you a little bit of history of where we landed on this and why.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Originally we had thought we would just rewrite our whole open space and
amenity code. Maybe come up with some kind of elaborate point system, which we did.
This amenity pool, clubhouse, you can do less open space and I worked on that quite a bit
and I'm telling you it was pretty difficult to come up with a point system that made a lot of
sense and so we said, you know what, let's put the brakes on this and let's see what we
can do to try to provide a quick fix of that and this is really our quick fix. Again, if you don't
like it, if you have something else, certainly it's your purview to recommend anything, but,
again, this says average, so if a subdivision came in, the way I'm taking it, if it says
average, you could have some less, you could have some more, you just have to hit that
threshold and of an average lot size. That's something to take under consideration for
sure.
Yearsley: And, then, that also means you have to be close to a city park or a community
park as well, so -- okay. All right. Thanks.
Parsons: Would you like Brian to start his presentation or --
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: -- before we have Dave come up and speak? What's your preference?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 36 of 44
Yearsley: Why don't we do that. Why don't we have -- open it for public comment for this
section and, then, we can open it for public comment on the second section or would you
rather do it all once and then -- what's that?
Yorgason: Do it now.
Yearsley: Please, come forward then.
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, my name is
Dave Yorgason and I'm a local land developer and also the government affairs
representative for the Building Contractors Association of Southwest Idaho here tonight
for you. Thank you for maybe taking a break and discussing this one first. The next one
later -- I think there is plenty of detail we talk about this one and just to let you know, there
is very little comment that we have, if any, on the other one. So, it might help your
conversation as well. First of all, my -- my overarching comment is I want to thank the city
for inviting a broad group of people. It wasn't just developers, it was not just one meeting,
there were land use planners who represent small and large developers, often times more
the smaller type one-time applicants who were in the room. Engineers were there.
Building architects were part of the group. There was lots of discussion from lots of
members and participation, so we just want to, first of all, thank the -- the efforts from the
city to reach out and ask for our comments, but also bring forth their solutions as well. We
recognize that nearly every one of the proposals here tonight is as a result of a problem
and whether fencing or something else, we acknowledge -- irrigation is another one.
There is a lot of these where it's an effort to try to solve current problems that the
applicants are more than that, actually, the city has seen or faced and so we recognize
and we appreciate the team effort to try to solve those things together. If I could just go
through a few items again. I want to just say we support the effort and really do support
what's being brought forth for you today. There is some compromise and some things we
didn't agree with, we, the development community, but we also understand it's part of the
process. We don't always get what we want. But at the same time we think that solutions
that were brought forward were fair. Let me touch on gravel mining. For example, I can
think of a scenario in the future as the city continues to grow north and west down the rim
and over where the river bottom area is. That is often an area where gravel mining could
take place. Not crushing of gravel, but the actual creation of ponds and amenities that
has to dewater and actually pull the gravel out and you might actually haul and sell the
gravel, not crush it. So, that was an area of discussion with staff is that could be a
potential area of concern. Recognizing the effort is not to crush or to disturb our
neighbors, but just to try to create a beautiful neighborhood and so that was part of that
healthy conversation just to share with you there. Density. Both staff here mentioned -- I
can think of two or three fairly recent subdivisions that I have brought to the city over the
last year and a half or so, I guess, where I had to come in with a R-8 zone just to have R-8
standards, but not R-8 density. It was a low density subdivision, actually. It was up to
three units per acre. But we needed to get some -- it was an irregular shaped parcel. We
had to have lots as narrow as -- well, less than 8,000. We had to get maybe five or six
thousand square foot lots just to try to get reasonable density on our parce l. I think this
approach eliminates those kind of battles where -- in fact, I very clearly remember one of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 37 of 44
the council members recommending denial of my project and I was so mad I couldn't
believe he recommended denial of something with three units per ac re next to something
that was a similar R-8 zone, but, then, afterwards the conversation was, well, that wasn't
what I meant. Your subdivision is nice, it's just he was a little bit confused as I had
conversation with him later on that. And so we believe that the request that staff has
brought before you tonight will eliminate a lot of the concern and frustration at our
neighborhood meetings when you have an application for an R-8 zone, we are not asking
for R-8 density, it just has that initial impression and starts off the conversation with the
neighbors on a very negative tone already when you're appearing to ask for more than
what you're really asking for and so that's the main summary behind why we appreciate
the effort there to try to -- try to blend that together. Secondly, irrigation easements. We
can't see everything. I can envision a scenario -- I have had scenarios -- Bill is very well
aware of a scenario that I had. It's was quite complicated. It was an in-fill site and
sometimes if you have your easements over every -- excuse me -- common area lots over
irrigation easements in every scenario you might create a pathway to nowhere and --
which is -- if it's in fill specifically that could be the case. Your large parcels, your 20, 40,
whatever acre parcels, I don't believe that to be the case in almost every scenario. But
the smaller in-fill parcels I can see this as a potential challenge and so that was the
discussion. Staff's pretty strong, this is what they want, it's a direction from the Council or
the Mayor, whomever, so we are accepting it, but we acknowledge there could be some
discussion in front of this board, as well as the Council in those applications and we hope
you consider that as well. Common lot fencing. We appreciate all of the variety of styles.
I was going to say it that way. The one point of concern -- and I -- I can think of the
Settlers Bridge Subdivision, as well as the Baldwin Park development that I did. In both
those instances we had parks that were close to an acre in size on the interior and we had
neighbors -- presold buyers that were working with the builders that were putting the parks
in, they said, hey, we don't want that fence there. We want an open look all the way
across and the specific problem that we found is that when the maintenance company
comes in with their Roundup and put a little dead spot through -- along the edge of the
fence line to make it easier to mow and less trimming, if you will, up against existing
fences. It was an ugly look. It was quite frustrating to that homeowner and they didn't
want that and so that's where our comment is. We can see some of those frustrations
come about and yet I think it is appropriate, frankly, to have that fence go in for other
reasons, too. And so we just wanted to go on the record to say we hope there is some
consideration in the future if there is those kind of requests that the city has that desire in
mind, if it's up against a golf course or some other wetlands open space or something
that's more than just a park, that maybe some consideration for not always requiring this
certain type of fence to go in. Let me touch on landscaping the right of way and, then, the
open space amenities and I will be finished and answer any questions you have.
Landscaping the right of way. There is a real concern from several developers who were
not a part of the discussion, but later -- I think this was a last minute request that kind of
came in, so it wasn't through the committee process. I have family and friends who are
continually asking me why do homes cost so much and it's because it's incremental, it's
not a one time here it is. Of course, land is part of that, but that's -- that's not the biggest
part. It's the new energy codes, it's the cost of material, it's more open space, it's all these
different things we touch on and requiring a developer to put in -- open some -- landscape
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 38 of 44
a section of right of way that might get torn out in a year or two, because it's in the five
year work plan is a little frustrating and so that's where the comment was is we weren't
real happy about just throwing money away. I will just maybe say it that way. And yet we
also understand that it involves a change in policy from ACHD, but I drive near that
McMillan, Locust Grove, Eagle Road section this is referred to and part of that is also in
front of the city of Boise, too. Half of that section is Boise , half is Meridian, and it's not
pleasant. It could be better. And so I don't know if I have the right answer for you tonight,
because ideally the right thing to do is to have it designed and built long term, but our
roads don't get built that way. That road got widened at a much later date and so that's
where the frustration comes in. I don't know if I -- I wish I had the answer for you. That's
just a concern of requiring that as a cost that really would be a throw away cost and raise
the cost of housing. Last thing is open space and amenities and I don't know if I have any
further comment to that, other than we appreciate the effort of staff trying to come up with
a point system acknowledging in some instances there will be larger community pools or
clubhouses or things and they just get no more credit and there is no incentive to put
something in nicer, because some of the d evelopers, especially with the larger
developments, would like to put in larger, nicer amenities and maybe get credit for that.
So, that's where that conversation came from. Those are my comments. Again, last
underline, we thank the staff and we support almost all of this going forward tonight and
we appreciate your consideration tonight. Make myself available for any questions you
have.
Yearsley: Are there any comments? I actually have a couple for you.
Yorgason: Please.
Yearsley: So, on the landscaping, you say you don't have a fix. Do you recommend
something? I understand the cost of putting that in and, then, it being kind of a disposable
cost. But is there a compromise. You know, maybe we do it -- if it's in the future land use
in two years you do a five foot, instead of ten foot or something to that effect. Because we
at least want something there so we can get grass back. Does that make sense?
Yorgason: Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the desire, whether it's grass or grass and
trees, whatever it is.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Yorgason: I understand the long term look and desire. I think we would all like that. it's
how do you get there. I don't have an answer right now.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: I'm sorry.
Yearsley: I know. And I appreciate your comments on that, because, you know, on the
fencing side I was thinking at my father-in-law's house, their house butts up against a park
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 39 of 44
and they don't have a fence and they like it that way and -- and I guess the question I
have for staff is are there provisions for things like that -- I know we have waivers, but I
guess what provisions do we have -- and I don't quite know how to answer that question
for modifications to some of this in the code.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, certainly -- the way the code is
written right now it -- it says it's not intended to have interior fencing all with development.
It only says you have to put it in -- fence your pathway, your micropath lots, and so that's
where the confusion was coming. So, we have taken that vague language out and said,
no, you're going to do it with development.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Again, in attempt to eliminate homeowners from coming to the city -- or code
enforcement going out to someone's home, because they have erected the wrong fence
or even the home builders doing it sometimes, because they -- a lot of times they don't
want to put fencing in because they have to construct the home, so if you put the fencing
in, the fencing gets destroyed or they can't --
Yearsley: Right.
Parsons: -- so, they like that to happen with the development of the home and so we are
-- is this a perfect solution? I don't know. I'm with you guys. I kind of like the concept of
having backyards open to a park, too. I can see that being of benefit, but the city does
have alternative compliance and that will -- the fencing standards do fall under that. So, I
think that may be the avenue to pursue. If you don't want to put that fencing in or you
want the city to look at some different alternative, maybe that's the avenue you take and
say, you know what, Council, Commission, we -- don't want to put fencing up, this is our
desire, you know, in our CC&Rs we are going to restrict fencing here, so that t here is no
confusion or violation with the city's ordinance. I mean I don't know how it all plays out.
Again, this is just something we are proposing, but, again, there is alternative compliance
to help give some relief to that if a developer wanted som ething different than what
ordinance requires.
Yearsley: And that's why I just wanted to make sure that we did have some avenue to
make some changes if -- if it becomes appropriate.
Yorgason: And that's exactly the discussion we have had with staff, Mr. Chairman. I, too,
have seen that where development is built, even after the first home -- frankly, I have seen
the first home go in, sold, a new buyer go in -- it happened in a neighborhood I live in 15
years later, where the second or third home buyer comes in and puts in a six foot solid
fence.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 40 of 44
Yorgason: Now, that's in the city of Boise, so it's not in violation of your code, Bill,
otherwise I would give you the address. But aside from that I understand the longevity
and desire to keep it right and nice long term. So, I understand where it's coming from,
why it's in there, it is more cost up front, but I also recognize there is -- the end resident
oftentimes doesn't want it for legitimate reasons, too. There is a consistent theme, maybe
it's desired by the -- by the open space of that park and look and so we are going to have
to just trust in the alternative compliance process will work for us in those instances.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? At this time I don't have
anymore either. Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you again for your time.
Yearsley: All right. So, let's go to the design manual.
McClure: Members of the Commission, thanks for having me here tonight. I'm here to
speak with you about design review and more specifically the design manual overhaul, as
we call it. So, design review today -- currently the design manual is adopted by reference
in the Comprehensive Plan and in the UDC. Design review is an administrative staff level
review and approval. It is typically done with another development application. It contains
guidelines, not standards. It has both site and building guidelines and, unfortunately, it is
neither user friendly in format, function, or comprehension. So, background, why -- what
is said, why the overhaul. To streamline the design manual. To emphasize consistent
application. To recategorize existing items to correlate better with city policy. To
eliminate duplicates and consolidate similar items. To focus on building design elements.
To relocate site development items to either the Comprehensive Plan or Unified
Development Code, as Bill mentioned earlier and to focus on express standards. Just to
note here, this is not to emphasize one style of architecture over another and is not to
either increase or decrease the level of effort with construction that we currently have. We
did -- with that said, we did, however, relax industrial standards a bit, particularly when
away from an arterial and collector roadways. So, what was done? Guidelines were
either kept as standards, because they were written to basically function as standards.
They were changed or they were removed. Changed text was generally the objective and
we reworked to be more express. Removed text was generally duplicative. Some of
them have been consolidated or not applicable as design review, as Bill mentioned, they
will have landscaping site kind of stuff that usually comes in with a large project s. It's
already done when it comes to building projects, so reviewing it again doesn't really do us
any good, because it's already done. And then -- oh. And all images were removed as
the quality was poor. Many of them depicted conflicts with other guidelines and in almost
all cases permission to use was not verifiable. If you looked at other jurisdictions, design
manuals, they all have the same images and they are all the same low quality stuff and
you don't know where they came from. So, what's new? There is a new format. There
are new photos of local projects. There is an appendix with -- for example, it's by district
type and design keys referenced in the index. The new document name is now called the
Architectural Standards Manual and there is new process for alternative compliance called
design standards exception. This is intended to be similar to alternative compliance, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 41 of 44
better coordination, creativity of new products, rather than just be a hardship. So, if you
want to do something new, not because you have to, but b ecause you want to. Since
your packet was uploaded there were a few changes. I just want to make sure to point
those out. A few applicability bullets are opposite of what they were supposed to be, so
one of the items included in your packets was a table where the table is basically saying
where the standards came from, the old design manual and their ID number and what the
standards became, as in the new Architectural Standards Manual and that document
there all of the applicability bullets were correct. I didn't enter them right in the new -- in
the pdf manual, so I fixed those. That was one point -- 5.1H, which is supposed to apply
to all districts. 5.1I, which only applies in commercial and traditional neighborhood
districts, not industrial, and 5.1J, which only applies to industrial. Lastly and what was
included in your packet were some minor text corrections made to make readability a little
better. They didn't in any way impact the -- when the standard would apply or what type
of matrix you had to it. So, public involvement. Similar to the UDC work group early on a
design review work group was established. This was done around this time last year in
December. It helped to guide the direction and application of the standards. There were
a series of meetings and basically went through the whole design manual and helped to
kind of -- we see those in a new location in the new architectural standards manual. Post
draft -- so, after we have got it all assembled, there was invitations -- broader comments
sent out, so we sent them to more architectural and design firms around the valley and we
also attended a BCA meeting and let them know specifically what was going on. As Bill
mentioned, that was in August. And, lastly, we are before you here toni ght and there is
not much public here, but more public comment. I did also want you to know that we have
been to City Council several times, so they have been aware of this process, it's not just
being sprung on them. There were a few concerns that resid ential standards -- and I want
to point this out specifically, because it's the only comments really that we have. There
were a few concerns that the new residential standards in here would apply to single
family residences. They do not. With a clause there. So, both the old design manual and
the new Architectural Standards Manual have single family standards within them ,
regardless of the old one. However, those only apply when City Council says you need to
meet these. They don't apply out of the gate and they only work when City Council says,
staff, you need to do this. So, in both cases it's the same and we are not applying these
residential standards to anything that don't currently apply, unless otherwise directed to.
Yearsley: So, can I -- is that relating to like when we have houses backing up to an
arterial, is that what that was referring to -- is what Council is referring to or --
McClure: Councilman Yearsley, that is a good example, yes. Sometimes there are a
number of developments where staff has been told or volunteered, because there has
been enough concern to do that on each and every single -- every single house.
Yearsley: Okay.
McClure: I lived in one of those for awhile. It's only when Council gives staff permission
to do that.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 42 of 44
Yearsley: Okay.
McClure: I do -- we did have one other comment. It wasn't really an official comment, it
came during the earlier stages, but it's worth mentioning. One architect was more
interested in form based code. Form based code is essentially the exact opposite of what
we are doing right now. It's more based off of building and the use and this new manual is
based entirely off of the zoning district and the use in the case of residential. So, we can
do overall with the UDC and something that was, unfortunately, dismissed. We are -- it's
something that I like and staff do appreciate, but from what we have now it wasn't the
direction of staff, so just to be open there. So, the last thing -- Bill already mentioned most
of this, so I will just rehash the last bit there, but we are basically seeking a
recommendation of approval to City Council for the UDC change, for that -- for this
manual to be referenced in that and, then, hopefully, for your support. We are not asking
for any recommendation of the manual itself, that will occur to the UDC, so if you want to
recommend the UDC changes, great, and if you are supportive of the manual that's
awesome, too. I just want to make sure it's clear that real change here is to the UDC and
the manual is referenced in the UDC. And with that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any other questions? Thank you.
Oliver: No questions, other than just to comment that I think that it must have taken an
incredible amount of work to get that changed, but I think you did a great job, so --
McClure: Thank you.
Oliver: -- appreciate it.
Yearsley: Okay. Would you like come back forward and --
Yorgason: For the record, Dave Yorgason with the Building Contractors Association. I
guess the only comment that I would have is I, too, acknowledge the significant effort and
acknowledge it and commend the staff for the reference there. Appreciate that it's not
applicable to all new homes, but I would envision that maybe in the R-15 or R-40s
especially where you have the super high density, which is getting kind of, frankly, close to
multi-family anyway, that's where those standards may be applied by the Council. I don't
quite see it in the R-2s or the R-4s, for example.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: But those are -- anyway, my comments are just acknowledgement and
support.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Thank you.
Yorgason: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 19, 2015
Page 43 of 44
McClure: Councilman Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
McClure: I'm sorry. I just want to clarify -- make sure we are all clear. So, is the single
family standards don't apply to single family residential. There are multi -family standards
in here and they still do apply -- as currently they do apply to the multi-family development
out of the gate, so it's -- now and in the future it continues to be reviewed with design
review. Single family homes are the ones that are exempt, unless otherwise directed to
do.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: If I could address again?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Yorgason: I believe also anything attached is what it applies to. So, even townhomes it
would be applied to those; is that correct?
McClure: Yes.
Yorgason: So, that's my our understanding also. It's just the single family detached
where it would not always apply.
Yearsley: Okay.
Yorgason: Thank you for that clarification.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions or comments? No, I actually think this is --
looks really good. I think you guys did a great job. I appreciate your help in bringing this
forward and I think it looks good. So, with that I would entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to City Council of file number H-2015-0011 as presented by the staff report for
the hearing date of November 19th, 2015.
Wilson: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the file number H-2015-0011. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.