2015 11-05Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting November 5, 2015
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of November 5, 2015, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present:, Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver, Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Sonya Watters, Josh Beach
and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
___X_ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ 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 and Zoning Commission for the
hearing date of November 5th, 2015, and let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. The next thing on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. I
have no changes to the agenda today, so with that can we get a motion to adopt the
agenda as presented?
McCarvel: So moved. I'm sorry.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve -- to adopt the agenda. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of October 15, 2015 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 15-
018 Blimpie by Shelley Uzzel Savage Located 1535 N. Main Street
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 2 of 48
Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval for a Drive-Thru
Establishment in a C-C Zoning District Within 300 Feet of an
Existing Drive-Thru and Within 300 Feet of a Residence
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on the Consent Agenda
we have the approved minutes of October 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval of CUP 15-018,
Blimpie. If there is no changes could I get a motion to adopt -- or to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I would move we adopt the Consent Agenda as presented.
McCarvel: Second.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, before we go any further I kind of want to explain how this process will go
today. We will open each item one at a time and we will start off with the staff report. The
staff report will -- the staff will actually present their findings and how the application
adheres to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform Development Code with staff
recommendations. After they have had their report the applicant will have an opportunity
to come forward and he will present his case for approval and respond to any of the staff
comments. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to present his application. After the
applicant has completed we will open it up to the public testimony. There is sign-up sheet
in the back for anyone wishing to testify. Any person wanting to testify can come forward
and they will be given up to three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger group, like an
HOA or multiple people in the audience they will be given up to ten minutes . After all
testimony -- public testimony has been heard the applicant will have an opportunity to
respond to the comments from the -- from the public and he will be given another ten
minutes to respond to the comments. After that point we will close the public hearing and,
then, 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 Continued from October 1, 2015: AZ 15-013 Bull
Ranch by Gem State ER, LLC Located 6168 N. Elk Ranch Lane
Request: Annexation and Zoning of 10.06 Acres of Land with an
R-8 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 3 of 48
B. Public Hearing Continued from October 1, 2015: PP 15-017 Bull
Ranch Subdivision by Gem State ER, LLC Located 6168 N. Elk
Ranch Lane Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Fifty (50) Building Lots and Twelve (12) Common Lots on 10.06
Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the continued public hearing from October 1,
2015, of AZ 15-013 and PP 15-007, Bull Ranch Subdivision and let's begin with the staff
report.
Beach: Very good. Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is a -- as you said, a
preliminary plat and annexation for Bull Ranch Subdivision. The -- get here to the aerials.
So, this is the -- location is south of Chinden, just southeast of the Zamzow's on Chinden
Boulevard. This is an annexation for 10.06 acres of land, 48 residential single family
homes -- or single family lots I should say and nine common lots. There is an existing
home on the -- on the property that will remain as part of the subdivision and access to the
site will be from the Hightower Subdivision to the east and from the Saguaro Canyon
Subdivision just to the south of the property. They meet the open space requirements
with 1.1 -- 1.01 acres or a little over ten percent as required by code. 10.2 percent to be
exact. They have also included a number of amenities, including a picnic area, a
community garden, and a micropath connection to the church property just to the north as
you see here This is the layout of the proposed subdivision and some of the concerns
that the applicant may have are we are requiring that they include this -- it's a little difficult
to see, but there is an open space component here in the center. In our conditions of
approval we have required them to include that as part of phase one , as well as connect
the existing home to phase one with utilities and , then, close the access -- there is a
private access from this current property up to Chinden called Elk Ranch Lane that we are
conditioning them to remove as part of the -- the first phase prior to receiving any
occupancy or final plat approval. Additionally, ACHD is still reviewing the application, but
our understanding is that they will not approve this traffic circle as proposed by the
applicant. Again, this is a better shot of the interior landscaping that they are proposing.
And some proposed elevations for the homes that will be built. Are there any questions?
Yearsley: Any questions? No? So, with that would the applicant like to come forward?
Densmer: Yes. Thank you, Commissioners. My name is Jason Densmer with The Land
Group. I'm here tonight on behalf of the applicant. Josh, I -- there we go.
Yearsley: Could we get your address as well?
Densmer: Yeah. I'm sorry. My office address is 462 East Shore Drove in Eagle. Thank
you very much. I think Josh has done a fantastic job of laying out kind of the meat and
potatoes of the application and I did want to bring you up to speed on a couple of things.
First off, I'd like to talk about the ACHD input that we have recently received and, then, I
will come back and talk about a few of our concerns with the staff report. So, first ACHD
has expressed to us during initial meetings with them concerns about traffic calming. The
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 4 of 48
Bull Ranch project being adjacent to Hightower to the east will be able to continue a street
along the south side and as proposed the length of that street was getting up to the point
where ACHD was worried that it was just too long of a straight road and so they asked us
to look at options to provide traffic calming. The traffic circle that Josh mentioned was our
attempt to meet that request. Looking at other developments in the area a traffic circle is
a pretty common feature in north Meridian and so we thought it might be an appropriate
traffic calming feature. Evidently, though, ACHD has recently moved away from that as a
design element and they are no longer in favor of those. So, their most recent request to
us was to come back with something like what you see on the right here, which are choker
islands or bump outs where we would bring the island in in order to slow traffic down
through that same area. So, you can see on the left -- what you have in your application
packet is the traffic circle and what ACHD has asked us to move towards is the bump outs
on the -- on the right-hand side. Through e-mail and discussion with them they are
supportive of that -- that change. It does change the project matrix a little bit where,
actually, the change reduces the amount of right of way being dedicated and we are able
to convert that right of way land area into open space and so the change from traffic circle
to bump outs increases our common area by a few hundredths of an acre and increased
our qualified open space from the 10.2 percent that Josh mentioned up to 10.5 percent.
Again, it's not a monumental change, but I did want to make sure that the record was clear
on that potential change at ACHD's request and its impacts on the project numbers.
Regarding the conditions of approval in the staff report, on the whole we are very
supportive of staff's recommendations and the few items that we do have to take
exception with tonight really follows the two categories. First off staff's approach to
phasing and how to incorporate the existing home on the parcel and, then, secondly, a
few conditions about fencing, which we think could be clarified. It has a mind of its own.
Beach: Probably messing with it. I apologize.
Densmer: As you know the existing home was built about 15 years ago. It's at the
northwest corner of the parcel and it has historically been accessed via a private road
connection that goes north and south along the west side of the church parcel and takes
access from Chinden. The access po ints that we can take advantage of for the
development of the parcel, though, are at the opposite end of the parcel at the southeast
corner and so we have proposed a phase one that takes access from Hightower and
Saguaro Canyon Subdivisions and provides access to the first phase of lots. Staff's
conditions have asked us to vacate the private road to the existing home and change its
access internally with phase one. It's really, unfortunately, impractical to do that, since the
home is as far away as it could possibly be from where we will be bringing the roads into
the project. We would like to request that conditions be revised in order to allow us to
maintain the existing driveway through phase one, recognizing that it will only serve the
existing home. All of the new lots would take access through Hightower and Saguaro
Canyon. We would certainly vacate that existing easement and close the private drive
when new internal streets can be provided to the existing home during phase two. There
are other conditions of approval regarding connecting the existing home to utilities. Again,
our utility connections, like the roads, are coming from the opposite end of the project from
where the home is located. Today the house is connected to a well and septic system.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 5 of 48
The sewer for the house is at the southeast corner of the house and so we certainly think
by building a little bit of extra sewer that wouldn't normally be required in phase one, we
can extend sewer and get it to the existing house, as you kind of see here in green, we
could build that portion of sewer in order to allow us to connect the house during phase
one. The water connection for the house today is a well on the northeast corner. I'm
sorry. The northwest corner of the house and we really have no practical way to get a
new City of Meridian water main anywhere near the house's water connection during
phrase one. It's simply too far -- too far away and too far out of the phase to do that. So,
we would request that the conditions of approval regarding utility connections to the house
be adjusted and require only that we connect sewer during phase one and, then, connect
the water during phase two when those connect ions can be made. Lastly, we have a
small condition in the staff report that addresses perimeter fencing. Before submitting the
application we wanted to make sure we were clear on city's requirements in code and staff
did confirm that the UDC doesn't require perimeter fencing for subdivision projects. We
would propose that we install perimeter fencing on the north boundary of the project
against the existing church, because it is a developed land use and we just think it's
appropriate on that -- on that boundary. The west perimeter of the project is an
undeveloped ten acre parcel that is -- we think that has been presented to the city for
development, although I don't think that you have an active application that you're
reviewing. But we certainly think the development of that parcel is imminent and we
would much prefer to be able to work with that developer and share potentially in the
installation cost of a fence on that boundary, as opposed to being required to do it by the
city and, therefore, kind of having our hand forced, so to speak. I can point out that the
existing home has been there for 15 years against the undeveloped property. Has never
had a fence and the resident of that house -- the owner of that house will continue to own
it after the project is done, so certainly they would not be objectionable to continuing to not
have a fence, as long as there is undeveloped property adjacent to them to the west. So,
I went through a lot of that kind of quickly and so I'd like to, if I could, take the opportunity
to hand out just a quick summary sheet where -- I better stop talking after I get off the
microphone. I have just a quick summary that I have laid out how we think the conditions
of approval could be edited in ordinary to reflect the request that we have made. So, I
don't know if you would like me to read the recommended conditions and our requested
changes or if you would just like to review those yourselves and, then, decide. I think that
the edits you will find are -- are pretty minor and really just serve to clarify how phasing
around the existing house can better accommodate the project and how we think we can
work better with the neighbor on the fencing conditions. With that I don't think I have
anything further, unless you have questions for me.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I just have a couple. You mentioned that north -- you would put fencing on the
north and, then, that you want to do -- later on down the road east with that developer or
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 6 of 48
whatever. But I didn't hear you say anything the south and the -- excuse me -- on the
west. On this south and east. Is that already fenced?
Densmer: Yes. That was already -- those sides are already fenced.
Oliver: Okay.
Yearsley: I have a couple of questions. Did you have one?
Fitzgerald: Go ahead.
Yearsley: So, can you go back to your utility plan? So, you're proposing to pull water off
of the -- I guess it's the northwest corner for that existing lot; correct? Yes. For the
existing home?
Densmer: That's correct. There is a shared drive that extends to the west from the bulb
of the cul-de-sac there and the utilities for both the lots north of the shared driveway and
for the existing house would be in that shared driveway.
Yearsley: Do you know if that home has an existing -- a basement of any kind or -- do you
know?
Densmer: No, I don't believe it does.
Yearsley: Why couldn't we put a meter not too far from where your service line for the
sewer is and connect the house that way? It's a shorter run and you could actually do that
as part of phase one.
Densmer: It would still require additional out of phase improvements. The waterline
would have be extended in that road beyond the phase one boundary and it would take a
greater amount of rework inside the existing home. The existing well is more or less
where those blue bubbles go towards -- on the north side of the home there. So, the
connections to the waterline on that side, which we will need to build anyway, are -- are
very simple to make and it doesn't require nearly the amount of retrofit inside the home.
Yearsley: Okay. I was just looking at your comments, just so I can make sure I didn't
have any others. Any other questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Actually, can I start with -- Josh, what's staff's concern with having this in
phase one versus phase two?
Beach: It meets code to be connected.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 7 of 48
McCarvel: Okay.
Beach: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay.
Densmer: Commissioner McCarvel?
McCarvel: Uh-huh.
Densmer: There is no objection to connecting it. I don't find in code that it's required to
be connected in phase one. It would be required to connect at the time that the street in
front of there are developed.
Yearsley: I thought it was -- if it's being annexed it has to be connected within six months
of annexation, if I'm not mistaken, and staff might want to clarify that.
Parsons: Sure. Council Members. The way the ordinance is written in Title 9 it requires
upon annexation that it be done within 60 days of annexation.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons; So, that's where we are landing on doing it with the first phase of the final plat.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. Any of other questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I can go by Fred. So, the east and the south are both fenced currently, which
is kind of a precedent setting for what you're bringing forward now, would you agree? I
mean you have a -- this is a blank piece of land before, you're having fencing all the way
around it, so why are we saying we don't want anything to the west?
Densmer: I guess I really couldn't comment on why previous people did what they did.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Okay. I think it's just -- it's kind of a precedence that's already been set
and I -- I mean that was kind of a hard one for me, but I will wait to hear more later.
Densmer: Okay.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you very much.
Densmer: My pleasure. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 8 of 48
Yearsley: I do have a couple people signed up. A Jordan Donson. Danson. Okay.
Karen De --
De Grasia: De Grasia.
Yearsley: Do you want to come forward ? No. No. No. We have to have it through the
microphone so we can have it recorded. Sorry. And, then, if you could, give your name
and address for the record on the microphone.
De Grasia: It's Karen De Grasia. 6197 North Rosa Springs in Meridian, Idaho, and we
are in the Hightower Subdivision and what -- most of us back there border the houses
along the -- well, it's our western perimeter. We would be their eastern perimeter of the
development. And when we went to the preliminary meeting for this we were told that
there would be mixed number of houses , single story, two stories, and we are opposed to
this, simply because we all have pretty short houses along there and if you're going to
build two story houses right behind us -- we don't have very much backyard, because ours
are -- what do you call it? I can't even think of it now. You know, maintenance --
Yearsley: Patio homes?
De Grasia: Patio homes. Thank you. That was the word I was looking for. And so we
don't have a lot of backyard and so we are concerned with you guys blocking all of our
lights along there. So, we are wondering if there is some way to restrict those houses
behind us to one story. And the other question we had -- when I bought the house I was
told that I have an additional six inches behind my fence line that is actually my property. I
don't have a clue why they didn't move the fence back six inches, but addressed this issue
the last time and I didn't get much of an answer as to why -- are you just going to come up
and hook onto my fence and take that as your backyard behind us. So, we just kind of
wanted some clarification and I'm not sure this is the right format to do it, but --
Yearsley: This is great. We will take the notes down and, then, the applicant will have a
chance to respond to your comments. I did have one question. On those existing homes
are they all single story?
De Grasia: I think there is a couple that are two story, but they are really low profile two
story.
Yearsley: Okay.
De Grasia: Yeah.
Yearsley: All right. So -- is that all you had?
De Grasia: Yeah. I --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 9 of 48
Yearsley: Well, I will call --
De Grasia: I think there is only one on the street, actually, that's a two story.
Yearsley: Okay.
De Grasia: I think the rest are all -- I'm pretty certain all the rest are single story.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
De Grasia: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: The next one I have on the list is Leanne Majors. Don't want to testify. Okay.
Paula Woodland. You want to -- okay. All right. At that point I will open it up. Anybody
else that would like to come and testify? Please come forward.
Montieth: Good evening. My name is Jim Montieth. I live on Rosa Springs Avenue also,
close to Karen who was just speaking and I have got a couple concerns about traffic being
dumped onto Rosa Springs Avenue. On a street that really isn't wide enough and
intended for that much traffic. That's the only way out of this Elk Ranch Road and also
there is an easement I was told -- behind our property there is a barbwire fence about five
or six foot out from our plastic fence and I was told that's a right of way for the runoff water
from the storm drainage and want to know is that going to be honored? Are they going to
have to honor that easement or were they going to pave right over it or build the houses
right over it?
Yearsley: Okay.
Montieth: So, my concerns are the traffic onto Rosa Sprin gs that's going to be -- going to
be increased by considerable with 40 or 50 houses going up back there and that's my
objections. My comments. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? With that would the applicant like to come forward?
Again, name and address for the record, please.
Densmer: Thank you. Jason Densmer. The Land Group. 462 East Shore Drive in Eagle
for the applicant. Thank you very much. I did have a chance to quickly read Code
Section 9-1-4A and I think it's quite clear that water connections are required when the
street adjacent to a property has a water main in it within 60 days and I don't believe that
that condition would apply here. I think it's certainly within your ability to approve our
request without being in violation of any -- any code provision. I think that's really all that I
can add to what we have already discussed.
Yearsley: Can you at least respond to the public testimony questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 10 of 48
Densmer: I'm afraid I don't know where Rosa Springs Street is. I do know that we are
certainly going to comply with all of ACHD's conditions of approval and that the street
sections we are proposing within the project are commensurate with the street sections
that have been developed by the subdivisions adjacent to us and all of that was done, of
course, in accordance with ACHD's plan for streets within the county. As far as limiting or
restricting the homes along the east boundary, I don't think that that's something that we
are able to offer. I think that what we have proposed are homes that are, again,
compatible with other developments adjacent to us and we will end up being neighbors
that are very similar to those adjacent to us both to the east and to the south. There is no
discrepancy, really, between the housing types that are proposed and those that already
exist around us.
Yearsley: Please. We can't have any other testimony. Okay. And, then, the -- the one
that talked about the fence -- their fence they said is six inches in. Do you know if that's
correct? I'm assuming you did the survey that located that fence on your boundary?
Densmer: We did do certainly a very detailed survey and we located both the property
lines and the fences and we didn't find that the fences were further away from the property
line than you would customarily find . Certainly pretty frequent the fence isn't precisely on
the property, simply for the fact that it's difficult to construct it that way. So, it certainly
wouldn't surprise me if the fence constructed by Hightower was a few inches off of the
property line. It think it's a pretty typical situation.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, he was talking -- the gentleman mentioned an easement --
storm drainage easement. Do you know anything on that? Was there an easement on
that side of the property?
Densmer: There were no easements on our property, other than Settlers Irrigation and
the access and private road easements that were identified on the preliminary plat.
Yearsley: Okay. And I'm assuming that on your plan that there is a ditch that you're
having to tile and move through the property and you will maintain that ditch; correct?
Densmer: Absolutely. We have already been working with Settlers Irrigation on the route
of that relocation and the new easement that they would enjoy when we are done.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, I think the North Slough is what he's probably talking about. It
does run up the property line and, then, turn.
Densmer: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, you guys are going to take it -- what direction?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 11 of 48
Densmer: After it turns on the north side of town and enters the Bull Ranch property, we
will be relocating it from that point. It kind of runs on a diagonal across the property and
we are going to straighten out the diagonals to work better through the -- through the
project.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Densmer: But none of that would require off property work.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you. You had one?
Oliver: I just need to ask a question. Given the staff recommendations for conditions, if
we -- if you had to meet those conditions how would that affect your development if you
want to change it?
Densmer: Certainly the conditions about including the e xisting in phase one from a
planning standpoint. Building enough streets to provide access to the existing home in
phase one and connecting all the utilities to the existing home in phase one really are
impractical from the scale that this development is trying to respond to. There is certainly
different -- just like every business -- development being a business -- there are different
levels of developers in terms of the scale of a project that they are able to take on and I
think that that's really good for the city to not only have developers that are capable of
developing enormous projects and really large phases at a time. This project is a much
more manageable size and it provides a different product type or a different segment of
the market. In order to develop 50 lots in a single phase, which is, essentially, what the
staff's conditions would require us to do in order to get the access and utilities and
everything to the existing home, it would really make the project economically unfeasible
for pretty much everyone one other that the most -- the highest -- kind of the highest
producing developers in our community. How is that?
Oliver: Yeah.
Densmer: So, I think certainly with respect to staff, I think the conditions are well
intentioned, but they would really probably push the project by ability beyond being
accessible to kind of what we are trying to achieve here.
Oliver: Thank you.
Densmer: You're welcome.
Yearsley: Anymore? Thank you.
Densmer: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 12 of 48
Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on file number AZ 15-013 and PP
15-017?
Fitzgerald: So moved.
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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Okay. Any comments? Thoughts?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, one of the things to Commissioner -- or Commissioner Oliver's comments
is -- I will kind of point your guys' attention to the letter that we got from the ITD and
nowhere it there does it say access needs to be taken away right now. It says they were
very thankful that we try to take away access to 20-26 directly to this. I think -- and I tend
to agree with the applicant, I think your -- there is some undue burden being asked to do --
to make some changes that -- you're not bringing the streets to them immediately. It's
pretty difficult to run some -- I think the sewer is a great -- may compromise and I think I
would ask for the fence on the west side as possibly a compromise or an offset to
requiring that they vacate that street right now. I do know that where you're -- it's not very
big, try to phase it out is important and so I -- I think that's -- my concern is we are putting
undue burden on the applicant to do something that isn't necessary when they are trying
to phase something out.
Yearsley: Any other comments? Thoughts?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman? I -- I would tend to agree on the burden with the applicant. I
think with this size of a development I just -- I don't see where it's necessary without -- if
that street is not going in, to close that off and, then, with regard to that fence on the west
side, I could go either way. I mean you build a house and you put -- you kind of wait for
your neighbor to build before you put the fence up, but -- I don't know that --
Yearsley: Thank you. Do you want me to go or you want to go first?
Oliver: Go ahead.
Yearsley: All right. I understand his comment of wanting to hook up near the well. I do
believe that it can be done running just a little extra piece of water line up that existing
road, put it next to the sewer. They could do a directional drill fairly inexpensively to -- to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 13 of 48
connect sewer to the house -- or water to the house. He's going to have to provide some
turnaround anyway for those stub streets , so the fire access can get turned around, so he
will have to extend the road out just a little bit for turnaround, so I could -- I could probably
go either way on the access to Chinden. However, you know, the faster we can get
access -- accesses cut off of Chinden the safer Chinden becomes. So, as a safety, you
know, point, as those become advantageous to have that sooner rather th an later. So, I
can go either way on that one. I think connecting to water and sewer is doable. As a -- I
guess as a caveat I could almost recommend that the six foot privacy fence be installed at
phase two as -- you know, and that way that other development may have come in at that
time and they can share that expense at the same time or however that works, but -- you
know. Because it really doesn't make sense to install a fence with nothing there, in my
opinion. So, I still think, you know, connecting utilities to the house earlier rather than
later, but I kind of go either way.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree with everything that's been said. I just -- mine's just a comment that the
nice lady that's almost ready to head out, is the concern about the two story homes being
connected to the back of your house. I wish there was a way that you could actually have
some kind of magic wand that that wouldn't happen, but, unfortunately, there is no control
of that. So, just kind of hope and pray that you get a single story and not a two story,
because they could actually build one there without us doing anything about it anyway.
Yearsley: Yeah. Thanks for commenting on that. I meant to do that and, unfortunately,
we have no control, unless the applicant desires to not build two story homes along that.
So -- so, with that if there are no more comments, I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, a clarification real quick. So, are we approving or making a
decision or denying or whatever we are going to do, this based on the new ACHD roads
that are being suggested to us?
Yearsley: I guess that's -- I'm not quite sure how to handle that one.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, obviously, the applicant did
present you their desire to move forward. I think my recommendation this evening is just
have them provide us a revised plan ten days prior to the City Council hearing, so that we
can at least reflect that change in front of them. I think it is a better design with -- with the
choker system than with the traffic circle. So, certainly you can include that in your motion
to remove the traffic circle and institute the choke as desired by ACHD and provide us that
revised plan.
Yearsley: Okay. So, this will be a fun little motion.
Fitzgerald: Rhonda's working on it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 14 of 48
McCarvel: You guys always stick me with the hard ones. All right. Okay. Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 15-013 and PP 15-017, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of November 5, 2015, with the following
modifications: Item 1.1.1A to be the applicant's recommendation for vacating the existing
access to North Chinden Boulevard. 1.1 --
Yearsley: Just for clarification. Are we removing that condition or are we going to keep
that condition?
McCarvel: Remove that condition.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: 1.1.1C to keep that condition.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: 1.1.2C -- okay. So, that -- we don't -- the staff's recommendation. Yeah.
Okay. 1.1.2D to remove -- let's see. To remove that condition. Is that where we were at
on that one?
Yearsley: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay. And 1.1.3C, that the fence shall installed in the second -- on the west
boundary shall be installed in the second phase.
Yearsley: I think we need to amend 1.1.2D.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: Because that's talking about eliminating -- vacating that access. I think he's got
comment in there that that's what the -- probably the wording should say.
Fitzgerald: What ITD --
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah. Okay. And, then, to remove -- to provide a new plat on the choker ten
days prior -- to the staff prior -- ten days prior to City Council meeting.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 15 of 48
McCarvel: Does that cover everything?
Yearsley: Are you guys good with that?
Densmer: I'm sorry, I know I'm totally out of order, but a point of clarification. I believe I
heard you say that you would like to retain condition 1.1.2C?
Yearsley: That's actually in keeping the existing house in the -- phase one; correct?
Densmer: Right. Which I don't think would be consistent with --
Yearsley: Well, for hooking up the utilities it would be probably part of phase one.
Densmer: We would prefer not to plat it as part of phase one, even if it were to be
connected to utilities in phase one. And there is a problem involved with a gap in the
phasing. The existing home would not otherwise be contiguous to the phase one lots.
We can connect it to the utilities. We prefer not to plat it until we get to that phase.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: We can amend it to remove that condition.
McCarvel: Okay.
Densmer: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is that okay for you?
McCarvel: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: That concludes that motion.
Yearsley: All right.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 15-013 and PP 15-
017. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Good job, by the way.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 16 of 48
C. Public Hearing Continued from October 15, 2015: PP 15-018
Sundial Circle Subdivision by Conger Management Group
Located 2250 W. Whitelaw Drive Request: Preliminary Plat
Approval Consisting of Eleven (11) Single Family Residential
Lots and One (1) Common Lot on Approximately 2.54 Acres in
the R-4 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the list is the -- we are going to open the public hearing -- the
continued public hearing from October 15th, 2015, of PP 15-018. All right. We will open
that one. And let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. This is the Sundial Circle Subdivision.
Just a little bit of history -- the location here. As you can see on your aerial shot there this
was an existing part of the Sundial Subdivision No. 1 and there has been a cell tower on
the property for the last 20 years. That has now been removed from the site, leaving the
property open for a subdivision. So, that's where we are today. There is kind of a little
history there as far as where the property has come and how it's gotte n to where it is
today. I won't go through all that with you. This is an existing -- like I said, it's an existing
part of the Sundial Subdivision No. 1 that's going to resubdivide. There are going to be 11
building -- single family home lots and one common lot on a little over two and a half acres
of land in the R-4 zoning district. Because the size is under five acres for a subdivision we
do not require any open space, although the applicant has proposed to -- as you can see
on the map here connect -- there is an existing micropath there to the current Sundial
Subdivision No. 1 that will be continued as part of this subdivision, so they have included
that in their -- in their proposal. The access is fairly simple, it's going to -- the access is on
Whitelaw Drive here. This is just kind of a landscape for Sundial Subdivision, showing the
path that will be continued down into the -- the proposed subdivision. Here is some
aerials that were given to staff in the application. Staff is in favor of the application. One
thing to note is we are requiring the applicant to provide some additional landscape plans
as -- prior to final plat. As you can see this is not the landscape plan from this specific
subdivision, but it's from the Sundial Subdivision No. 1, so we are requiring that the
applicant provide that. Staff is in favor of the -- of the application and the preliminary plat
and I will stand for any questions you may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant like to
come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Riley: Which microphone? This one?
Yearsley: Either one.
Riley: Penelope Riley. Riley Planning Services. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho.
83701. I am here on behalf of the applicant. I would like to begin by saying that the
applicant and the design team -- the planning team would like to thank staff for all of their
assistance. As usual they were professional and insightful. The applicant has reviewed
the staff report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Sundial Circle preliminary,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 17 of 48
which will become part of Sundial Subdivision No. 3 in final platting, completes the Sundial
development. As provided in the application packet, a conceptual plan for this area was
submitted previously to the City of Meridian. The proposed subdivision is consistent with
the originally proposed development for this parcel. The proposed subdivision, as you
know, is 11 residential lots and one common lot. As detailed in the revised project
narrative, the overall density for Sundial development will be 3.69 units per acre. This is
consistent with the R-4 zoning designation. A neighborhood meeting was held on site on
August 17th, which was my birthday, so it was kind of fun, I had two celebrations at one
time. And the Sundial neighbors indicated very strongly that they would like this
subdivision to be a part of their homeowners association. The applicant concurs with that.
The lots in Sundial Circle will be consistent with the neighborhood and will conform with
the underlying development agreement. Josh mentioned that earlier. The Sundial --
excuse me. These lots will be a minimum of 8,000 square feet. Some of them are over
9,000 square feet. The proposed residences will be attractive. They will compliment the
existing residences abutting the site. Setbacks proposed with the subdivision will match
the setbacks in the adjacent subdivision and conform with the City of Meridian's
requirements for R-4. The pictures submitted with the application show homes with a
varied roof and wall plains, with the use of windows and other exterior treatments to
create residences that will compliment the area and will be consistent with what's there
now. The Sundial Circle -- the empty lot will be eliminated. The new homeowners will be
there to contribute to the homeowners association, as desired by the neighbors. They
indicated at the neighborhood meeting that their HOA fees were burdensome, that
additional homeowners would help alleviate that burden for them. Pressurized irrigation
will extend into the site and be joined with the existing PI system. The roads will be
constructed to ACHD standards and the cul-de-sac meets the fire departments standards.
Now that the cell tower has been removed the best use for this parcel is as residential
lots. These proposed lots meet or exceed all R-4 standards. We will replace the empty
parcel homes that will contribute to the upkeep of the existing Sundial open spaces. And
with that I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Riley: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. I do have someone signed up. John Llewellyn. Again, please,
state your name and address for the record.
Llewellyn: Yeah. John Llewellyn. 2616 North Marburg Avenue. So, I live just to the east
-- or, sorry, just to the west. My east boundary is going to back up to about three of those
lots I think. I guess the biggest concern that I have with this new development is the
builder who built my house was also the real estate agent that sold my house, who I
believe is also the developer of the project. Sold us on the property saying there was
going to be six houses in this lot and they were going to be bigger than the existing
houses, which I know is just his word versus our word. Can't really do much about it. But
my biggest concern is that they are going to build row houses -- two story row houses in
this lot, because they are small -- like I said, I think my lot butts up to three of those new
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 18 of 48
lots. I have a third -- or just shy of a third of an acre. I believe it's .31 of an acre and, like I
said, I just wish -- or hope, as she mentioned, that they are going to match the style of the
homes that are there. There aren't any homes with bonus rooms, so they are all short,
single level homes and I guess my concern is that they are single level homes without
bonus rooms, that they do truly match what's there. And that's the only thing I have today.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Llewellyn: Thank you.
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up to testify for this application. Is there
anybody else that would like to testify? Would the applicant like to come forward and
respond to his comments?
Riley: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, thank you. The applicant appreciates
the fact that developing this parcel will represent a change and -- and like you discussed
earlier in the previous hearing, it's not really the place of the City of Meridian in most
circumstances to regulate what houses are built. I think in the end it's going to be a very
positive developing subdivision. There is an empty parcel now that's blocked for access,
except where the dead ends are and so instead of having an empty spot that has only the
potential for problems, they will have homes. I don't know what else to say.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Riley: You bet.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman --
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: -- Members of the Commission, one thing for the neighbors and for the
Commission to keep in mind, that this property is annexed -- zoned R-4. At the time that
this property annexed into the city there was a requirement for a development agreement
and this property is subject to that development agreement just like many of these
homeowners are today and in that development agreement the minimum house size
required on that property is 1,400 square feet and that is what is required in our current
R-4 standards in our code today as well. So, no home will be under 1,400 square feet on
that property, which is probably consistent with the surrounding homes. Then if a two
story home is proposed for any of those lots the minimum home size would be 1,600
square feet. So, 800 per story. And that is, again, consistent with what has happened in
the past and what's currently in our existing code today. So, I just want to at least go on
the record and let the neighbors know that's the minimum home size that they will see on
that property.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. With that can I get a motion to close public hearing on PP
15-018.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 19 of 48
McCarvel: So moved.
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: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Any comments?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I think for -- and I know this property pretty well. I think they have done a good
job with what they have. It's an enclave there that needs to be done something with and I
think it's a -- they have got a nice connection to the micropath system that's already there.
I think the gentleman that spoke -- his house goes back up to a few of the lots. The lots
are the same -- similar size to his in regards to size, so I think the concerns are alleviated
there. I think it's a good project. I think it will be a good closer of the subdivision.
Yearsley: Thank you. I have a tendency to agree. Looking at the lot sizes they are
between eight to nine thousand. I know a third of an acre is 13,000, so it's not quite as big
as yours, but for an R-4 zoning that's an -- 8,000 to 9,000 square foot lots are pretty good
size. And I think, you know, he's -- the developer has provided kind of a style and look of
the homes, which are tied to this development as well. So, I think it will look pretty nice
and I think it's a good in-fill project.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree as well. I think that removing the cell tower is one of the best things they
could have done to that area, because now it allows you to build some nice beautiful
homes in there and I think elevations are great. So, I think it will be, again, a nice addition
to that subdivision.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think it will be a nice fill in of the space and, you know,
continuation with the HOA to have additional revenue and have lawn instead of weeds.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 20 of 48
Yearsley: All right. With that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number PP 15-018 as presented by the
staff report for the hearing date of November 5th, 2015.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number P P 15-018. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing: AZ 15-012 Village Apartments by DevCo Located
2700 N. Eagle Road Request: Annexation and Zoning of 0.38 of
an Acre of Land with a C-G Zoning District
E. Public Hearing: CUP 15-019 Village Apartments by DevCo
Located 2600 N. Eagle Road Request: Conditional Use Permit
Approval for a Multi-Family Development Consisting of 336
Dwelling Units on 16.68 acres of Land in a C-G Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the public hearing is public hearing AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019,
Village Apartments and let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you tonight are a request for annexation and zoning and a conditional
use permit. The overall site consists of 16.62 acres of land. It's currently zoned C-G and
RUT in Ada County and is located at 2600 and 2700 North Eagle Road. Adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north are various retail, restaurant, and commercial uses and land
approved for a multi-family residential development, Verraso, so zoned C-G. To the south
is Great Wall Restaurant, zoned C-G and land approval for multi-family residential
apartments in Regency At River Valley phase two, zoned R -40. To the east are rural
residential properties, zoned RUT in Ada County, and to the west is North Eagle Road
and undeveloped property zone d C-G and single family residential property zoned R-2. A
little history on this site. The majority of this site -- the red area here, 16.44 acres of land,
was annexed in 2003 with a development agreement as a pathway of annexation for Red
Feather Estates Subdivision to the east. This site has remained a residential agricultural
property since that time. The existing development agreement requires any future uses of
the property to be approved through the conditional use process and for a backage street
to be provided parallel with Eagle Road. A conceptual master plan is required that
demonstrates interconnectivity, transitional uses and access points. The Comprehensive
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 21 of 48
Plan designation for this property is mixed use residential. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning of .38 of an acre of land. That does include land that's part of the
right of way to the section line of Eagle Road with a C-G zoning district consistent with the
future land use map designation of the mixed use regional for this property. If you will
note the zoning map here on the left -- just that little area there is what we are annexing.
A conceptual site plan was submitted as shown that shows this portion of the overall site
developing with a retail commercial building pad and this is right here, the annexation
area. So, the applicant is requesting this site be included in the existing development
agreement for the larger portion of the site. However, because the current development
agreement also includes the property to the south where the Great Wall Restaurant is
located, staff does recommend a new development agreement is required for the subject
property to include the surrounding lands as included in the conditional use request and
that is the remainder of the site here shown on the site plan. A conditional use permit is
requested for the development of retail, commercial, and multi-family residential
development on the subject 16.62 acres property in the C-G district as required by the
current development agreement and the Unified Development Code for multi-family
residential development in the C-G district. A concept plan for the overall site was
submitted as shown that depicts three retail commercial building pads consisting of 3,500,
4,000 and 7,000 square feet along the frontage of North Eagle Road and one 14,000
square foot retail building east of the building pad, on a total 5.23 acres of land. The
commercial portion of the site is not proposed to develop at this time. The multi-family
residential development is proposed to consist of a total of 336 dwelling units, that's 136
one bedroom units and 200 two bedroom units, within 11 four story structures. Ten of
those 32 plexes and one of those being a 16 plex on 11.39 acres of land on the eastern
portion of the site fronting on Records Avenue. Associated garage and carport structures
and two 18 bay storage unit structures are also proposed. The garage structures are
shown here around the perimeter. The storage unit structures are right here where the
arrow is. Parking appears to comply with UDC standards for multi-family development
and for the clubhouse building. A minimum of 1.92 acres of qualified open space and site
amenities proportionate with the number of units in the development is required to be
provided in accord with UDC standards. This is a copy of the landscape plan they have
submitted and this is a copy of the detail showing the open space calculation. The
applicant submitted a revised plan with details of the qualified open space, but there are
areas counted towards open space that staff doesn't agree meet the qualifications for
open space per the UDC. The UDC minimum standard in multi-family development for
common area is at least a minimum of a 20 by 20 -- 400 square foot area. Staff has
discussed this with the applicant prior to the hearing tonight and we do plan to meet,
discuss further what qualifies and what doesn't qualify. Changes may be required
accordingly to the plan. The propose amenities include a clubhouse with an exercise
room and enclosed bike storage. The bike storage will hold approximately 60 bicycles.
There will be a bicycle repair area, swimming pool and a tot lot with play equipment. Staff
requests that the application provide two additional site amenities from the open space
category and provide details of such prior to the hearing tonight. The application provided
details on the additional amenities to consists two shade structures, one within the pool
area and one by the playground and a 50 foot by 100 foot open grassy area north of the
pool. That is this area right here. The pool is right here and there is a playground area
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 22 of 48
right here. Kind of difficult to see, but the center building here is a clubhouse. Only one
public street access is proposed to the site via North Records Avenue and that is right
here where my arrow is. Other accesses are proposed via cross-access driveways
between adjacent properties with access via Eagle and Records. I will just go through
that real quick here with you. There is a cross-access to the north. Norco lies right here
and, then, there is an access via Eagle in approximately this location. They are required
to provide cross-access to the property to the north here. This is where the Verraso multi-
family project was recently approved and, then, we have a cross-access easement to the
south to the Regency At River Valley property and that is it. They were not required to
provide a connection to the Great Wall property, because at the time the Great Wall
developed they did not require the South Slough to be tiled here and a bridge constructed.
This site is required to grant cross-access easements to the properties to the north and
south in these locations. A 35 foot wide street buffer landscape is required to be
constructed along Eagle Road, an entryway corridor, and a 20 foot wide buffer is required
along North Records Avenue, a collector street. Records is anticipated to be constructed
by Center Cal, the developer of The Village at Meridian to the south in the near future.
However, if this property develops first this developer will be required to extend the road.
A ten foot wide multi-use pathway with pedestrian lighting is required to be constructed
along Eagle Road within the street buffer and a five foot wide detached sidewalk is
required along Records Avenue. Staff recommends these improvements are constructed
with the first phase of development prior to the first certificate of occupancy being issued
for the site. Because only the eastern portion of the site is proposed to develop at this
time, the applicant requests the condition as modified to only require the pathway along
Eagle Road and the pedestrian lighting at this time and allow the landscape to be
proposed until the commercial portion of the site develops in the future. Conceptual
building elevations are proposed for the multi-family structures, clubhouse, garages,
carports, storage buildings and garage maintenance building. The elevations you're
looking at here are the four story multi-family structures. Perspective views. This is the
proposed clubhouse. No building elevations were submitted for the future commercial
building. Those will be permitted down the road when that portion develops. Building
materials for the multi-family and clubhouse structures consist of fiber cement horizontal
lap siding and stucco with architectural laminated fiberglass roof shingles. All structures
on the site are required to comply with the design standards in effect at the time of
application for certificate of zoning compliance. A development agreement modification is
also requested to remove the requirement for conditional use approval of all uses and to
include a conceptual development plan for the site as required by the existing DA. This
application only requires Council review and approval. That's just a little information for
you on that. Written testimony has been received from the applicant Jim Conger. As I
mentioned he's requesting deferral of the landscape buffer along Eagle Road. Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed application with a new development agreement
per the conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff will stand for any questions the
Commission may have.
Yearsley: Any questions? I guess I have one question. If you're -- I guess in the
conditions of approval it states that he will meet the open space requirements; is that
correct?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 23 of 48
Watters: That is correct, Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Okay. So --
Watters: They are held to that condition no matter what. We are still determining what
counts as open space and what's not, but I think we can come to an agreement with that
working with the applicant.
Yearsley: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward? Please state your name and
address for the record.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger with DevCo at 4824
West Fairview Avenue. Thank you. And we are excited to be in front of you tonight to
show you this project and walk through it for multi-family. Is that my proposal? I'd first like
to thank Sonya and the rest of the city staff that helped us with our code experience and
worked us through several of the elements of planning on this project and we are also
very grateful for having the recommendation for approval. I'm going to skip my summary
portions. Sonya did a wonderful job going through all the details of single bedrooms and
two bedrooms and things of that nature. Our phase one tonight is in front of you, which is
the multi-family. Our phase two will be coming in the future with the commercial, but it is
part of the existing development agreement and, obviously, part of the annexation and
part of the entire project. Our project is designed -- to ours -- help me out, Sonya. Which
one -- why is it not going? There you go. Our site is, basically, ironically enough, on our
side of Eagle corridor, almost an in-fill. It is one of the last major portions in that -- what
we are calling the Eagle corridor. It's that new Meridian urban core with the Village Center
and all the growth that we have to our south and, then, we have, of course, Rosauers
Grocery, Lowe's, Dick's Sporting Goods and a tremendous amount of restaurants to our
north. So, from a standpoint of planning and best uses of a property, best uses of the
Comprehensive Plan, we couldn't ask for a better location that goes along with -- with our
multi-family apartment project. Again, I just want to touch on our site plan and our
architecture. Our site is -- you know, with the multi-family is off the Eagle Road frontage.
We are similar to the -- our neighbor, which is the Regency apartments from the
standpoint of buffers, you know, they had a very generous buffer of 120 feet from the back
of curb to their apartment homes. We have that -- that same distance. They are slightly --
you know, they are about six feet longer, but, basically, the same as far as our buffers
back from Records Street and kind of -- from that theme that is where we end. I think it's
important and what we wanted to drive home for us today is our architectural design, we
are going with that more modern look in this new urban area to differentiate ourselves
from the other apartments. It's very important for us to not continue to produce the same
apartment homes as you're seeing, otherwise, it doesn't serve the city much better, we will
all be a commodity. Our modern incorporates clean lines, sleek details, warm elements,
simple design, but they are very complex in that all these hidden functional details all
matter, so as we work our way through our approvals with you tonight, City Council, and,
then, through design review, I guess we are hopeful that -- that this architectural design
holds as we work through the rest of your codes. Again, to give you some idea, we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 24 of 48
after -- our residential profile is a little more of a hip urban type individual. It's similar to
the condo buyer, but without the attachment of a for sale product. I tell you all this just --
the approval is very important as the whole design theme element and how it lives, feels,
and looks and ultimately the business model when it's done. Kind of moving on. Two
items of I guess further discussion. One would be the open space. That did come up.
We are confident, as Sonya had indicated, we do this every day, your staff does this every
day, we just need to get on the same page with the calculations of the open space and we
understand the code and are very comfortable with it and we have some areas that we
can add if we -- if we do come -- come short. But we will sit down next week and resolve
that, as Sonya indicated. The only issue we have with the staff report is -- as my letter
indicated, was just the timing of the improvements of the buffers on Eagle Road. We are
not opposed to the buffer, of course . It's a requirement. We just -- that is our phase two
area. Our phase one area we will put that buffer in. We have tiling of the canal as you
can see on this. We have gravity -- other gravity irrigation requirements. We have
pressurized irrigation requirements. We have parking lot to put in. We have commercial
buildings to construct. What we put in would be destroyed. We haven't set our elevations
of the commercial buildings. It would be almost impossible without ruining at least half of
whatever landscaping went in. We understand the buffer. We are putting in the buffer
that we will actually buffer our first set of residential users. There is nobody to buffer yet
on that -- on the phase two portion and that will have its -- its chance and it will have its
own set of occupancy permits to tie to it. And I guess as I close out I would just give you
this alternative condition for B1.1.5, which was we are fine with the 20 foot wide landscape
buffer attached to the phase one occupancy permit, but we would appreciate and really
need, because of the construction requirements up front, the 35 foot wide landscape
buffer along Eagle Road would be phase two occupancy permits. I think that's a -- a very
easy item to modify in the conditions and it still complies with the UDC, because we have
read the UDC inside and out and, yes, it's required by the UDC. The UDC is a little bit
silent on when they have to be installed. In our opinion of why that's silent is it has to be
installed when that phase is done. I can give you numerous examples. You could take
Paramount Phase 28 just finally doing some improvements along Chinden. Paramount
phase one did not do the Chinden improvements, because you couldn't afford to do your
projects that way. We just finished the Three Corners project in your lovely city of
Meridian at Chinden and Locust Grove and phase three put in the Chinden improvements,
which phase one couldn't afford to do it, nor would we have had the proper civil
engineering to put it in at the right elevations and the rest of that. So, we don't think we
are asking for a variance. We don't think we are asking for anything. We think we are
going to comply with the UDC. When that phase is built that buffer will be constructed. In
closing we are excited to gain approval and get to the next step with this wonderful project
and keep in mind the condition B-1-1-5 is really a must. With that I will stand for any
questions or defer to the rest.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 25 of 48
Fitzgerald: In regard to -- this is a -- a rough property. That thing is an eye sore in
general. Are you guys tearing everything out to start with or are you going to go down
Records side? Build that road and, then, go in that direction? I mean that house and the
-- all the cars and everything out there is pretty rough. So, I -- what's the plan in regards
to making that look -- I know you don't want to build a buffer right now, but is there a plan
to clean that up as you go or --
Conger: No. The -- Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, no, I think that's a wonderful
question and should have said that up front. No, we will remove the house and clean up
the site. We just don't want -- as far as permanent fixtures in that phase two area do not
make sense. But, no, for our own apartment livers and the residents, we have got to
clean up that front, so --
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Watters: Chairman Yearsley?
Yearsley: Yes.
Watters: Excuse me. May I ask a question of the applicant real quick? Is that prior to the
building permits? When are you committing to removing those buildings that are on the
site and cleaning up the site?
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners and Sonya, you know, first blush I'm saying that
prior to an occupancy permit, but typically speaking we do our grading, clearing, and
demolition in the up front stages, so I would assume -- now we haven't been able to test if
we have asbestos in the house and we have to do some abatement and things of that
nature. You know, I don't suspect it would take two months, but it could. So, our goal
would be during the construction phase and certainly prior to residents moving in.
Watters: Okay. If the Commission desires to make that a development agreement
provision I would suggest a timing be put on that. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? So, I just want to make sure I understand, because
Sonya had mentioned that you would agree to do the pathway and the lighting, but not --
didn't want to do the landscaping. What I'm hearing now is you don't want to do any of
that until phase two; is that correct?
Conger: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. We had thought we could do some
sidewalks and we are not trying to completely backpedal, there was just too many tiling
and civil, you know, elements of this frontage that we could put a sidewalk in, but it's not
going to connect to the Great Wall sidewalk until we do phase two and figure out all our
elevations. There is just physically to many large -- not small, but large improvements that
need to be done in the phase two area. So, that is different than what Sonya and I talked
about and I do not like doing that, but that is the fact.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 26 of 48
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: What's your estimate on the beginning of phase two?
Conger: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, phase two is currently with the
commercial brokers going through. You know, we have five pads up front. There needs
to be at least two, if not three of those somewhat committed before we can finalize that
plan, so, you know, I just can't say it's exactly six months from now or if it's, you know, 14
months from now. I just don't have an answer for that, but in this market it will be sooner
than -- than later. But, again, until we have exactly what use -- what size building, what
elevations, and -- it's just not possible to do those heavy civil improvements out front.
Watters: Chairman Yearsley? May I ask one additional question? I apologize. Is there
still someone living in that house?
Conger: Mr. Chairman. There is a landowner for sure living in that house. Or someone
living in that house, yes.
Watters: So, when I -- in the report I anticipated that all of these structures would be
removed fairly soon with development. If that is not the case we do want to make sure
that we include a provision for the existing home to hook up to city services if it's not going
to be removed anytime soon.
Conger: Mr. Chairman, if I may. No. I apologize. I misunderstood the question. There is
someone in that house today, but before we start work we will procure the property and
there will be nobody living in that house.
Watters: Okay. Thank you. Just wanted to make sure.
Conger: No provision needed, though, for that.
Watters: Just wanted to make sure. Okay.
Conger: No. No, I did not see that. Yeah.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you very much.
Conger: Thank you very much.
Yearsley: I have a couple of people signed up for this. A Martin McWilliams. Please
state your name and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 27 of 48
McWilliams: Martin McWilliams. 3624 Tahiti Drive. That will be on the corner of Records
Way and Tahiti once Records Way goes through. I don't have a real concern about the
development. My concern is about the additional traffic on Records Way. We have
already approved 96 units for the Regency and now we are looking at approving another
338. All those -- all that traffic is going out onto Records Way. That's a concern. I think
the property owners on the east are going to lose privacy and we are going to have noise.
It would be nice if the developer would think about maybe putting up a -- erect a cement --
decorative cement wall in place of the vinyl wall that we currently have. And that's all.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you. Brenda Ross.
Ross: I'm Brenda Ross. I live at 3720 East Tahiti Drive in Meridian and I guess my
concern is -- and mainly the same one that you just heard. Records isn't a through street
yet and when it is it will be only two lanes. As the gentleman prior to me was just saying,
we just -- they just approved another three buildings with the Regency apartments. That
already has 240 units, without the new buildings. Now we are talking another 336 and just
north of this proposed property is a complex of four buildings that are supposed to be
luxury condominiums. They sit right behind the Norco building. So, I don't know what you
think will happen with all of that traffic feeding onto Records Drive. I can tell you right now
that several people that live in the Regency apartments drive over the lawn in Kleiner Park
to come through the Red Feather Subdivision to get out to either Ustick Road or
Cloverdale, because they don't want to deal with the traffic on Eagle and so you can feed
all of these people onto Records and I think it's going to be insane along there and I don't
know what's going to happen in our subdivision with all those folks either, but I hope you
will take that into consideration. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Dick Ross.
D.Ross: I'm Dick Ross. 3720 East Tahiti. So, in the Red Feather Subdivision. Tahiti
goes to what I call the green gate right now, which is tied up against the new apartments
that was mentioned two hundred plus apartments on a busy thoroughfare from those
apartments south toward Fairview. The speed that those people leave in the morning and
return at night is just amazing right there along Kleiner Park. When these 336 new
additional apartments are built, then, records is going to become quite a raceway. A
question for Sonya. Could you show that elevation, please, that has the backs of tho se
buildings? Yes. If I understand this -- these back areas that we see are what we are
going to see along Records; is that correct?
Watters: That is the end of the building and --
D.Ross: Yes.
Watters: -- yes. So, that would be this -- it's right here.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 28 of 48
D.Ross: Okay. And so when I come out of Tahiti Drive this is the kind of elevation that
I'm going to see and the inter core ones are going to phase into the center core, into the
pool and everything, the clubhouse inside. Right now we have a sidewalk on both sides
of Records and I'm guessing that that will continue all the way through north to Ustick. I
would also guess -- and there hasn't been any mention of this -- that Tahiti is going to be
tied into Records. Yes? No?
Watters: Is this the road right here, sir?
D.Ross: It's right here.
Watters: Yes.
D.Ross: It's right there.
Watters: Yeah.
D.Ross: The first gentleman that spoke lives right there where that circle is. We live right
there. Is that intersection going to be tied into Records with project?
Watters: Yes, it will be. It stubs into Records -- where Records will go.
D.Ross: Okay. So, seven years ago a gate was pulled off of one of the small streets
going into Ustick and that became a main thoroughfare for people to come and go from
Red Feather. That same sort of thing is going to happen once Tahiti is tied into Records.
What they did on Duane Street off of Ustick was put in the stutter bumps. Can we
assume you guys are going to put stutter bumps in for us on Tahiti so we can slow that 30
miles an hour traffic down to something reasonable?
Yearsley: I would assume that that has to be done as part of ACHD's --
D.Ross: Okay. So, when do we approach ACHD for that sort of installation?
Yearsley: My guess is they would have to determine traffic after it's built and if there is --
they do what they call a warrant to see if that's -- if there is an issue with that, then, they
will issue a warrant.
D.Ross: And that's what they did on Duane and I'm sure they will need to do that.
Yearsley: Yes. They will follow that same procedure.
D.Ross: Okay. I think you have answered all my questions. I agree with the other two
folks that talked. This is a high, intense loading of Records Street and there should be
some other accommodations back to Eagle Road to let those folks in the apartments
leave, including the existing apartments, which do not have access to Eagle Road right
now. Oh. And the grocery store is called Rosauers. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 29 of 48
Yearsley: Thank you. I don't have anybody else signed up. Is there anybody else that
would like to testify on this application? Please come forward. Name and address for the
record, please.
Rogers: Yeah. My name is Mark Rogers. 2487 North Wallingford Avenue. This is in the
Red Feather Subdivision. And I'd like to agree with my neighbors for the most part here. I
think they had some great things to say. I think the way Tahiti connects into Records --
personally I would benefit -- I would benefit from that, but I do agree with the traffic
concerns. I would like convenient access to Rosauers and Norco and so on, but I agree
that we need some sort of stop signs or speed bumps there. Kind of be great if the
residents of the new apartments had convenient access to Eagle, especially for left turns
onto Eagle. Right now it would be fairly easy for them to go out turning right, but turning
left would be difficult, they would want to take other routes. And that's really all I had to
say. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please.
Sorensen: Hi. I'm Ann Sorensen. I live at 2725 North Duane. So, we face -- we actually
are on the east of this new development that's coming in, so thanks for the chance and it's
interesting to listen to our neighbors from the west and their opinions on that. I guess, you
know, our understanding was that Meridian's intent was to blend neighborhoods with
similar properties and so here we are at two to five acres agricultural properties and now
we are going to have this density of, oh, what are we going to have, 600 -- over 600 --
almost 700 apartment homes -- apartment-type homes right in our backyard. That doesn't
seem to blend and some of those other inconsistencies and incompatibilities and the
density per acreage, size of the homes, the living spaces, the size of the lot, even the
height of the homes. Four levels. You know, there is a Great Wall restaurant down there.
We are now going to have a great wall along the back of our perimeter and looking at the
-- the look and architectural design of that confirms that. That is a great wall look. You
know, it's not consistent with the type of -- a very cozy neighborhood that Meridian love of
home and hearth -- that's a very modern look. As well the landscaping on that. Hard to
tell. It sounds like Mr. Conger has chosen to reduce the buffer even between Records
and what was done over on the Regency apartments as well. So, reducing that again --
let's see. You know, again, that Records Avenue -- there is no intent for there to be any
access for anyone along Duane. So, it's like a separate little community apart from who is
right now next to you. There doesn't seem to be any kind of friendly liaison or any kind of
thing going on there. I'm probably, yeah, just seeing the architectural design today was
really quite shocking as well. Kind of that second great wall. So, that's what stands out to
me. But, anyway, I would appreciate you just remembering the intent of -- of Meridian and
that desire to blend like neighborhoods and keep that -- that feeling of rural -- ruralness
there. So, I appreciate that. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? At that point would the applicant like to
come forward. Again, name and address for the record, please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 30 of 48
Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Jim Conger. 4824 West
Fairview Avenue. A couple items to just quickly touch on -- as you know, just somewhat
of a reminder. ACHD has looked at this and reviewed this project thoroughly and their
staff report has recommended approval as well and that's in the packet. As far as
adjacent neighbors, I would like to get to the -- am I in yours or mine? Sorry.
Watters: Would you like to be in yours?
Conger: I would love to be in mine. Than k you. That's perfect. Just quickly addressing a
few of the concerns with Tahiti. I think everybody knows. I'm just giving a reminder. Our
projects to the north. Tahiti is right here. This is an entire project. It was already
previously approved by the City of Meridian. I believe it was last year. We have been
through the application quite a bit. They are approximately setting their -- their apartments
back 95 feet from the existing homes. They are set off of Records the 22 feet, just to give
a perspective -- I will come back. We are 120 feet set off of Records with the project that
was approved last year at 23 feet off of Records. Again with Tahiti right here. So, we
have gone with our design elements of really what the Regency did off their main buffer to
their south was getting that 120 foot off, buffering it nicely with the garages and some
shorter architecture before we got to the apartment homes. So, we have really worked
pretty hard to set our buildings back and I think the last item I will say is, you know, our --
our neighbors which are all in Ada County, they are not City of Meridian residents -- our
homes -- there are approximately six hundred -- or our apartments homes are
approximately 645 feet from their back living areas. Again, a far -- far cry difference is
what's approved behind Red Feather and we -- we will be -- we are the transitional buffer
from the busy Eagle Road, the heavier commercial and retail. Then you get into the multi-
family and it will just go less and less as you guys already know, kind of the same MO for
the neighbors. This is the perspective from our county neighbors backyards. We have
put in approximately the same size tree, where they would be in their back area. If they
have a pool or don't have a pool, that would be our facility in the background. They can
actually see the sides of one of our buildings with the way the current vegetation is and if
their current lifestyle doesn't with the county. If they redevelop, of course, they would
have to come into the city and that would be a different process. I think in closing we
definitely appreciate our time tonight. We appreciate the neighbors' concerns. We think
they have been all addressed the best they can. May not be quite happy, but they do fall
within ACHD and what Records Road, designed as a collector, was meant to be. So, I
think in closing I would just remind you respectfully of B-1-1-5, if we could get that
condition modified for our improvements. Thank you for your time and I do stand for any
questions.
Yearsley: Just one question and I -- just clarification. The 20 foot buffer along Records is
not a reduced buffer, it's the required buffer for Records; is that correct?
Conger: Yes. Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely correct. We are not reducing any buffer
on Eagle Road or Records.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 31 of 48
Conger: Thank you for that.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Conger: Thank you.
Yearsley: With no other comments I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing
on AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: If you don't mind I would like to go first on this one. I guess for me I think the
biggest issue that I look at is the -- the open space requirements. Trying to meet those --
that open space requirements and I guess, you know, for me I like the project. I actually
like the architecture. I think it's different. It's unique. Kind of stands out. Given how tight
the site is together and how it's all put together, I'm a little concerned about the open
space and how we are going to fit that in. To the point that I'm not quite sure if I'm ready
to send it onto City Council without verifying how that is going to look to meet the open
space requirements. I guess the 35 foot landscape buffer along Eagle Road, I hate
cutting off extending pathways, especially for pedestrians. Understanding Conger's
conditions and concerns, I would actually, you know, consider removing that with the
caveat that the other buildings in the front get cleaned up instead of the landscape buffer.
So, I think that would be I guess, in my opinion, may be a fair tradeoff to make that look a
little cleaner in this -- in the interim before they actually do phase two. But other than, I --
you know, your comment about the rural nature -- unfortunately that area is losing its rural
nature and development is hitting hard and heavy along that corridor. This is the place for
apartments, in my opinion. It is close to a city park. It's close to a lot of retail. It's close to
food and stuff. So, it makes it the place where it needs to go and I like the layout, I like
the look, but there are just a few concerns that I have, so --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- well, I think it's -- I think it's a great project. I think if you look at the layout
overall I think it's very well thought out. I think it's very well laid out, so the people that are
to the east aren't seeing a full side of the buildings. The architecture, in my opinion, is
where we need to be heading. I think it looks great. I think it's modern. I think we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 32 of 48
very close to Kleiner Park. It's very close to retail. It's close to jobs. That's what we all
talk about multi-use is we are close to jobs, close to multiple uses. I think -- I trust Sonya
in this situation to -- there is a code for a reason that there has to be open space. I don't
have a problem with that situation, which Mr. Conger is saying that they have room if they
need additional. I'm happy to have -- let them compromise on what the best solution for
that is. I know that the traffic concern is something that everybody brings to our attention
and I appreciate those. We have to trust ACHD's recommendation to us that they can
handle the traffic on that road and so that's our job is to say this is -- you did a traffic study
and you did it, said it's okay and so in my opinion I think it's a great project. I think it's in
the right -- right spot in the city. That is the new center of the -- of -- really in the valley. I
mean that is becoming the center of the valley and so I think this is a perfect location, I
think it's a great project, and so I think I'm in.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I think you all are reading my notes. I do. I think it's the perfect spot for it
based on all the things we have discussed in the past with the relationship to jobs and
retail and restaurants and accessibility and I think during the presentation the first thing I
noticed was the modern look of the apartments and how they stand out and be their own
-- have their own identity and I think there is a lot of people who would appreciate how that
that will look for that as a residence. I agree -- before I knew this project was even coming
before us a few weeks ago I was going down Eagle and it just caught my eye and it's like
what is that mess and so I think the removal of the house and cleaning up that front area
immediately is a good compromise of, then, not having to have that landscape go in until
phase two and, then, with -- I don’t know if you -- is there a specific date you were wanting
on that, Sonya?
Yearsley: I think it's just prior to the occupancy.
McCarvel: Prior to occupancy. Okay. Yeah. I think -- I think it's a good project.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I agree. I -- looking at the development of the apartments to the south and, then,
you look at the ones that are going into the north, it is a nice change. It looks different
from the south. It looks different from the north. But it works with the plan. And I can't
help but think that this is also something that our Mayor has talked about many times of
having the ability to live and work, so you could walk to work and I think that works so
perfectly with that area around there, that it would be a nice fit and I, too, agree that the
traffic is going to be a lot higher, but according to ACHD it's not without -- there is no --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 33 of 48
seems to be no problem there. And, then, the other thing is the -- again, the time frame,
that when you start development what's the time frame in which -- what is appropriate to
have that area cleaned up.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, I guess also with phase two of this development these
apartments will have access to Eagle Road through that cross-easement and I -- you
know, the Tahiti Drive -- you very well may see additional traffic and I -- I wholeheartedly
encourage you to bug ACHD for traffic calming measures to help alleviate any of that
traffic that might come through your house. Unfortunately, that is -- that's not something
that we have an opportunity to rule upon or to make recommendations to, so --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the neighbors could also take this
matter up with our transportation commission and see what suggestions they would have
for them. So, I would certainly keep an eye out on the city's website. They do meet once
a month and they have an agenda and that is probably the most correct forum to proceed
forward and present their case to the transportation commission and they may have some
ideas to pass along and some suggestions to help the neighbors get some alleviation or
some traffic calming in their neighborhood.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, I guess with that I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chair?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to
recommend approval of file number AZ 15-012 and CUP 15-019 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of November 5th with the following modifications: That we
remove condition B-11 -- or 1.1.5 and that we add in that the structures currently existing
on the property be removed before occupancy of phase one.
Yearsley: Can I clarify that? Are we removing that or just saying that it should be
included as part of phase two?
Fitzgerald: Yeah, I guess that -- yeah. Included in phase -- part of phase two.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Thank you for the clarification.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number AZ 15 -012 and CUP 15-
019 with modifications. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 34 of 48
Yearsley: I hope you guys for the last hearing entertain you for just -- I need to take about
a five minute break if you guys don't mind. So, we will reconvene in about five minutes.
(Recess: 7:47 p.m. to 7:51 p.m.)
F. Public Hearing for Edgehill Subdivision (H-2015-0005) by JUB
Engineers, Inc. Located at 1393 & 1405 W. Victory Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.19 Acres of Land
with an R-4 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 116
Building Lots and 7 Common Lots on 40.19 Acres of Land
in an R-4 Zoning District
Yearsley: So, we would like to reconvene the meeting. Thank you guys for waiting
patiently for this last application. So, we would like to open the public hearing on H-2015-
0005, Edgehill Subdivision. And let's begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Yearsley, Members of the Commission. The next
applications before you are a request for annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat.
This site consists of approximately 40 acres of land. It's currently zoned RUT in Ada
County and is located at the southeast corner of South Linder Road and West Victory
Road at 1393 and 1405 West Victory Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north
is West Victory Road and residential properties in Model Farm Acres Subdivision, zoned
R-1 in Ada County. To the east are residential properties in Kentucky Ridge Estates.
Those are currently in the development process, zoned R-4. And a rural residential
property zoned RUT in Ada County. To the south is a rural residential agricultural
property zoned R-4 and to the west is South Linder Road and rural residential properties
zoned RUT and R-1 in Ada County. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation for this property is low density residential. The applicant is requesting
annexation and zoning of 40.19 acres of land with an R-4 zoning district consistent with
the low density residential designation for this site. The applicant plans to develop the site
with 116 new single family residential detached homes. The preliminary plat as shown
there on the left consists of 116 building lots and seven common lots on 40.19 acres of
land and is proposed to develop in two phases as shown. The gross density for the
development is 2.89 dwelling units per acre, with a net densi ty of 4.54 units per acre. The
applicant submitted a revised plat today as shown that addresses the revisions required in
condition number 1.1.2 in Exhibit B of the staff report. Staff has reviewed the plan and it
does comply with the UDC dimensional standards. The Williams gas pipeline crosses the
southwest corner of this site and lies within a 74 foot wide easement and that is shown
here. You can see my pointer here right across the corner. The Sundial Lateral bisects
this site from east to west and that is in this location right here and is located within a
common lot. The applicant plans to request a waiver from Council to allow the lateral to
remain open and not be piped due to its large capacity. The facility to the east in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 35 of 48
Kentucky Ridge was also allowed to remain open. One access is proposed via West
Victory Road and one access is proposed off of South Linder Road. Both arterial streets.
Stub streets are proposed to the adjacent properties to the east and west for future
extension and interconnectivity. Excuse me. Not east and west. East and south. A
report from ACHD has not yet been received for this project as a CIS traffic impact study.
Had a couple of errors in it that needed to be corrected before their staff report could be
finalized and from what I understand from ACHD staff, it has not yet been resubmitted to
them. However, ACHD staff did state that in general the -- the layout is acceptable and
they don't anticipate any major issues. A 25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required
along Victory and Linder Roads. Landscaping is also required within common areas and
along pathways in accord with UDC standards. A minimum of ten percent qualified open
space and two site amenities are required to be provided within the development. A short
segment of the city's multi-use pathway system within the Williams pipeline easement is
proposed, along with a tot lot with play equipment. Staff also recommends an internal
pathway as provided along the north side of the Sundial Lateral from the east boundary of
the site to the northwest corner as shown on the revised plan. Conceptual building
elevations were submitted that depict seven sample elevations of future homes within the
development. Building materials appear to consist of a mix of horizontal and vertical lap
and shake siding with stone accents and asphalt shingles . Because homes on lots that
back up to South Linder and West Victory Roads will be highly visible, staff recommends
the rear or sides of structures on these lots incorporate articulation through changes in
materials, color, modulation and architectural elements, horizontal and vertical, to break
up monotonous wall plains and roof lines. Six foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along the
frontage of Victory and Linder Roads. The four foot tall vinyl fencing is proposed along
pathways and common area. Open vision wrought iron fencing is proposed along the
lateral and a six foot tall cedar fence is proposed along the east and south boundaries.
This parcel is not currently serviceable with domestic water. The development falls within
pressure zone five in which there is currently no supply in the subject area. Sanitary
sewer currently exists in South Linder Road to the north near West Kodiak Drive adjacent
to and in Fall Creek Subdivision. Development of this property is dependent on the
extension of existing sanitary sewer mains and water services being available from the
city's pressure zone five. Written testimony has been received from Kristi Watkins, the
applicant's representative. She is in agreement with the staff report. Staff is
recommending approval with the requirement of a development agreement per the
conditions in Exhibit B of the staff report. The staff recommends that condition 1.1.2 be
deleted in its entirety and that the revised plat just be noted that it complies with current
UDC standards. Staff will stand for any questions the Commission may have.
Yearsley: So, that was 1.1.2?
Watters: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. Any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 36 of 48
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, is that the requirement to have articulation, different colors, that will all
be included in the development agreement as well?
Watters: Yes, it is.
Fitzgerald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure. That was -- I was just looking for it and I
didn't see it.
Watters: Well, I thought it was. Let me double check. If it's not in there it's in the
conditions of approval of the plat.
Fitzgerald: Oh, yes. I found it.
Watters: Did you find it?
Fitzgerald: Yes. Sorry. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Sorry, I'm --
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Sonya, do you know when zone five is planned to be completed and they
would get that water?
Sonya: I do not know.
McCarvel: Do you have any information on that, Bill? So, this just kind of an idea until all
those connections happen?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it's -- I know the city's -- the
developer is going to donate a lot to the city. There is a leasing in progress -- in process
to start construction and testing that well site, but it does take several years to get that in
place through DEQ, from my understanding, so it will be a couple years at least.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions? Would the application like to come forward?
Please state our name and address for the record.
Watkins: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. My name is Kristi Watkins.
I'm with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood Avenue in Boise. I don't have a whole lot
to add to that. That was incredibly thorough. Thank you, Sonya. Like she said, we agree
with the -- all conditions that were presented in the staff report. The plat that you're seeing
in front of you reflects many of those changes. We have done it kind of fast and furiously
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 37 of 48
over the last couple days, so I, myself, have not had a chance to QC that, but according to
the designer he went through the staff report fairly extensively and covered and matched
the issues. Two of the issues that we heard at the neighborhood meeting -- one was this
-- I believe it's Jump Street here at the northeast corner. The adjacent property owner is
planning to develop property next to that, so he asked that we align the street with his
proposed street. We have done that. The other issue that we heard at the neighborhood
meeting, which is a common theme tonight, traffic. So, unfortunately, because of the
issues with the traffic impact study, which actually revolve around crash statistics -- and
there aren't many at that intersection, so that's why they weren't included. The engineers
are working on the traffic study, trying to find that information currently to that over to
ACHD and, then, they will do their review. So, that's kind of the only thing that we are
really waiting on, the improvements that are proposed meet ACHD requirements. They
plan to widen Linden -- or sorry. Linder. I'm in Caldwell. I go on Linden. They plan to
widen Linder and Victory both to the extent required by ACHD and put in curb, gutter,
sidewalk and all the improvements that would be needed there. So, other than that do
you have any questions for me?
Yearsley: Any question? Thank you.
Watkins: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have a few people signed up. Linda Coffield. And, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Coffield: My name is Linda Coffield and I live at 3111 South Cobble Way. Okay, I'm
opposed to this subdivision. I moved out in that area 28 years ago and moved there
purposely because it was a low density area. To the south of this proposed subdivision to
the west, to the north is all surrounded by acreage anywhere from one to five, ten, 20 on
up all the way to the Nampa boundaries. If they don't have water and they plan on drilling
a well, then, I wonder what would happen to my well with that low of density? I don't
believe that it belongs there and recently two other subdivisions -- one down on Stoddard,
one in the Kentucky Ridge area to the east of this new proposed property subdivision are
putting in hundreds of homes between these two. So, the people coming out of this new
proposed subdivision would have to come down Linder -- wouldn't go down Linder, they
would come down Victory or Stoddard to get to Meridian Road. Those are the two roads
out. And so what I'm seeing now on Stoddard -- when you put in the pot the new middle
school that's going to open here in September on Stoddard with people having to come
down Victory -- employees, buses, children being driven to school and, then, you add the
proposed 116 homes with the possibility of them averaging two cars per home, that's
another 232 cars coming down Victory Road. At times of the day, because my property
enters and exits off of Victory just a very short distance from this new property, I can't get
out of my property at peak times, because they use Victory Road and Franklin Road when
the freeway is blocked, people come down those two roads to get to west Treasure Valley
and so that area now, because of the recently approved subdivisions and now this one,
you cannot -- Victory Road, even if you widen it a little bit and put a turn lane in, is not
going to handle all this traffic and I frankly don't understand Ada County Highway District,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 38 of 48
so I guess I need to call them, but I just think the impact is going to be too great for all of
us that are the rural people there. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Paul Young.
Young: Yeah. I'm Paul Young. 2915 Model Farm Drive and my understanding -- nothing
has been brought up or anything, but my understanding on the corner of Linder and Victor
there is going to be a roundabout, but I can't get any information on basically the time of it
or anything else, but, like the lady just before me said, that area is going to be extremely
busy. I can't -- I live on Model Farm and right now it takes me five minutes to get off
Model Farm onto Victory and with a new subdivision we are about ready to start having
people in it, we are overdeveloping, I mean Victory -- Victory is going to go nuts and I just
wonder is there any truth to the saying there is a roundabout going in on Linder and
Victory or --
Yearsley: Well, from what I understand they have got a proposed -- I don't know if it's
actually scheduled in their five year work plan at this point in time, so I don't quite know
when that is to be constructed, to be honest with you. Do you know, Sonya?
Watters: Chairman, it is shown on their master street map. When or if that will be
constructed, though, I don't know. ACHD should include analysis of that in their report
when it's issued.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, if I -- I was out there and we were trying to put some pipe in and
part of our stuff has to go through ACHD and we can't do it, because it is in their five year
plan at Ten Mile and Amity to have a roundabout there within the next five years. So, I
would imagine Victory and Linder would be within -- before that one.
Young: Well, that's -- that was one of my concerns and the -- the ditch water there, my
understanding at one time they were talking about having that canal fenced and, then, I
was told they was going to bury it with pipe and you guys are saying that they can't bury
pipe in there, so what -- because we get our irrigation water right at the end of it and about
half the time we can't get water now. So, if you put a bunch more people around, what's
going to happy to our irrigation water for Model Farm Subdivision?
Yearsley: Okay. And we will have the applicant respond to that question -- or the -- yeah.
That question on the canal.
Young: All right. But I think that's -- those are my questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. I have Ron and Susan Thompson. You're both welcome to come
up, whichever one of you want to come first. And, again, name and address for the
record, please.
Thompson: Susan Thompson and I live at -- what? 1300 West Victory Road. We just
moved there, so -- anyway. So -- I need my glasses. So, our house is directly across
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 39 of 48
Victory -- Directly north across Victory from the proposed entrance into the new
subdivision. Yes. That's exactly where my house is. And we are on an acre and I don't
know how wide the property is, but probably at least as wide as an entrance road across
street. We have a horseshoe-shaped drivewa y and our -- we go down a little ways into
the house, but all the houses on that side of the road are in an elevation where coming off
of Victory they are a little lower, so -- so, my concern would be there is a 45 mile an hour
speed limit right there right now. It doesn't change to 35 until it gets past our house east --
closer to Stoddard it changes to a 35 mile an hour speed limit, but it's 45 from Linder and
so if there is nothing changing the road before all that traffic is going to be moving in
through there, someone slowing down to turn into that subdivision either direction --
wouldn't matter which way they were coming from, if there was snow on the road or ice on
the road they could feasibly end up in my living room because of the elevation of the -- of
our property going down. So, someone, if they were to start to slide or something it would
be easy for them to slide there. So, I would just wonder if there would be any -- any
consideration for putting something up or creating some sort of traffic situation where that
wasn't possible for someone to slide into my living room. Also coming out of that
subdivision would be my front door, my -- the entire front of my house, windows. There is
a bedroom and an office and, then, the front doors is all glass. Anyway. So, at night in
the dark that's all we are going to see is headlights coming directly into the front of our
house as they are leaving. So, that's a little bit of a concern of mine. So, just -- there are
two streets that that's going to be across from, but apparently those two streets don't work
into the -- into the developer's plan, because, then, they could put a street across the
street from a street, like -- but I guess the property across the street from Cobble isn't in
this plan, because there is someone who lives there and the property right across the
street from Model Farm also isn't in the plan. So, both of those properties are just jumped
over or -- and/or around. So, obviously, it's really not an option at this point for the
developer to put a street across from another street, instead of just across from my house.
Anyway. So -- so, those are my concerns are the lights and the elevations, like I said, of
our street -- of our property and most of the property on that side of the road you go down
into it -- would be someone, you know, maybe have to -- if it was icy or -- and, then, the 45
mile an hour zone is more the possibility of someone slowing down and finding their way
into my front yard., so -- and some of the houses sit a little closer even than ours does, or
the slow down, but --
Yearsley: Your time is up. Can you --
Thompson: Oh, I think I'm done. I think. I don't know. Sorry. I'm not really a public
speaker, but --
Yearsley: Thank you. Does Ron want to come up or --
R.Thompson: Ron Thompson. 1300 West Victory. Meridian. As my wife said, I'm
concerned about the entrance being proposed across from our house. When initially --
from what I understand it was proposed to be across from Cobble and it got moved. Is
there a reason -- I'm assuming it's because the property next to us that hasn't -- in this
annexation hasn't been developed, but with the -- being across from our house we are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 40 of 48
going to have a huge traffic issue right in front of our house and we believe that --
according to ACHD standards you have to have 500 feet between streets -- four to four
fifty either direction. Is that a consideration that can be taken into to either move it from
directly in front of our house to property lines one way or the other or move it back to
where it originally was designed to be across from Cobble?
Yearsley: Okay. And we can ask the applicant.
R.Thompson: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please come
forward.
Bird: Ed Bird. 1570 West Victory. We are just north of the northwest corner where the
roundabout would be effected. My question is is this development going to drill a well for
water or is Meridian going to supply the water?
Yearsley: And I don't know if that's been determined yet or not.
Bird: Well, my house was built like in the 1960s. It was a homestead house on the 40
acres and it has like a 35 foot well, four inch casing, and when Kentucky Ridge went in
and had their own well, a lot of the people -- I'm a little higher, but a lot of people had to
drill anew wells and I don't see why that would be our cost when it's new development and
why wouldn't they go on city water and sewer?
Yearsley: Well -- and I think for right now the city water -- they don't have water supply to
feed that elevation and that's what they are looking to do. Typically the city wells go
significantly deeper. I know in the range of five to six hundred feet, so they would actually
not impact your aquifer. They would hit the lower aquifers.
Bird: But in the impact zone out there to the south you have got like 160 acres proposed
subdivision to tap into the new Kentucky Ridge and tap into this one.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Bird: So, why not solve all those problems to start with and get the city services out there
now?
Yearsley: And that -- I think that's what they are working on right now.
Bird: Okay.
Yearsley: With all those subdivisions they have got the same situation.
Bird: Would you have the developer address that to -- to us?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 41 of 48
Yearsley: Okay.
Bird: Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else? Please come forward.
Bennett: Terry Bennett. 3235 South Linder Avenue -- or Road. I'm right on the -- right on
the corner where you're talking about a roundabout. My house is also damn close to that
roundabout, so I'm really concerned about that. I don't think -- I don't think having a
roundabout right in my front yard would be very good, so I'm wondering how you're going
to --
Yearsley: Can you speak into the microphone?
Bennett: I'm wondering how you're going to take that into consideration. I mean just
proposing a roundabout when the houses are pretty close to that intersection.
Yearsley: From my understanding in their master street map they have looked at
roundabouts and roundabouts are the preferred alternative from my understanding.
However, if circumstances make in infeasible for roundabouts to be there, they will look at
a regular signalized intersection, so --
Bennett: And you were talking -- also you were talking about widening Linder. Where is
the widening going to come from?
Yearsley: The developer -- and I believe I will let her respond to that, too, but she said
that they will widen Linder on their side of the street to meet their -- the master street map,
if I remember right of what she said.
Bennett: And I am really concerned about the traffic that will be on Linder. I mean there
are accidents -- more than she said before. You know, there was one last week, you
know, a fender bender. So, I mean people don't slow down very much going through
there. So, if you -- all you have to do is sit out at night and listen to the cars going up and
down through there, they -- once they take off I mean they are in 50 miles an hour before
they get past two or three houses. I mean it's -- it's a little scary at times.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Bennett: Thank you.
C.Bird: My name is Cindy Bird and I live at 1570 West Victory Road, Meridian, Idaho. My
concern is like our neighbors, the roundabout that's going to be coming in, because we
have three homes there and we are going to lose property and not only that, but our other
neighbor that talked about the car coming into her home, we have granddaughters that
sleep in the front of the house and how can we trust that if our roundabout is going to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 42 of 48
come down into our yard and somebody was to lose control and, then, come straight into
our home, because we are not that far back like Terry said. That's all I have.
Yearsley: All right. Thank you.
C.Bird: Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else that would like to come forward? Please. Name and address for
the record, please.
Petty: My name is Kevin Petty and I live at 11 55 West Victory. She mentioned that there
would be a wooden fence on the east side of the property, but when they developed it on
the -- on the east side of my property -- I adjoin this property by 726. But they had a put a
vinyl fence on the east side of my property and these are wanting to put a wooden fence
on the west side, that is totally inappropriate. It doesn't fit with anything around there.
Everything around there has to be vinyl fencing right now. Secondly, it's where the stub
road comes through, I would like for them to go across the road like the y did on the other
side when they put in the Kentucky Ridge Subdivision, a solid fence across the stub road,
because I had actually have tractors and I don't want kids out there messing with my
equipment, you know. This is what they did -- Conger did for me on the side of the road
and I'm requesting that the developer would do the same -- likewise on the opposite side.
Yearsley: Okay.
Petty: And as far as the wells are around there, I have lived there for 25 years, they have
been developing around there constantly, all these little things going on, and my well has
dropped over 20 feet in 25 years. Some of that may have to do with the drought season, I
understand that can contribute to part of it. Twenty feet is substantial. And the reason I
know that is I just put a new well pump in my -- in my well casing maybe two months ago
and so that's an issue that should be addressed.
Yearsley: Okay.
Petty: And I guess that pretty much gets it and I thank you very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please.
Bullock: I'm Chad Bullock at 1270 West Victory. Am I wrong, is this still just staged?
Could we reduce the number of houses going in this subdivision to help reduce our traffic,
our water, and if they don't have city water it's going to affect all of us, because I'm on a
well. Can she reduce the size of homes, like cut it in half, you know, so we don't have
such a large density homes right there. That's a lot of homes when you look back at --
look at the traffic, look at the impact you're going to put on Victory and Linder, Stoddard.
The exit and entry points, I don't know quite where Linder is coming out at, but it looks to
be around Steve and Wendy's house that's on Linder. Not positive. But I do not like
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 43 of 48
where the exit is on Victory at all, the entry and exit points. Can we address that, move it
somewhere else?
Yearsley: I will have -- I will have the applicant address that.
Bullock: Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Watkins: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try to kind of tick through these
issues as they were mentioned. If we look in the staff report at Item 2.1.2, it says this
parcel is currently not serviceable with domestic water. The development falls in pressure
zone five in which there is currently no supply in the area. Zone five water will be
available to the parcel with the construction of both a city water line project and the
construction of future phases of the Biltmore Subdivision, including off-site improvements.
The city project is projected to be constructed in 2016. Biltmore improvements are
dependent upon the developer's schedule. This project would also fall in line with that
2016 schedule, so I imagine that everything would kind of happen all at the same time.
So, city water, by the time this is ready to be built, will probably be in process. So,
hopefully that answers that question.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: I was texting our engineer trying to find out the answer to the question, the
access point off of Victory. He said that the drive -- or the road that's there currently does
not meet their current standard for distancing from the majoring intersection, but if ACHD
is willing to approve it, we are willing to move it. So, that's just maybe a negotiation that
we need to have with them and we might find that out when the traffic study comes out,
too. That's certainly something that we can discuss. And fencing materials can be
negotiated. I don't think our client is opposed to doing vinyl fencing, so that can certainly
be proposed to them.
Yearsley: Can I ask why they were proposing vinyl on all of the other sides, except for
that side?
Watkins: I have no idea.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: I would have to ask them.
Yearsley: Okay. Regarding the ditch, you're not doing anything to the ditch, you're just
going to try to leave it the way your -- the way it is right now?
Watkins: Uh-huh. They just want to do the one crossing, so they will pipe it just in that
area and just do the one crossing. They want to keep the natural features as natural as
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 44 of 48
possible. You know, there will be the regular access easements there for the -- the ditch
company -- well, the Boise Project Board of Control I believe is in charge of that ditch.
And they have got some requirements in their letter that they sent to us, so we will comply
with that. You know, we are trying -- with the wrought iron fencing that will be along that
ditch we are trying to keep it as open and natural as possible.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, turning movements. Are turning bays anticipated or are turn
bays at the entrances to these subdivisions or do you know?
Watkins: We are only required to improve our half of the road --
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: -- on both of those main roads there and as far as I know our improvements do
not include turn lanes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: And I think that is because -- from what I understand the roundabout is actually
part of the CIP, their capital improvement plan, is not part of their five year work plan, but
as capacity grows in that area they will probably move that up the ladder, but I don't know
that for sure and I couldn't put a date on it.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: But it is projected, it just -- you know, those things oftentimes take lots of public
input, lots of opportunity for the neighbors to again go to ACHD and discuss the other
options that might be available to them.
Yearsley: Okay. So, you talked about trying to make -- move the entrance with ACHD's
approval. Roadway construction. So, you will improve Victory and Linder on your side of
the street; correct?
Watkins: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: Okay. The one question the gentleman asked, why so dense. I just want to
have --
Watkins: It meets code.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watkins: The lot sizes range from 8,000 square feet per lot to 10,000 square feet per lot.
So, they are not small by any stretch of the imagination. It still meets the low density
option in city code, so, you know, developers will develop.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 45 of 48
Yearsley: Okay. I just want to make sure we answer the questions. I appreciate that.
That was my questions answered. Is there any other questions you guys have?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just in regard to what you said, I will ask you again, but on Victory with the turn
lanes going into the subdivision, you said you're not required to do that. If you were to put
one in would you lose some of those lots, like two and three, maybe six --
Watkins: Possibly. And I don't know that they are necessarily opposed to those kind of
improvements. If the ACHD staff report comes back and says that these improvements
will be required based on the traffic study, then, they will do that. We already have
reconfigured it once this week based on the block length and we thought we might lose
some lots that way. We didn't. You know, we will do what's required and if that means
that some of the lots go away, then, so be it.
Oliver: Thank you.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: One of the gentlemen asked regards to on Jump Street when that stubs over,
would you put a solid fence, so that they -- there is no access to that field?
Watkins: I don't see why that would be an issue.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Watkins: I'm sure that they would agree to that.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Okay. Anything else? All right. Thank you.
Watkins: Thank you.
Yearsley: Can I get a motion to close the public hearing on H-2015-0005?
Oliver: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 46 of 48
Yearsley: Motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Part of my thought on this is do we move forward and approve this pending the
traffic study or should we just continue it until that traffic study comes back? It sounds like
there is a lot of things hinging on that.
Yearsley: I --
Fitzgerald: I'm kind of there, too.
Yearsley: I was kind of leaning the same way.
Fitzgerald: I think we are -- I know we were -- there is some concern on density and those
kind of things. I think it's well laid out, but as the applicant said, if there is some
discussions to be had, maybe we are not finalized and ready to go yet.
Yearsley: You know -- and I agree. I think that we may want to consider that. For you
individuals out here, unfortunately, growth is catching up to the rural, as I said earlier. It's
happening throughout the valley. It's coming and it's unfortunate, you know, that we are
losing a lot of the rural farmland. Growing up we had acreage and kind of experienced the
same thing. So, it happens. It's something that as a city you want to grow. The best way
to do it try to manage the growth. I think the subdivision is well laid out. I like the density.
You know, it looks good. Size wise I think it will be a good subdivision. But I do think we
want to get a little bit more information on the traffic study and maybe potential on the
water system on how that’s going to work.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, one more quick thing.
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: And for the neighbors that are out there that are talking about the roundabouts
and we are going to widen the roads, go talk to ACHD, because they need to hear from
you. They need to hear that you're concerned about losing your property or how they are
going to widen the road. That is not in our purview, so I would -- I would highly
recommend you go see them and talk to them about that issue.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
November 5, 2015
Page 47 of 48
Yearsley: Yes. And that is not into our purview, so -- so, any other comments? With that
I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Well, I guess the one question would be -- so, are -- I guess are we leaning
towards continuing?
McCarvel: Yes.
Yearsley: I guess the question that we have is when do we continue it to? When do we
expect the traffic report back?
Watters: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure on the date that traffic impact study is going to come
back, nor am I sure, you know, based on that when the ACHD report will be out. The
soonest available date that it could go before the Commission again would be December
3rd.
Yearsley: Okay.
Watters: After that I believe it's the 17th of December.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: So, Mr. Chair -- and I'm assuming that this really isn't moving too far forward
until water gets out there. We are not in a time is of the essence crunch here right now,
so December 3rd --
Fitzgerald: December 17th.
McCarvel: -- or somewhere would be okay. All right.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2015-0005 to the hearing date pending the
traffic study from ACHD -- because we don't have it to consider at this point.
Yearsley: To? Did you say the date?
Fitzgerald: The 17th.
McCarvel: I just said pending --
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
5
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
5
,
2
0
1
5
It
e
m
s
#
4
A
&
B
:
B
u
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Bu
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
u
b
.
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Bu
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
u
b
.
–
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
s
#
4
C
:
S
u
n
d
i
a
l
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Su
n
d
i
a
l
C
i
r
c
l
e
S
u
b
.
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Su
n
d
i
a
l
C
i
r
c
l
e
S
u
b
.
–
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
s
#
4
D
&
E
:
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
ap
s
An
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
Ar
e
a
CU
P
A
r
e
a
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Si
t
e
P
l
a
n
fo
r
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
fo
r
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
S
t
r
u
ct
u
r
e
s
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
C
l
u
b
h
o
u
s
e
It
e
m
s
#
4
F
:
E
d
g
e
h
i
l
l
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Zo
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
s
Ed
g
e
h
i
l
l
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
-
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
&
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
(
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
)
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Bu
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
M
E
R
I
D
I
A
N
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
&
Z
O
N
I
N
G
C
O
M
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
5
,
2
0
1
5
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
1
AC
H
D
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
Bu
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
2
AC
H
D
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
3
AC
H
D
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
SU
B
M
I
T
T
E
D
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
C
I
R
C
L
E
A
C
H
D
P
R
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
C
U
R
B
“
B
U
M
P
O
UTS”
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
4
AC
H
D
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
a
l
m
i
n
g
AC
H
D
P
R
E
F
E
R
R
E
D
C
U
R
B
“
B
U
M
P
O
U
T
S
”
EF
F
E
C
T
O
N
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
C
A
L
C
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
S
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
C
i
r
c
l
e
B
u
m
p
O
u
t
s
Co
m
m
o
n
A
r
e
a
(8
l
o
t
s
)
1.
1
5
-
a
c
1
.
2
0
-
a
c
Qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
1
.
0
2
-
a
c
1
.
0
6
-
a
c
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
%
1
0
.
2
%
1
0
.
5
%
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
5
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
Ov
e
r
a
l
l
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
i
s
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
v
e
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
’
s
r
e
c
om
m
e
n
d
e
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
–
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
.
Th
e
s
e
i
t
e
m
s
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
o
t
w
o
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
:
Ph
a
s
i
n
g
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
Fe
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
-
A
c
c
e
s
s
Th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
d
v
i
a
a
pr
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
f
r
o
m
C
h
i
n
d
e
n
.
Re
q
u
e
s
t
t
o
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
to
s
e
r
v
e
o
n
l
y
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
u
n
t
i
l
P
h
a
s
e
Tw
o
.
Ne
w
l
o
t
s
i
n
P
h
a
s
e
O
n
e
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
h
a
v
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
Ch
i
n
d
e
n
v
i
a
t
h
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
.
Va
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
n
c
e
n
e
w
in
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
i
n
P
h
a
s
e
T
w
o
c
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
h
e
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
.
1
2
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
7
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
H
o
m
e
-
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
a
we
l
l
a
n
d
s
e
p
t
i
c
s
y
s
t
e
m
.
Ca
n
b
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
s
e
w
e
r
w
i
t
h
Ph
a
s
e
O
n
e
b
y
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
O
n
e
l
i
m
i
t
.
Th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
w
e
r
i
s
a
t
t
h
e
h
o
m
e
’
s
s
o
u
t
h
e
a
s
t
.
Ca
n
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
y
b
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
t
h
Ph
a
s
e
O
n
e
.
Th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
ho
m
e
.
?
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
8
Pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
F
e
n
c
i
n
g
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
p
r
i
v
a
c
y
f
e
n
c
e
on
n
o
r
t
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
c
h
u
r
c
h
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
t
o
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
e
n
c
e
o
n
w
e
s
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
.
Op
e
n
t
o
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
u
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
p
a
r
c
e
l
.
Bu
l
l
R
a
n
c
h
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
h
u
r
c
h
U
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
9
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
A
P
P
L
I
C
A
N
T
’
S
R
E
Q
U
E
S
T
E
D
C
O
N
D
I
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
A
P
P
R
O
V
A
L
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
10
Th
a
n
k
y
o
u
.
Q
U
E
S
T
I
O
N
S
?
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
11
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
I
n
p
u
t
Se
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
,
2
0
1
6
12
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
B
.
1
.
1
.
5
:
-
A
2
0
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Re
c
o
r
d
s
A
v
e
.
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
1
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
-
A
3
5
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Ea
g
l
e
R
o
a
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
2
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
B
.
1
.
1
.
5
:
-
A
2
0
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Re
c
o
r
d
s
A
v
e
.
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
1
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
-
A
3
5
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Ea
g
l
e
R
o
a
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
2
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
B
.
1
.
1
.
5
:
-
A
2
0
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Re
c
o
r
d
s
A
v
e
.
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
1
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
-
A
3
5
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Ea
g
l
e
R
o
a
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
2
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
Am
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
:
*
Co
f
f
e
e
S
h
o
p
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
(L
o
u
n
g
e
C
h
a
i
r
s
,
fi
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
,
c
o
f
f
e
e
ta
b
l
e
s
)
*
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
*
Ev
e
n
t
s
C
e
n
t
e
r
*
Fi
t
n
e
s
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
*
Bi
l
l
i
a
r
d
s
R
o
o
m
*
Ma
i
l
C
e
n
t
e
r
Fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
:
*
Sw
i
m
m
i
n
g
P
o
o
l
*
Pl
a
y
g
r
o
u
n
d
*
La
r
g
e
O
p
e
n
G
r
a
s
s
y
A
r
e
a
*
Co
v
e
r
e
d
P
a
t
i
o
s
*
Tr
e
l
l
i
s
L
o
u
n
g
i
n
g
/
S
u
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
s
*
Bi
k
e
R
e
p
a
i
r
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
*
Wi
-
F
i
*
19
4
T
o
t
a
l
S
p
a
c
e
s
*
36
O
n
-
S
i
t
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
U
n
i
t
s
*
12
7
G
a
r
a
g
e
s
*
20
6
C
a
r
p
o
r
t
s
Al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
B
.
1
.
1
.
5
:
-
A
2
0
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Re
c
o
r
d
s
A
v
e
.
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
1
ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
-
A
3
5
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
Ea
g
l
e
R
o
a
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
2
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
of
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.