2016 04-21Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, April 21, 2016 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, April 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
1. Roll-call Attendance
__x__ Patrick Oliver __x__ Rhonda McCarvel
__o__ Gregory Wilson __ x__ Ryan Fitzgerald
___x___ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda Approved
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of April 7, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for Gyro
Shack at Fairview Lakes (H-2016-0012) by Fairview Lakes, LLC
Located 1050 E. Fairview Avenue Request: Conditional
Use Permit for a Drive-Thru Establishment Within 300 Feet of a
Residential District and Residence on 4.8 Acres of Land in the
C-G Zoning District
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for
Church of God 7th Day (H-2016-0026) by Neudesign
Architecture Located 1827 NW 3rd Street Request:
Modification to an Existing Conditional Use Permit for the
Purposes of Altering the Building Materials for the Accessory
Structure from the Originally Approved Canvas Walls to
Prefabricated Steel Panels on 6.34 Acres of Land in the R-8
Zoning District
4. Action Items
A. Request to Withdraw Application – Easy Jet Subdivision (RZ
15-012, PP 15-016 and CUP 15-017) - by Reginald Jones
Located 2750 S. Eagle Road Withdrawn
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, April 21, 2016 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
B. Public Hearing for Whiteacre Subdivision (H-2016-0019) by
Providence Properties, LLC Located Recommend Approval to
City Council with Modifications - Scheduled for May 24, 2016
City Council
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.88 Acres of Land
with an R-8 Zoning District
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 197
Residential Building Lots and 33 Common Lots on 40.88
Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning District
C. Public Hearing for Third Street Square Subdivision (H-2016-
0031) by Trenten Seltzer Located East of N. Main Street Between
Franklin Road and Pine Avenue Recommend Approval to City
Council with Modifications – Scheduled for May 24, 2016 City
Council
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of Seven
(7) Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on 1.737 Acres of
Land in an O-T Zoning District
D. Public Hearing Continued and Re-Noticed from 4/7/16 for
Dutch Bros. Coffee (H-2016-0025) by Steven Adamson Located
37 E. Calderwood Drive Approved with Modifications – Prepare
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential Use and
Extended Hours of Operation from 5:00 am to 11pm Per
Requirement of the Development Agreement
E. Public Hearing for Granton Square Subdivision No. 2 (H-2016-
0034) by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located 1714 E. Challis
Street Recommend Approval to City Council with
Modifications – Scheduled for May 24, 2016 City Council
1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat Approval
Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots and One (1) Common
Lot on 0.28 of an Acre of Land Zoned R-8
F. Public Hearing for Howry Lane Subdivision (H-2016-0030) by
M3 Acquisition, LLC Located 5220 S. Howry Lane Public Hearing
Continued to May 5, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission
Meeting
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 41.07 Acres of Land
from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 Zone
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda – Thursday, April 21, 2016 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk’s Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of 136
Building Lots and 13 Common Lots on 40.46 Acres of Land
in the R-8 Zoning District
5. Other items
A. Request for Approval to Change a Certain Planning
Application Checklist by the Planning Division Approved
B. Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Update by Bill Parsons,
Planning Division Updated
Meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting April 21, 2016.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of April 21, 2016, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel,
Commissioner Patrick Oliver and Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald.
Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Machelle Hill, Andrea Pogue, Bill Parsons, Josh Beach and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Patrick
__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 April 20th -- 21st. Sorry. 2016. And let's
begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
Yearsley: Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda.
At this time I have no changes to it, so I would entertain a motion to adopt the
agenda as presented.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Move for adoption of the agenda.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda. All in favor say
aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 2 of 75
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of April 7, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
for Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes (H-2016-0012) by
Fairview Lakes, LLC Located 1050 E. Fairview Avenue
Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential District
and Residence on 4.8 Acres of Land in the C-G Zoning
District
C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval
for Church of God 7th Day (H-2016-0026) by Neudesign
Architecture Located 1827 NW 3rd Street Request:
Modification to an Existing Conditional Use Permit for
the Purposes of Altering the Building Materials for the
Accessory Structure from the Originally Approved
Canvas Walls to Prefabricated Steel Panels on 6.34
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have
the -- approve the minutes of the April 7th, 2016, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting. The Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law for approval
of the Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes and, then, the Findings of Fact and
Conclusion of Law for the approval of the Church of God Seventh Day file. If
there is no changes to the meeting minutes -- or any changes, I would entertain a
motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to approve the Consent Agenda.
McCarvel: 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: Before we go any farther I would kind of like to explain the process of
how we will go through the rest of the meeting. We will open each item one at a
time and we begin with the staff report. The staff will present their findings of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 3 of 75
how it regards -- the items adhere to our Comprehensive Plan and Uniform
Development Code with the staff recommendations. After staff has had a chance
to present the applicant will have a chance to come forward to present their case
for approval of their application and respond to any of staff's comments or
conditions. The applicant will have up to 15 minutes to do so. After the applicant
has had a chance to come forward we will open it up to the public testimony.
There are sign-up sheets in the back. Anybody wishing to testify can sign up
there. Those wishing to testify will be given up to three minutes to state their
case or concerns. If they are speaking for a larger group, like a homeowners
association or more people in the audience, they will be given up to ten minutes.
After the public has had a chance to talk we will invite the applicant to come back
and respond to the comments and he will be given up to ten minutes to do so .
After he has had a chance to be -- to present we will close the public hearing
and, then, hopefully, the Commission will have a chance to deliberate and
hopefully, make a decision for City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Request to Withdraw Application – Easy Jet Subdivision
(RZ 15-012, PP 15-016 and CUP 15-017) - by Reginald
Jones Located 2750 S. Eagle Road
Yearsley: So, at this time I would like to -- the first item is the request to withdraw
application PP -- or, sorry , RZ 15-00 -- or 012, PP 15-016 and CUP 15-017,
Easy Jet Subdivision. With that we just need to entertain a motion to accept the
withdraw.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we accept the withdrawal application for Easy Jet
Subdivision, RZ 15-012, PP 15-016, and CUP 15-017.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to accept the withdraw. All in favor say
aye. Opposed. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Whiteacre Subdivision (H-2016-0019)
by Providence Properties, LLC Located
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 40.88 Acres of
Land with an R-8 Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 4 of 75
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
197 Residential Building Lots and 33 Common Lots
on 40.88 Acres of Land in a Proposed R-8 Zoning
District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for file number H -2016-
0019, Whiteacre Subdivision and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Chair, Commissioners, this first application before you this evening is for
Whiteacre Subdivision. It's for annexation and zoning and a proposed
preliminary plat. The site consists of a little over 40 acres of land, which is
currently zoned RUT, located in Ada county's jurisdiction and located near the
southwest corner of North Meridian Road and North McMillan Road. To the
north are single family residential properties in the Ambercreek Subdivision,
zoned R-8. To the east is North Meridian Road. Single family residential
properties in Solitude Place Subdivision and Berney Glen Subdivision, both
zoned R-8 and one single family residential property zoned RUT in Ada county,
which is this property just down here to the southeast corner. To the south are
single family residential properties in Cedar Springs, zoned R-8, as well as the
properties to the west are also in the Cedar Springs and zoned R-8. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this property is medium
density residential. The applicant has submitted an application for annexation
and zoning, I said, of 40.88 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district and a
preliminary plat consisting of 197 single family building lots and 33 common lots.
The applicant proposes to develop the site with a gross density of 4.8 dwelling
units per acre and a net density of 7.7 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent
with the density desired in the medium density residential designated area. 4.33
acres or 10.6 percent of qualified open space is proposed, consisting of
parkways along some of the local streets, half of the street buffer along North
Meridian Road -- lost my spot here. The shared use pathway along the White
Drain, which is the southern portion of the property, a micropath lot and an
internal common open space area. Staff is requiring two additional micropath
connections, one from West Fallen Leaf Drive here to North Elsinore Avenue and
one from West Kaibab Trail Street, which is here out to North Meridian Road.
The applicant proposes to provide a tot lot, a segment of the city's multi-use
recreational pathway and pathways through internal common areas and staff
believe that additional amenities are warranted due to the size of the
development, therefore, staff is recommending that a covered picnic area be
added to the open space lot, which is Lot 1, Block 3, which is this large park
area. The property is proposed to develop is five phases, starting at the
southeast corner, as shown on the phasing plan. In general staff is supportive of
the proposed phasing plan. However, staff recommends the applicant change
the phasing plan and construct the entire frontage of North Meridian Road,
construct the multi-use pathway along the southern boundary of the site and
remove the direct access to North Meridian Road for the existing home with the
first phase. The home is to remain -- back up a few slides here. There is a home
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 5 of 75
here that is to remain. They either currently have or recently removed two
additional homes on the property that they are not going to be part of this
subdivision. The gross density is 4.8 units per acre and 7.7 of net density. The
average lot size is 5,636 square feet. Access is proposed for this site via one
access from North Meridian Road as you see here and via the extensions of
existing stub streets from Ambercreek, which is off of North Ambercreek Avenue
and North Alester Avenue here on the north. Cedar Springs, West Fall Leaf
Drive and North Elsinore, which are these here. The entrance street, West
Halpin Street off North Meridian Road aligns with East Halpin Drive on the East
side of Meridian Road. So, that's -- that's the reason for the location of that street
there. The applicant is proposing a centrally located alley, as well as eight
common driveway. The applicant is also proposing a vehicular and pedestrian
bridge over the White Drain, which will be Elsinore Avenue, which is located
here. A minimum ten percent qualified open space is required based on the area
of the preliminary plat, which is 40.88 acres. A minimal of 4.08 acre of qualified
open space is required and a total of approximately 4.3 acres is proposed. So,
the applicant meets that requirement. The White Drain runs along the southern
portion -- southern border of the site with a 70 foot side Settlers Irrigation District
easement and the Coleman Lateral runs along the western border of the site,
with a 39 foot -- let me move back here. So, there is an existing easement here
that was tiled with the Cedar Springs Subdivision and there was an open drain
here on the south. The applicant is going to request a waiver from Council to
have that remain open. Because the lots on -- that back up to North Meridian
Road will be highly visible, staff recommends the rear or sides of the structures
on lots that face that street incorporate articulation through changes in material,
color, modulation and architectural elements. In addition to these things I have
previously mentioned, staff is also recommending that certain changes be made
to -- to the plat, which I will show you here. The slides are a little out of order.
So, these five things here: Provide a micropath connection from West Palm Leaf
Drive, as I said, to North Elsinore. Provide a picnic shelter and seating area on
Lot 1, Block 3, which is that park lot. Move North Ambercreek Avenue section
between West Halpin Street and West Wanda Street one hundred feet to the
east, so that the road provides better pedestrian access to the park. I have a
slide to demonstrate that. Bear with me. Fourth. Provide a micropath
connection from West Kaibab Trail Street to North Meridian Road. Five. Staff
recommends that Lots 18 through 21, Block 8, be reconfigured so that the two
lots take access -- so that two lots take access from North Elsinore Way and two
lots take access from North Price Place. And I will show you those slides here.
So, a couple things. Find that slide here for you. A couple things in considering
this -- this plat. One was that we requested that the applicant provided some
additional open space here. It made sense that a picnic area and seating area
would be provided next to the tot lot, due to the fact that there is approximately a
hundred and -- almost 200 homes on the lot, staff felt that some additional
amenities would benefit the plat. Two. Staff feels that if this is moved -- this road
here is extended 100 feet to the east it would open up that park area, provide
some potential additional parking for -- for that park and, then, these lots here it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 6 of 75
made sense -- there is just an odd configuration of the lots in this area, so staff
feels that this would clean that up and create four, approximately, equal lots that
would clean that up a little bit. A couple of things that we also wanted to make
mention of are a couple of those conditions that staff is recommending that we
change after the staff report went out, which are 1.1.1J should be modified to
read as follows: The applicant shall coordinate with Public Works on the timing
of the utility connections for the existing home. That home in the north -- I will
move back to that slide. That home is in the northwest corner of -- of the plat.
Staff was unaware that the sewer flow back would need to be sewered either to
this street -- stub street here or the stub street here. It does not make sense for
them to construct utilities all the way down to this Cedar Springs connection for
that home and staff is recommending that they coordinate with Public Works on
the appropriate timing of connecting that home to city utilities. Next o ne, one to
add, is condition 1.1.1K, which would read as follows: The applicant shall obtain
a certificate of zoning compliance and design review approval for all attached
homes in the proposed subdivision. Staff either was not aware or missed that
there are some attached homes as you see here in this diagram. The attached
product, as indicated by the applicant, would be these areas here, in addition to
that there is a variety of home types provided in this. What I have not highlighted
are traditional single family homes. The area in blue here are the alley load
homes, which I will show you an elevation of, as well as homes that will front on
the park with the garages to the rear. If that makes sense. So, these are the
proposed elevations provided by the applicant for the traditional homes. These
are the alley load homes there. If you remember the blue and the homes kind of
in the central -- and, then, I do not have elevations for the homes that will front on
the park. I think there is a rendering that the applicant will show you. So, having
-- having gone through this, staff is recommending approval with those conditions
in the staff report and these proposed changes to the conditions and I will stand
for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, can you go back to the -- your plat -- the revised plat that you
have been working on?
Beach: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, actually, the one you have -- the blue -- the blue-red --
Beach: Oh, I see. This is a phasing plan. You're wanting to see the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 7 of 75
Fitzgerald: That one. So, in regards to the new lot configuration to the northwest
corner, is that going to impact that lot where the existing house is? So, you have
slipped those four lots of -- is there a lot right to the south of that house?
Beach: Bear with me. I have the pdf of the -- I anticipated this, so I -- I have the
plat and I will zoom in so we can kind of see a better idea of what w e are looking
at here.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Beach: So --
Fitzgerald: So, you just don't like the long lot --
Beach: Potentially Lot No. 18 here, this is a little bit strange as far as the
configuration goes, so our thought was -- if you just see where my cursor is here,
this property line -- if I can have a steady hand there -- would be the property line
that would essentially align like this and the property line like this. So, it would
not impact Lot No. 17, which is the home that is to remain.
Fitzgerald: So, what's the grayed out shaded area?
Beach: There is an existing outbuilding on that --
Fitzgerald: Okay. So, that's kind of --
Beach: -- right now.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Beach: Correct.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 3161 East Springwood, Meridian, Idaho.
Josh, before I go through my presentation and since we are talking about that
parcel, let's look at that real quick.
Beach: Let me pull it back up here for you.
Brown: Because that is an issue for us. The reason that this is configured the
way it is is that there is a property line in there. The owners retained a two acre
site with their house and so for them to have theirs, our agreement with them is
that we plat -- plat it, but that they keep their two acres. So, that 18 is a part of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 8 of 75
their property that they own and would be something that they would bring
forward some day in the future and we will bring services to them, but that's
configured by the property line between those two parcels and as you see in the
application, there is three owners that are a part of this application that's
submitting and that's why it's configured the way it is. We comply wit h the zoning
ordinance and, yes, it might look a little different, but it's because of the property
lines that are underlying and the ownership thereof and when they bring that plat
forward for final plat, that meets their criteria and complies with your o rdinance.
If you move it the way that staff is recommending, then, we are going to have
owner -- lots that are part on ownership and part on another and it creates a
difficulty for us. Would you go to the overall site, please. The colored plan?
Beach: Oh, yes. The one in my slide here?
Brown: Yes.
Beach: This guy?
Brown: That one. Staff's done a very good job. They have been very h elpful as
we have moved along. As you can see we have tried to have multiple housing
types, a variety. This is something that I have done in the past when I did a
subdivision like Tuscany. We tried to create different housing types for those
different types of users and as someone gets established in an area, they like
being in that area, but -- and they don't really want to move, but they might move
up or down and I'm in the position now where I might be moving down, because I
don't have kids living in my house and maybe I want something on one level and
staying in the same neighborhood, that's the theory beh ind having these multiple
housing types within a same neighborhood and yet at the same time it helps
raise the value of all of them, because your comparables are very similar and the
lot -- the house sizes are very similar. We agree with the staff report in many
instances. There is a few as we pointed out, the one with the reconfiguration. As
we designed the site we had some limitations. The highway district is the one
that encouraged us to locate the road where we did on Meridian Road, trying to
limit the access to Meridian Road and not conflict with any of the other
driveways. We like the feel of the park. If you go to the ones that I brought, we
have a couple of renderings -- our whole intent has been to have -- as your
ordinances speak to them when we have these open areas, they want eyes on
the park. We have seen this in some developments where you do the little
MEWs and you have an open space. That's the intent that we have with those
alley loaded houses that are on the west side of the -- our park is that they will be
facing there. That provides a good visual view as you look across the houses
that are on the north and south of the park have their back yards, but the others
have -- have their front yards facing onto the park with the sidewalk i n front of
them, with porches. As you can imagine, as you see with this -- this rendering,
the sun setting where it would in the west and them sitting out on their porches
looking out on the park. That's our vision of how that park would work. You can
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 9 of 75
also see in here that we are -- we are in agreement with adding a shelter and
picnic area. We have drawn that in on this drawing. We are not opposed to the
proposed micropaths that staff is recommending. The one that is out onto
Meridian Road -- at one time we had out there and maybe from
miscommunications we thought they asked us to remove it, but -- so, where Josh
is showing somewhere in that block to make the connection to get people out to
Meridian Road we are not opposed and, then, the other one over here to Leaf,
that allows people to, then, enter there and come and -- and access the park
through that 40 foot micropath area that we have in the center of where those
alley loaded product are onto the park, if we were to do what staff is
recommending it's really not providing pedestrian access, it's providing vehicle
access, because now you have a road fronting on the east and on the west side
of this park that is open for people to park there and to drive there, not
necessarily walk there. We believe that we have provided enough pedestrian
access in a short distance from anywhere that anyone would come from that
center section over to there. The staff is recommending and I understand that
they want a safe distance for people to access or to traverse on Meridian Road.
Josh had for a long time a slide up there that showed our -- our proposal. We
would -- this is showing an existing condition. We are proposing to farm those
phases that aren't in -- within the plat. We have got the farmer that has farmed it
for some period of time. We feel that that keeps the weeds and everything else
down versus wanting that land to go fallow and not be maintained or taken care
of and to make that happen we need to run our water that is fed from that
concrete ditch that you can see in this slide and so we are proposing to extend
the shoulder of the road, extend the asphalt, and, then, put in a concrete curb
along that portion that we don't improve with our first phase. And, obviously, as
we go forward there comes a point where it becomes difficult to continue to farm
and so, then, at that point we would just -- we are willing to go ahead and finish
up that improvement at that time and talk to the Council about that as we are
doing those final phases. The condition about the White Drain and completing it
-- can you go to the overall -- we can do it from this one.
Beach: Sure.
Brown: Along the southerly boundary we have that large area. It's open to the
west. They don't have a pathway on any of the stuff that is e xisting to the west of
us. We are doing a good portion of it with our first phase. Our concern is, again,
having eyes -- if we complete a pathway along that whole stretch all the way over
there is a chance for mischief, if you will, along the drain where people aren't
there, it's going to be a future phase of construction, it's also going to be in the
area where the farming is taking place and just running that pathway over in that
direction, we foresee that being kind of difficult just from a safety stan dpoint.
Overall we think that we have done a very good job in providing what the city is
looking for in this area. The houses will range from the high 170s to the mid
300s. We think that we have matched our neighbors and created the buffers. As
staff has mentioned, we have an irrigation easement that's on our westerly
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 10 of 75
boundary and, then, we have the drain along our southerly boundary. We are
matching the lot sizes with the Ambercreek development that's to the north that
also has alley loading. We have some slides with the townhouses. If you go --
most of these products we are already building in Meridian. Go to the next one.
The townhouse. These are some that we have envisioned to go in there. What
takes place when you have the 40 foot wide and yo u're doing the duplex -- go
back to that one. It gives you a better house reveal, because you have -- you
don't have that zero lot line. You attach your garages. So, it allows more of the
house to be shown and, basically, the only thing that's attached is the garage and
that's what we envision with our duplex products that would be there. The
windows in the garage help for that. Josh, if you would go to the green alley
slide. These are existing houses that my clients have built in Boise. Go to the
side -- this is the side view of that and, then, the next one is the alley there and,
again, you see the windows in the garages to make that friendly and inviting feel.
I would stand for any questions that you might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have a couple. So -- this picture is
actually a good one. So, the -- the homes that front the park -- this is what you
will see from the roadway side of that road; is that correct?
Brown: That's correct.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the --
Brown: They will have a little bit longer driveway and as you look at that -- that
slide there is also a portion of them that are on the common driveway, which
would face onto -- in fact, most of them are on the common driveway, so they are
at the sides of the houses that are on the other side.
Yearsley: Right. Right. And, then, are you or are you not proposing to tile the --
the irrigation ditch in the front of the property against Meridian Road?
Brown: Eventually we will after we are done farming and as we move forward
with development.
Yearsley: So at the first phase you will tile that first phase?
Brown: Yeah. There is approximately 900 feet that doesn't get done with the
first phase.
Yearsley: Okay. But you will -- you will build the sidewalk in its full
configuration --
Brown: Yes.
Yearsley: -- along the first phase?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 11 of 75
Brown: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: And, then, move it out to the road for --
Brown: Yes. Exactly.
Yearsley: All right. And then -- I won't ask one. Thanks. Any other questions?
Thank you.
Brown: You're welcome.
Yearsley: I have a couple people signed up to testify. Is it Herb Naugel? Okay.
Thank you. Scott Curtis? Jane Keating. Oh, please, come forward. I didn't --
Curtis: Mr. Chair, there is some confusion. I signed up for a different issue and
asked not to testify.
Yearsley: Okay. Sorry about that. How about Jananne Keating? Okay. Oh, I'm
sorry, I got the wrong one. All right. Let's try this again. Actually, I don't have
anybody wishing to testify for this one. Is there anybody wanting to testify?
Please come forward.
Gile: My name is Randy Gile. I live at 4399 North Meridian Road and my wife
and I are the owner of the two acres on the northwest corner and I did sign up for
one of them. I don't know which one it was. Apologize. Just to give you a little
history on the property, my wife and I have lived there for over 30 years, long
before all of these other subdivisions came in. Had a lot of farmers out there.
And her great grandparents, Ray and Zeda White -- and that's where the
Whiteacres comes from -- purchased that property over a half a century ago in
the '50s. The White and Niemann families have been in Meridian for a long time.
I don't know if you're familiar with Luana Niemann, Jack Niemann, both city
clerks here for a long time. Faye White, instrumental in the fire department when
it was back in the volunteer days, so -- they have been here for a long time and
we as the kids have decided it's finally time -- we have been surrounded for a
long time, it's finally time to -- to go ahead and let this develop into houses that
Meridian needs. So, we are good with that. If you will look on the mail box for the
last 30 years at one of the addresses there, it has White Acres, so it's been that
name for a long time. So, that's kind of where the name came from. A couple of
issues. We talked about the lot in our two acres. The reconfiguration of that lot
would cross the boundaries -- or the property boundaries, which we have, and
also would take out about a dozen 20 year old fruit trees. That's one of the
reasons why we kept the two acres in the configuration that we developed it
when it was on the historic property line and that's kind of where our landsca ping,
fencing, all of that is. So, we would like to keep it in the original configuration.
Also, the access -- the road access at least at one time it was mentioned that in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 12 of 75
an initial phase they would like us to limit the access from Meridian Road and a
couple things on the access for Meridian Road, the property has been farmed for
as long as I have known it. It's continued farmed. If you go out there and look,
we have got winter wheat, it looks like a park from Meridian Road. So, we would
strongly recommend that you facilitate a way to continue to keep it farming. It's
been profitably farmed for all these years. We would like to keep the farmer -- or
we would like to see it farmed in the future as long as it can. Obviously, there is
a point where it doesn't make economic sense, but, you know, in the first phases
-- as mentioned, the water runs from the east to the west -- is that my three
minute warning?
Yearsley: That was your three minutes. Just hurry and finish up. Yes.
Gile: Okay. Water runs east to west. We would like to see it farmed -- they
mentioned the ditch there and, then, also the farm equipment access comes from
Meridian Road. I don't think it would be a very good idea to bring all this farming
equipment through a subdivision. Also we access out to -- out to Meridian Road.
Also from a safety standpoint, if you open up an access to the north -- there is a
six foot fence that runs completely along the north side of this property with our
road, our power and our phone. If you open up a hole through that fence we will
get more and more people coming through. Right now kids jump the fence and
kind of cut across onto Meridian Road from the subdivision. Not too many of
them, but if you open a hole through there there will be a lot more. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes. Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Ask you, yeah, a couple questions. Josh, can you go back to the other
one you were just at? Yeah. So, what you were saying earlier was that currently
you own Lots 17 and 18?
Gile: Yes. We also own 24, 16, 14, 13, 12 and 11.
Oliver: Okay. So, concerning 18 is the one that you want left the way it is right
here?
Gile: Yes. We are open to working in the future. This is -- you know, we are not
developers, this is as good as we could do. We are open to working with you in
the future if we want to tweak these around a little bit, but we are happy with this
configuration.
Oliver: And this is a culmination of White and Niemann, that both own that?
Eighteen?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 13 of 75
Gile: Actually, this is Gile. My wife is Pam Gile -- used to be Pam Niemann.
Oliver: Okay.
Gile: So, we --
Oliver: That's how that comes in?
Gile: That's how that came.
Oliver: The co-ownership of the property; right?
Gile: My wife and I own the two acres now. The 40 acres was owned by myself,
my wife, and her sister.
Oliver: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Gile?
Gile: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Is there intention to sell Lot 18 eventually or to just -- are you going to
keep it?
Gile: I guess we were advised that it would be best, rather than to have a two
acre piece over here, to go ahead and put it in the preliminary plat .
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Gile: So that, you know, planning could be done, things could be facilitated and
this was the best configuration we could come up with. So, the intent is at some
point in time we would sell the two acres, maybe retain the house, maybe sell the
house, but it would get developed. It doesn't make sens e to -- at least to us to
have a two acre chunk of ground kind of in the back of this subdivision.
Fitzgerald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you.
Gile: Thank you.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to testify? With that would the
applicant like to come forward? I don't know if you have much to rebut, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 14 of 75
Brown: Not really. I would offer I guess some experience. I have been doing
this for 27 years. I worked nine years for the city of Boise and I had a lot of
people like the Giles that just owned two acres and wanted to do something, but
they planned on living there and so I guess part of the advice that I have offered
to them is put lots on it -- it's kind of like a savings account. My dad used to
raise, you know, baby calves here in Meridian and we would -- we would have a
couple extra, so that we would pay for the beef that we butchered every year and
those kind of things and my idea was in doing this and as I have advised people
in the past, is while you're living in the house you got to have those trees, you
have got to have the things that are there, but when someone else comes in and
they are living in your house, they have a whole different concept. So, you
should maximize them with the lots that you can and, obviously, their house and
the way that its configured, has to be on Lot 17, but there is definitely a property
ownership that's there and that's what we have tried to save and -- but at the
same time provide some options that meet your code. I mean it's -- it's kind of an
opinion, yet would the lot be better -- it's not necessarily a code issue is what --
the way that I view it. I think the one that -- to me that is kind of critical in our
design is we feel really strongly that those lots need to face onto the park. We
think that that provides the eyes that you would have. Basically, what staff is
asking is that Wanda and those extend over and so that that whole road is
fronted there, as in the staff report it says for pedestrian access, but, obviously,
that isn't pedestrian, that's car traffic and cars parking there, so -- stand for any
questions or --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Brown, in regards to the phasing plan -- can you bring it up, Josh,
real quick? So, I just want to make sure -- and Josh may be able to answer this
or it's part of the staff report, but are we putting all -- the park in in phase one?
Brown: We are not. What is down here in the southeast corner where Josh is at,
we are including a portion of the park and, then, putting in the entrance where we
go out and get water from Meridian Road and, then, we are grabbing sewer from
the south and extending it down, but we are not going the entire dist ance. We
didn't go all the way over to that street and the reason being is we are hoping that
there is still time in this year to get this phase in the ground. We ended up
buying and removing the houses that were there and that caused some things
that we need to recoup and we want to do it quite quickly, so --
Fitzgerald: So, I guess my only -- my just being -- speaking out loud, you're
going to have half a park and you're building phase two going to the west, which
you're going to add more houses with a limited amenity, which makes me a little
concerned. I understand your point on the MEW, which I think is -- I understand
where you're going, but I think having an amenity there is at least when phase
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 15 of 75
two is on? I don't know. And that's something we can talk about. But I -- would
you guys be amenable to talking about building it out? Because I think having
half a park is kind of odd.
Brown: Well, then, it's probably a third of the park. I will give you that you have
given me the benefit of the doubt by saying half and I would say it's more like a
third.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Brown: And we are agreeable to -- if that was, you know, phase two included
more of the park. That --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Brown: -- that sounds reasonable.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Because I think just something that -- so you're not -- I mean it
just seems that you have -- you're there cutting through it and you're going to
come back and do it again, so --
Brown: One of the things that I forgot to mention before -- because there were
three houses on this property, we have asked that we be able to get an early
building permit, which I guess has to be granted or done with a development
agreement, but we have asked for that, so that as soon as fire is okay, the plat
might not be recorded, but because there were three buildings on here before
that we can do that, we have asked for that -- that that be granted. I didn't see
that as a condition or anything, but that's -- we did write it in our narrative and
requested it.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Actually, I have one more. The combined lot --
the combined homes on the north end of the property, can I ask why -- what your
thought was putting in there. It seems kind of a -- kind of a strange configuration.
Just trying to understand.
Beach: Pardon me. Just to be clear, Chairman, you're referring to the single
family attached homes?
Yearsley: Yes. The attached homes.
Beach: Okay.
Yearsley: Up here on the north. Basically facing the -- the properties to the
north. Was there -- was there a specific reason there or just trying to keep them
all together in the same location or --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 16 of 75
Brown: They are in a similar location and I don't know that necessary -- I mean
would it make any difference there on the other side of the street, I -- it -- the
backs -- when you have got matching lots it's -- from an engineering standpoint it
kind of saves you on some pins and those kind of things where you're not having
a whole bunch of pins that end up confusing people in the buil ding part of the
process. The lots all match back to back type deal. The density is pretty tight in
Ambercreek to the north. They have a lot of alley loaded product -- actually,
that's a development that I have been involved with. Besides these, when you
drop over to the other side they have a series of blocks with alleys that are 40
foot wide.
Yearsley: Okay. I --
Brown: They end up looking -- when you add the duplex it's kind of that big
house concept. The houses are big and they --
Yearsley: Yeah. It just kind of didn't seem like they fit the -- the houses to the
north that well. I understand the lots to the north are a little bigger and it just
didn't seem to kind of fit the -- the adjacent neighbors, so just a thought -- okay.
Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. With that I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing on H-2016-0019.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments or thoughts?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I'm not sure how everybody else feels on this, but I will just put my
two cents in. I don't see a problem with leaving those Lots 18 through 21 the way
they are. They have, obviously, thought some things through. But I would
welcome any discussion from you all. And the same with the irrigation ditches
and such to keep the farming going.
Fitzgerald: And the road access.
McCarvel: And the road access through the end of the project.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 17 of 75
Yearsley: Okay. Any other -- anybody else?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I would agree with that. I think the concept and the work that's
been done by Mr. Brown and the applicant I think it makes sense. It's been
thought through. I do personally like the concept of a -- of having one side of the
park be vehicle access and one side of the park be walking access. I think it's
different. I like the MEW idea where it does kind of put people into a -- into more
of a walking and pedestrian rather than having vehicles parked along the road
right there, because it's going to happen and so I like the idea of keeping the
concept or the middle with the public alley there. I do appreciat e the fact that we
have added a picnic shelter. I think that was a good idea from staff. I do want to
see the park be built as part of phase two. I think having a third of a park --
Yearsley: Phase two or phase one?
Fitzgerald: I think compromising you do it as phase two, so it becomes an
amenity that gets added on as you add more houses.
Yearsley: Okay. I wasn't quite sure. When you talked earlier it sounded like it
was phase one, so I --
Fitzgerald: But I -- I mean it would be great, but I understand that you're going to
-- that you're dealing with -- you're trying to farm more land and those kinds of
things, so I understand what their concept is. So, I -- I think that it's reasonable
to say, okay, we are going to farm part of this and we are going to have some
green space, but when you have -- you add another 50 homes probably in there
or whatever it is -- or 30, it's probably time to finish the park and have an actual
amenity and so that would be something I would like to see. But that's my
thoughts.
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman. I agree with the commissioner that in phase two it should
be done. I agree. I also am just concerned about Lot 18, whether to go along
with what the staff suggested or consider what the original owners have done,
leaving it in there. So, if I read it right, it's 50 feet across -- right, Josh?
Beach: Correct.
Oliver: And it's 7,094 square footage.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 18 of 75
Beach: Correct.
Yearsley: So, it's pretty long and narrow.
Oliver: It's long and narrow, but, yeah, it's not -- it's something I would rather look
at versus the way it was developed by the staff.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: And, then, the other question I had for staff was the answering the
question can they get an early building permit, is that something you can answer
or not?
Beach: Again, that is a request that needs to be granted by the City Council.
Oliver: Okay. So, we would not have to worry about doing anything with that at
this point.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we talked about it with the
applicant. There is some challenges there. It's -- it's not just as simple as getting
a building permit. In order for the building department to issue a permit there has
to be adequate fire protection and access to that -- to that home. So, those --
some of those things have to be worked out and coordinated with our building
department as well. Certainly as we go forward Council will reach out to them on
behalf of the applicant and see what would be required of them to -- in order to
get the early building permits, but it's certainly something -- again, they do have
three legal lots there to develop and certainly if the Council does grant that, there
is a little bit more work behind that, but if you feel you want to include that as part
of your motion you certainly can include that they are allowed to get up to three
building permits without -- I think my understanding is recording a plat. But I'll
leave that up to your purview. I just wanted to put that out there that there is a
little more work that needs to happen.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Thank you. That's all I have.
Yearsley: So, I guess I would like -- the other issue that I don't know if it was
really brought up is the pathway to the south. Staff is recommending that be
extended fully. The applicant doesn't want to extend that all the way across
initially. And the other question is -- Josh, will you go back -- back to the next
one. Right there. So, I understand wanting to farm the property, but I also have
to realize that this is an in-fill property. There is not a sidewalk right in there now.
There is park to the south. School to the north. So, it is going to be a heavily
used sidewalk and would you want your kids being that close to the roadway is
where I come up with my issue. I understand wanting to farm it. I understand,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 19 of 75
you know, wanting to do something like that and I don't have a problem with them
farming it, but I want to look at the safety of our kids as the highest priority in our
city and would I rather have the city -- the kids be safer -- I don't know if I would
want my kids to be walking on that pathway, especially on a two lane busy
Meridian Road, so I -- I understand and I feel for them, but I still am concerned
about not moving that sidewalk farther away from the roadway and making it a
little bit safer for kids, because you know kids don't want to walk in a straight line,
you know, and stuff. So, I want to just bring that out to you as well. And we have
gone through a lot of years where we have had subdivisions that were going to
build out, but didn't build out for quite a long time and so you have all t hose
disconnects for a long period of time and to get those -- that infrastructure in first
is -- in my opinion is critical. With that I would still like the pathway to the south
being installed as well. With regard to the lot in the corner with the Lot 18, it
might look better the other way, but I still believe that the developer has a right to
develop how he would like and I'm okay with leaving that the way it is. With
regard to the park and the roadway being on the park, the only concern I have is
right now you have very little parking along the street of the park and I
understand they want this to be a walking community, but I will guarantee you
that there will be some basketball or baseball or lacrosse or soccer practice be
on that field and I will guarantee you that that will be a line of cars with very small
driveways trying to park in front of there and so if you add the road on the other
side as well, you have them a little more room for -- for parents to park and be
able to watch their kids and not disrupt the adjacent homeowners. So, just items
for thought. And, then, the other one is -- I understand alley loaded lots, because
you don't have a tendency to see the back of the house only and if you do, the
way that they are proposing is you're going to have a road that's going to front a
lot of homes with just garages and so not quite sure if that's a great location for
those. So -- so, that's kind of my thoughts. I would be kind of curious to what
your thoughts are on the south pathway and should we extend it or should we not
and kind of get your opinion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, on the -- in your thinking on the sidewalk, which that's always --
that's been disconnected for a while and it's not very fun and so I understand the
reasoning. There is similar thinking that we would put the sidewalk in the middle
of the farmland? I mean that's -- I'm just thinking --
Yearsley: You can't do that. You're going to have to probably tile the p ipe all the
way --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 20 of 75
Yearsley: -- and either allow -- have to -- they will have to maybe design
something else to irrigate through that with -- with some -- through the piping or
something like that, some other means, which can be done. I mean it's not
something that can be done. I think if you're going to put the -- the sidewalk
close to the drain you don't want to be close to water, because you know how
kids are attracted to water.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Yearsley: So, I would recommend that they kind of build the frontage like they
would -- or at least put the sidewalk where it should be and do -- do something
appropriate to tile the pipe and do a different means for irrigation or something
like that.
Fitzgerald: Okay. And my only thought in response to your comment about the
-- the park concept, I -- the reason I like it is it gives a different setting for the
homeowners there about having something that backs up to a bigger space and
we don't have any -- you know, there is no large areas of -- you know, chunks of
land that you can look out on the green and so I like that idea for, you know, the
homeowners who want to have somebody look out on the park, I think it's kind of
cool.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: It's a different dimension and it kind of -- it boxes it in a little bit, but
that's just -- that would be my opinion, but I understand where the parking comes
in.
Yearsley: You know -- and I wanted to bring them up for just talking points.
Fitzgerald: Yes. Absolutely.
Yearsley: I'm not married that we have to have that road there, but just kind of
wanted to bring it out for thoughts and comments.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Josh, can you go back to that pretty green picture of the park and
everything?
Beach: Yes.
McCarvel: There we go. What would it take to maybe put some -- not parallel,
but just same angled parking along that already existing road, just right up there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 21 of 75
along that landscape, maybe -- you know, push the landscape in just a hair and
put some angled parking up there along that road? And, then, they would keep
those houses with the front facing to the park. I like those houses -- I like the
eyes on the park. People are more likely -- and I think, you know, you're
watching the kids out there, whether they are their kids or not, have eyes on
them.
Yearsley: You know -- and don't get me wrong, I -- like I said, I -- I like the idea
that the developer has the opportunity to develop like he wants and I'm okay with
not having the road extended. I just wanted to bring out thoughts about --
McCarvel: No. That's --
Yearsley: So -- and I think you probably could add to -- the only thing it does -- it
does take 20 feet out of -- or 20, 25 feet out of the park.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Which is not -- which isn't ideal.
Yearsley: Yeah. So, it's kind of a tradeoff.
Beach: If I may, this is -- so, you can correct me if I'm wrong, Bill, but the
highway district doesn't typically allow for parking on public roadways. I mean --
let me rephrase. End parking with parking stall isn't something that's typically
permitted by the highway district, so that may not -- may not work. Now, having
said that, what you're proposing putting a parking lot in or -- of some sort could --
could work. I think I also want to mention that this -- what they received by the
highway district -- this is a reduced -- all of streets in here are reduced with and
so there is no parking on the alley and, then, parking on o ne side on this whole
loop in here. So, for what it's worth that's -- that's something else to consider.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, keep in mind this isn't
going to be a public park, it's going to be owned and maintained by the HOA, so
they will have to police their own private property. So, if there is a parking issue,
then, future homeowners and the HOA need to work it out, not really the city.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: So, we certainly don't want to encourage them adding parking to this
park for the neighborhood -- or the subdivision, we are just losing more open
space. I think the intent here is to have a place where the community can gather
and recreate together and have block parties and do all those things that we
want as part of our subdivisions in the City of Meridian. So, yeah, we just
dropped some suggestions in the staff report and we have some conditions that
we brought forth. If you don't like those suggestions, then, we can certainly let
you know which ones need to be stricken from the record if you want to move
this forward this evening.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 22 of 75
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: With having in mind what Bill said, then, I would look at Lot 18, leaving it
the way it is. Opening up the south entrance and doing the full sidewalk on
Meridian. Leaving the park the way it is. And leaving that side the way it is.
Yearsley: So, opening the south entrance or adding the pathway --
Oliver: Adding the pathway.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: I would agree with that.
Yearsley: Okay. I guess with that I would entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Oliver, do you know how the -- what you -- because I
think -- I agree with you on -- so, I guess really -- sorry, I don't mean to break --
with that they have conditioned -- didn't you condition that the -- the lots be
realigned on 18, so we have to strike that one. And the moving the -- relocating
the road, that condition would have to be stricken as well and, then, we need to
amend -- and maybe what we have you do is flip to the slide to the one that we
need to amend.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is -- there is a
couple things we need to address in your motion. One is, you're right, if you
don't like staff's recommended changes to the plat we need to strike those
conditions. Keep in mind that staff has recommended that the access to the
existing home, that's to remain, we want them to close that access to Meridian
Road. So, if you're comfortable with that remaining until phase six or five, that
needs to be included and the condition needs to be changed. Same thing -- we
gave you the conditions for the home to hook up to sewer and water, so we have
got that one covered.
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Parsons: The other issue -- it looks like the hearing -- right now the way the DA
is structured we want the sidewalk and this landscape buffer installed with the
first phase. So, if it's your intent to only require the sidewalk, then, we need to
change that DA provision to only require the sidewalk and not the landscape
improvement. So, there is some tweaks there and we can certainly go through
these conditions and share those with you what numbers they are, but --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 23 of 75
Yearsley: It might take a little work, but we can -- so, I -- I think going back to
that, if we are going to do the sidewalk it makes sense to do the landscaping
improvements at the same time. With regard to the -- the driveway access, I
might consider that one to leave until farming operati ons have ceased, because
he's talking about bringing farm equipment in. I agree, I don't know if I want to
bring farm equipment to the lots and so we could probably put it to like phase five
or when farming operations ceased. So, I think five actually brings the access --
Fitzgerald: Off of Ambercreek.
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, just one comment on that, though. If you want the
sidewalk and the landscape buffer, keep in mind that portion won't be done,
because we are going to leave 25 feet open or 30 feet open --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- for the farm access. So, you have to work that into your condition as
well. So, it's --
Yearsley: And you could put a pathway or something that he has to cross -- well,
within line with the sidewalk.
Fitzgerald: Josh, will you bring up the picture on the road -- the access?
Beach: If I can find it.
Fitzgerald: So, if you --
Yearsley: What we would end up of having to do is -- if he did his landscape
buffer all the way through, just where the driveway is he would just have a
sidewalk, not a landscape buffer. So, you would still have a crossing there.
Fitzgerald: Still have access to the little pathway that's off of Ambercreek. It's
still there.
Yearsley: Yes.
Fitzgerald: So, you're not doing -- you would have an access across the
driveway --
Yearsley: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 24 of 75
Fitzgerald: -- for a walking or a bike to get there.
Yearsley: Yeah. You would want to leave that.
Fitzgerald: I think you're okay there. And you would have to finish it eventually.
Yearsley: Yes. So, I guess are we all in agreement with that convoluted --
Fitzgerald: I think -- I think so. I think we are going to have to walk through
some --
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Fitzgerald: -- conditions --
Yearsley: Conditions one at a time.
Beach: If I can demonstrate what's going on there in that northeast corner.
There is an irrigation ditch here and the driveway and, then, this is the sidewalk
for Ambercreek there, so you can kind of see the -- the particular challenge that
the landscape buffer will come to approximately here. They would have to tile
the irrigation ditch. Again, you would have to work through that, but tiling up to
here, leaving it open, that -- I mean it's something we would have to kind of work
through.
Yearsley: Yeah, but they could leave that open, but still extend the sidewalk
across, so they would have a sidewalk through there, but, then, they would have
to just landscape that little piece at a later date.
Beach: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? The challenge that you have is that you now just took
about 20 foot of -- of usable farmland away.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: That's my only concern as we are talking through this is the purpo se
of this is they continue to farm it so they can cash flow and different things. I
mean it's using land -- I -- that's -- you do have -- if you look at this picture you do
have a full sidewalk all the way on the -- on the east side of the street, so just -- if
we are thinking through it, but I understand what you are saying.
Yearsley: Yeah, but you don't have a crossing across to get to it is the problem.
So, you're either having to walk --
Fitzgerald: Across the road.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 25 of 75
Yearsley: -- walk across the road or something like that and especially when
everybody wants to -- you know, so you want to come up or go down, so -- I still
think we want to have that landscape buffer. I -- you know, we are not talking a
significant amount of farming that's going to get reduced personally.
Oliver: All in phase one?
Yearsley: Yes. And it will actually screen the farming a little bit better, too, in
some ways. I would entertain a motion, if someone is ready to go.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Josh, can you put that slide back up with those 1.1.1J and K?
Beach: Absolutely. Let me --
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, one more clarification.
On the park with the second phase, was it your intention to have the amenities
constructed with that second phase as well as part of the park?
Fitzgerald: Yeah. I think it's time to --
Parsons: Thank you.
Yearsley: We will just leave that slide up for you.
McCarvel: So, we want to go ahead and --
Fitzgerald: You want to start?
McCarvel: We can put those in.
Yearsley: Yeah. Those are -- those need to be put in.
McCarvel: Yeah. Those are easy. Yeah. All right. Mr. Chairman, a fter
considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0019 as presented in the staff
report for hearing date of April 21st, 2016, with the following modifications: We
will add provisions 1.1.1J --
Yearsley: Modify.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 26 of 75
McCarvel: Modify. And 1.1.1K and we will strike conditions in the preliminary
plat of moving the Ambercreek Avenue all the way to the park. We will strike
moving and reconditioning the road and we will strike removing the access to
Meridian Road until farming operations have ceased.
Yearsley: And, then, I think the Lot 18 --
McCarvel: And strike number five, reconfiguring Lots 18 through 21.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: Did we --
Yearsley: I guess before we -- before we do a second on that does that cover
everything that you were wanting or is there something else we need to add?
Parsons: Timing for the park and the amenities.
Yearsley: Oh. Thank you.
McCarvel: And the park be completed with phase two.
Parsons: And site amenities I take it.
Beach: Including amenities.
Yearsley: Park and site amenities.
McCarvel: Yeah. The park be completed.
Parsons: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0019.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Third Street Square Subdivision (H-
2016-0031) by Trenten Seltzer Located East of N. Main
Street Between Franklin Road and Pine Avenue
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Seven (7) Building Lots and One (1) Common Lot on
1.737 Acres of Land in an O-T Zoning District
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 27 of 75
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is public hearing of file number H-2016-0031,
Third Street Square Subdivision, and let's being with the staff report.
Beach: All right. Chair, Commissioners, this is an application for a preliminary
plat. This site consists of .737 acres of land, which is currently zoned OT or Old
Town, located on the east side of Northeast Third Street, which is north of
Franklin Road. To the north we have single family residential property, also
zoned OT. To the west is Northeast Third Street and single family residences
zoned OT. To the south are single family residential properties also zoned OT.
And to the east is developed industrial property, which is zoned I -L. In 2015,
around December, the subject property was granted certificate of zoning
compliance and design review approval for the apartments that are currently
being built. There are seven buildings, with a total of 28 units. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map for this area is Old Town. As I said,
the applicant has applied for a preliminary plat consisting of seven building lots --
and I will get to the preliminary plat here. And one common lot on that 1.737
acre parcel in the Old Town zoning district. So, there would be 28 multi-family
units on the site. It was approved in 2015, as I said. Access to the site is here
from Northeast Third Street. Cross-access agreements are required to be in
place to parcels -- those listed parcels which are the two parcels to the north and
one parcel to the south. Prior to certificate of occupancy of the first structure on
the site with the final plat application, the applicant shall provide a recorded copy
of the cross-access agreement or add a note on the face of the plat that
designates Lot 1, Block 1, with a blanket cross-access shared parking area for
the proposed development and to the adjacent parcel as noted above. And for
the CZC application the applicant was approved to install a five foot -- let me
move to the landscape plan here -- the requested alternative compliance to
install a five foot sidewalk out to Third Street to provide pedestrian access in a
reduced landscape buffer of three feet on the south. Code does require a five
foot landscape buffer on both sides of the drive aisle, because of the specific
circumstance they requested and were granted alternative compliance.
Amenities for this property are a community garden, a tot lot here, and a
relatively large open space grassy area here for the development, as well as a
clubhouse and office. Staff is recommending approval of the seven residential lot
subdivision and we did receive comment from the applicant Penelope Riley, as
well as one of the adjacent neighbors Karen Reicher. Staff is recommending
approval and I will stand for any questions you have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, Josh, on the comment on the irrigation issue, where does that
stand with how it works or is there something we need to do in regards to --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 28 of 75
Beach: I believe the applicant has some response to that. We will go from there.
If there is any further questions on that we can cover that after she comments.
Fitzgerald: Sounds good. Thank you.
Yearsley: I have one question, just for clarification, Josh. This apartment
complex was actually previously approved because it's actually a permitted use
in the -- in the Old Town zone, but we are just here because he wants to split
them off now into separate lots; is that correct?
Beach: That's correct. So, the -- as you said, it is a principally permitted -- multi-
family is a principally permitted use in the Old Town zoning district, so there was
no hearing required for that. It was all approved administratively by staff. It does
meet the code requirements as far as landscaping and amenities are required,
with the exception of that reduced landscape buffer on the drive aisle and the
installation of the -- the sidewalk on the north for the pedestrian access. So,
again, tonight we are commenting on the -- the splitting of the lots, which I'm
presuming is for financing purposes or to sell the buildings off individually, I'm not
one hundred percent sure. But you are correct that the other things have been
approved.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions before -- would the applicant
like to come forward? And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Riley: Mr. Chairman, for the record, Penelope Riley, Riley Planning Services.
Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho 83701. Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, I'd like
to begin by acknowledging staff's gracious professionalism in getting us to this
point this evening with our application before you. They are always very helpful.
Third Street Square Apartments that are currently under construction was
approved with a certificate of zoning compliance previously. The applicant has
reviewed the staff report and is in agreement with the conditions of approval as
presented in the staff report. With regard to the e-mail regarding irrigation water,
there was a problem with the weir height from the Hunter Lateral. That was
repaired and irrigation water is now being delivered to all the adjacent property
owners appropriately. It was just the weir was too high, there wasn't enough
water in the lateral to reach the point of where it could get over the weir. So, we
cut it down some. And as was reported by staff, these individual parcels will be
available for sale. Each of the owners will become part of a property owner's
association, much like an HOA where they contribute to the maintenance of the
common area, the buildings, and maintenance and repair and irrigation system. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Thank you.
Riley: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 29 of 75
Yearsley: I do have a few people wanting to testify. One is Al and/or Shirley
Fleming.
Fleming: Given the limited amount of time --
Yearsley: Please -- please state your name and address for the record.
Fleming: Oh. Yes. My name is Al and my wife is Shelly Fleming. We live at
310 East 3rd Street, Meridian, Idaho. Our property directly is adjoining the plat
plan in question, as well as the easement right of way which goes from 310 East
3rd Street to the back of the property. I have many, many issues I'd like to raise,
but I have to cut to the chase to get it all in there minutes. First of all, I would like
to bring your attention to a letter which I sent two years ago on May 28th, 2014,
to a gentleman by the name of Caleb Hood and I clearly articulated all the issues
that I had with the proposed plat plan at that particular time, which was
preliminary. He did -- and I was aware of the fact, being in Old Town, that there
would not be a public hearing and that's what propelled me to write this letter and
forward it to him. He was very gracious in his reply to me. He did agree with
many of the issues that I had raised and I'm sure in your records you can find a
copy of his response to me. So, to cut to the chase, I will get out the two major
issues that exist. First of all, it was very confusing to me just receiving this public
hearing notice, because it said in there it was for preliminary plat plan approval
and that's really a misnomer, because this preliminary -- this plat has been
approved, construction has been underway since February and what the owner
is really looking for is to break the property up into lots representing each building
for future investments or possible -- eventually sale of these properties. I'd like to
draw your attention, though, regarding that and one of my major concerns that I
have and this comes directly from Mr. Caleb Hood and his response to me and
he references an ordinance called 05-1170 and it says maintenance and
oversight responsibility in multiple family developments shall record legally
binding documents and state the maintenance and the ownership responsibilities
to management the development, including, but not limited to, structures parked
in common areas and et cetera, et cetera. Now, the reason I bring this to your
attention, as Penelope just told you, one of the major issues from the beginning
was for all adjoining property owners our access irrigation and since that was
covered by Idaho law, we knew that there had to be a reconcile plan. All of the
ditches to Hunter Lateral that fed all the adjoining properties, of course, have all
been excavated and I am pleased to say that as of today their irrigation system is
functioning and is functioning properly. But relative to this agreement that I bring
up -- and it says it shall be -- multiple family developments shall be a legal
document. My concern is -- and so is the concern of other adjoining property
owners since by approving this plat plan, essentially, the planning board in
Meridian has placed a surrogate between the adjoining property owners and our
irrigation rights, which was stated by law and, therefore, this legally binding
document must define very clearly the responsibility not only of the maintenance
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 30 of 75
and the properties within plat plan, but also their responsibility to servicing us into
perpetuity the adjoining property owners relative to irrigation. I have not seen
this document. It says it's supposed to be recorded and I have -- I am waiting,
because I truly believe that the adjoining property owners have approval rights
over this document. For example, if that irrigation system goes down and I don't
get my water, who do I call, the planning board? Do I call City Hall? Do I call
Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District? None of them are going to help us. So, it
has to clearly specify what are the rights of the adjoining property owners. Do I
go out after 30 days and contract some engineer and say fix their system and bill
them for it? I want to see that legally binding document. That's -- I won't push
that issue any further at this point.
Yearsley: And your time has expired, so if you could --
Fleming: Excuse me?
Yearsley: Your time has expired, so if you could hurry and wrap it up.
Fleming: Okay. My last issue -- and which is fully articulated in here, is one of
safety. I stood 18 years on a planning board -- not in Idaho, but in New York,
and obviating safety issues was number one criteria for any planning and zoning
board, regardless of whether the property use was a permitted use or not, safety
came first. I have a major problem with the access and egress of these -- now
they are going to add 28 family units -- that's roughly 50 cars -- 45 cars using
standard ratios, that would be accessing -- egressing this property, there is only
one access and egress. There will be two ten foot lanes, one coming in, one
going out in to East 3rd Street, which is a blind intersection. I raise this issue to
the planning board. Mr. Caleb said they -- because it's under a hundred family
units are not required to request Ada county to perform a traffic study. I
requested a traffic study and the reason is because 3rd Street today is 11 feet
going in two directions, two right of ways. According to the City of Meridian -- a
document called Street Cross Section Master Plan, dated September 9th, 2014,
clearly articulates the use of 310 East 3rd Street and, by the way, it is identified
as a critical future player, because it must provide a north -south corridor for
bicycle and pedestrian right of way, critical to the City of Meridian. That's
according to this document. You will also see -- it's clearly articulated in that plan
that they will develop this pedestrian right of way and a bicycle path right of way
that will stay within the right of way as defined by Ada County Highway
Department today. They are the --
Yearsley: So your time has expired, so if you can wrap it up, fairly quickly we
would appreciate it.
Fleming: Yes. The point is 11 feet north, 11 feet south, two direction traffic, one
of those lanes is going to be reduced to nine feet, according to your plan. A
garbage truck cannot turn a turning radius off of a nine foot right of way onto a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 31 of 75
ten foot right of way without going into oncoming traffic. That is called an
oversight. I want to see that mitigated and I would request that the planning
board of the City of Meridian contact Ada County Highway Department and
request a traffic study and that's what I'm here for tonight. Thank you very much
for your attention.
Yearsley: Thank you. I have a Karen Rider or Ryker. Oh, sorry. You didn't sign
up to testify. Yes. Okay. Patty Yost has signed up to testify. Name and
address for the record.
Yost: Oh, thank you. Patricia Yost. 330 East 3rd Street and I sit right of front of
where this development is, right next to the path on site -- sorry, I'm nervous
about this. I have never done this before. Where those two -- it will be two ten
feet lanes and from what I understand, Josh -- so it will be a five foot sidewalk
and what about bike paths for children coming in and out?
Beach: There is not a bike path.
Yost: No bike path?
Beach: Correct.
Yost: So, the children would come in and out how?
Beach: Walk on the sidewalk or riding a bicycle on the --
Yost: Ride on the sidewalk?
Beach: -- on the driveway. Correct.
Yost: Okay. I also have a concern of where are those children going to end up
as far as like -- there is such a narrow area waiting for a bus.
Yearsley: And we would have to -- the bus department would have to address --
Yost: Have to address that?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Yost: Would they -- because I don't know that they can go into the sub -- into this
apartment. We were actually told that there wouldn't be apartments, so I don't --
I didn't even know that that was what was going on. We are also concerned
about -- we have so many concerns. One of them is each one being individually
owned at this point, would that, then, allow them to change colors and do things
differently? We are afraid it's going to be somewhat hodgepodgy. Another
concern of ours is -- Josh, you had mentioned to me -- so, we just found this out
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 32 of 75
from when you first mentioned this, but there will be a -- on the south side and
the north side of that property, if those two people fell, these -- these developers
would, then, have to put those roads in themselves? What was that?
Beach: I'm not sure I understand the question. So, a cross-access easement,
it's not necessarily a road, it's a drive access. So, as you see this here, this is
not a public road --
Yost: Right.
Beach: -- this is a drive access. It's owned by the property owner of this
property. So, the requirement is that there be connectivity somehow -- again, we
are not sure how that's going to happen, because there is no proposed
development for any of these parcels right now --
Yost: Yeah. They have no --
Beach: But the requirement is that we get some sort of cross -access. So, we
will have to work those property owners at that time as they develop to figure out
how they are going to provide cross-access and additional access out to 3rd
Street.
Yost: When you say at time that they develop, does that mean -- you mean
when they sell it -- if they were to sell it, then, they would have to --
Beach: It doesn't necessarily mean they are going to develop when they sell, but
assuming these properties are redeveloped sometime in the future, right, the
building is knocked down and developed into something else --
Yost: That's probably not going to happen with these neighbors.
Beach: -- assuming that happens for -- doesn't happen for the next 50, 60 years,
there may not be a cross-access provided. But we want to provide for that
opportunity in case those properties do develop in the near term.
Yost: Karen might want to have -- just have a discussion about that --
Beach: We are not making any requirement that they destroy their home and
they could change hands --
Yost: Or it's sold --
Beach: It could change hands several times between now --
Yost: Well, I know. I only feel like I have three m inutes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 33 of 75
Yearsley: So -- and, actually, if you could address the -- your comments and
questions to the Commission.
Yost: Oh. Okay. Well, that is the concern is this -- I guess it's just knowledge
that I'm requiring is -- because we just found out this.
Yearsley: Yes.
Yost: Like nothing has been told to us. We have had neighborhood meetings
and I have asked specifically is there any changes? No. So -- and we have
been -- feel like it's been extremely evasive on this situation. None of us a re
pleased of how this is going. So, is this now -- in order to do this on the chance
that maybe 50, 60 years from now there would be other exits out and ingress and
egress is on this or is this going to stay the only road in and out of there?
Yearsley: That will be the only road in and out. If -- if the properties to the north
or south ever develop all they are doing is saying you have to provide cross -
access and we will -- like I said, we are just trying to plan for the future. So, if the
properties to the north or south do develop, that we can at least have some
cross-access. So, they may be able to go out a different direction or different
routes --
Yost: Okay.
Yearsley: -- is what we are doing. It's not requiring the adjacent homeowners to
do anything with this at this point in time. Even if they sell the property they won't
have to do anything.
Yost: Thank you. That's reassuring.
Yearsley: It's only if they develop into something different than just a normal
home.
Yost: We are pretty tight neighbors. The other major concern is this road was --
we have had the sewage lines put in. It has like a curve. So, my car has been
hit out front. The neighbors cars have been hit. The natural inclination for those
cars is to veer --
Yearsley: Uh-huh.
Yost: -- off. In front of my house there is a sign that says there is a bike path.
There has been nothing done to those roads -- that road. It's hideous. Two
years ago when John was putting in those sewage lines he stood out with me
and my neighbor Billy and said can you believe it, Ada county wants us to fix this
road and I'm like, yes, I can believe that, so -- but we have not heard -- I have
talked to Tammy about it, she said she would travel that road and see. Since
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 34 of 75
Meridian Road and Main Street have been one way and we put those dividers in,
this road is the main -- main road going through. All the police use it. All the
firemen cannot get in that on any other road but this road. It's a very, very, very
traveled road and there is not even a line that tells you what side to be on, there
is no spots for parking. I actually have a business out of my home also. I know
that if there is not enough parking that people are going to be parking in front of
our houses and there is nothing we can do about it. We are very concerned
about this road and the safety of the children and the traffic in and out and we
have mentioned that for the past -- since we first heard this this is our concern,
but we never hear whether anything is going to be don e about it.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Yost: Thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application? If
that, we would actually ask the applicant to, please, come forward. Again, state
your name and address.
Riley: Again, for the record, Mr. Chairman, Penelope Riley, Riley Planning
Services. Post Office Box 405, Boise, Idaho. 83701. I'd like to start with the
letter to the planning director Caleb Hood. I'm not aware of it. I had not seen it
and so I can't answer anything regarding that letter. The property management --
the maintenance and repair, management of the common area and the play
equipment and whatnot, will be part of an LLC that will be recorded with the
Idaho Secretary of State, which is standard, and all the property owners will be
members of it. So, I think we have got that covered. With regard to the traffic
impact study, as a former ACHD planner there is a -- there is a threshold you
have to reach before a traffic impact study is required and the project doesn't
meet that threshold and that's the reason why a traffic impact study was not
required. Let's see. I think that our parking -- and maybe Josh could help me
with this. I think the proposed parking exceeds the standard for Meridian. Am
correct in that?
Beach: Yeah. There is adequate parking.
Riley: We exceeded the minimum parking requirements for the project, so -- we
can't put a bike path in along the front entry, because there isn't sufficient space
to do so, so -- I mean we -- we just can't, so -- I would be happy to answer any
questions you have.
Yearsley: I guess the one -- you will have code, covenants and restrictions; is
that not correct?
Riley: Yes, sir. That would be part of that property owners association.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 35 of 75
Yearsley: And there -- will there be language in regard to maintaining the
irrigation system?
Riley: When I -- I talked to Josh. We were scrambling a little bit about meters a
couple a days ago and my assumption was the best thing for the City of Meridian
was for the irrigation water could be kind of houses with one entity, rather than
distributing it among the different owners. So, the maintenance of the irrigation
system will be the responsibility of the property owners association and that way
all the units and all the yards are irrigated appropriately, uniformly, and
everything looks good.
Yearsley: And so the gentleman -- he would contact the property management
company if there was any problems in that respect?
Riley: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Riley: I believe so.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. That's all I had. Is there any other questions?
Riley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: I have a question for Josh.
Yearsley: Thank you. No, it's for Josh I think.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Josh, because this is -- it's an allowed use in the zone and we are
now preliminary platting it, there is no development agreement that goes along
with it; correct? So, there is no tying CC&Rs, water -- where the water covenants
reside. Nothing -- there is nothing there binding -- besides what they are telling
us --
Beach: You can propose conditions of approval, but --
Fitzgerald: That's what I'm wondering.
Beach: Correct. There is typically not a development agreement, because it's
just a small parcel. It's apartments.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 36 of 75
Yearsley: Any other questions? So, I actually have one and I know it's kind of a
moot point, but this does only have one access. Did the fire department review
this and approve it as a -- for access?
Beach: Absolutely.
Yearsley: Okay. And it didn't require a secondary access at that time?
Beach: Correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: And just for my edification, Mr. Chairman, so there is no
hammerhead, there is no snoopy either, there is no -- where are they turning
around on this thing if they drive a fire truck in there?
Beach: There is -- not knowing what the exact codes are that the fire department
reviews that indicate that there was enough space to get their trucks in and out.
Now, as to how they are doing that I can't --
Yearsley: Actually, I could probably answer that. The drive aisles between the
parking stalls are wide enough and long enough and deep enough that the truck
could -- the fire department could come in and do a hammerhead and turn
around.
Beach: And Bill had indicated, yes, that there actually is a -- there is a turn
around right here. You can see on the -- it's not a great picture, but --
Yearsley: Okay.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Parsons: Chairman, Members of the Commission?
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: Keep in mind multi-family also requires the units to be sprinklered.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: And so there is -- there is a little bit -- even though it's a residential
product, it still falls under the International Building Code, so there is a little bit
more stringent code and that -- those regulations in the International Residential
Code. So, these are sprinklered. It gives the fire department a little bit more
latitude as to the access points and all of that. But, again, Perry Palmer, the fire
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 37 of 75
marshal, did look at these and approve the plan, so -- and going back to the
gentleman's point about ACHD and a ccess, I mean the cross-access we required
so that we do try to limit access points and conflicts onto 3rd Street, because we
don't want to have everyone having their own access points, we want to make
sure we consolidate that under the code, because we do want that as a mobility
corridor, as he pointed out. So, right now this has 30 feet of frontage on that
street. So, yes, it's limited as far as access, but as we know this is part of Old
Town, this is part of downtown. The properties will redevelop and as that
happens we will start seeing more and more accesses consolidating and more
and more of that roadway being reconfigured and rebuilt to the ultimate vision by
the city.
Fitzgerald: Thanks for the information, Bill.
Yearsley: And, then, I actually have one last question. I don't know if you know
it, but I know that the right of way is greater than 22 feet. Would you happen to
know what the right of way width on that is? I'm assuming it's at least 50, if not
60 feet at this point.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, right of way in downtown
ranges anywhere from 60 feet to 80 feet.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: And I can't tell you exactly what 3rd Street is, but I believe it's probably
minimum 60, but I don't know off the top of my head without looking at our GIS
layer, which I can't get access to.
Yearsley: No. And I -- I didn't think you could, but --
Parsons: It's a local street and --
Yearsley: But I did want to clarify that the roadway width does not mean the r ight
of way width. Those are two different items, so I would assume at this point at
minimum it's a 60 foot right of way, but -- and so it can be widened out for more
than just 11 feet if they -- when -- when and if Ada county does come back and
rebuild that road.
Parsons: That's going to take a partnership between private owners, the city,
and ACHD. So, yeah, it's -- it's a long term vision, just like our comp plan.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. Any other comments or questions? I guess with that I
would entertain a motion to close the public --
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 38 of 75
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move to close the public hearing on H-2016 -- excuse me -- 2016-0031,
Third Street Square Subdivision.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
way aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: So, I'm actually going to go first on this, if you guys don't mind. So, we
are not here to approve the apartments or not, we are not here to approve, you
know, the use and the access at this point. Really -- and we can actually add
some conditions, but, really, all we are actually approving is can he put them in
different -- are there different lots. So, the apartments can get built without this
approval as it stands now. He's just asking to put them into separate lots, so he
can potentially sell them if he wants. That being said, I am not a particular fan of
this style of development and -- but it does meet our code. It does meet our
ordinances and so I have to weigh that against my personal preferences for this.
I would be interested in approving I guess with condition that the homeowners
association shall maintain the irrigation system or something like that, because
irrigation is keen in this -- this valley, so -- and shall be recorded in the
homeowners association, would be my recommendation. But with that, you
know, it does meet our ordinances, it does meet code, and it's -- you know, it
does look -- it does meet that, so --
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And I think you and I agree on our -- our not loving of the concept of
the lotting individual units. I understand the direction this is going, but I think it
does meet code, it does meet those -- I guess the idea of this kind of
development -- it is an allowed use. I would agree that if we are going to move
forward that it needs to have conditions that insures that the irrigation is taken
care of for the neighbors.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 39 of 75
Oliver: I agree with everything that has been said so far. I think that it's
important that if you're going to sell off and have two or three owners, that area,
that it needs to have something in there to help with the water condition. Also, I
would like to see if there would be some cooperative work going on between the
landowners around it and the -- the people that are building it, to make sure that
those color schemes are kind of complimentary to the area.
Yearsley: Thank you. I guess if there are no other comments, I would entertain
a motion.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: If I can get to my -- after considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2016-
0031 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 21st, 2016, with
the following addition: That we require that the CC&Rs and the HOA take on the
role and duties of maintaining the irrigation system for the surrounding neighbors.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second for the approval of file -- file number
H-2016-0031. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
D. Public Hearing Continued and Re-Noticed from 4/7/16
for Dutch Bros. Coffee (H-2016-0025) by Steven Adamson
Located 37 E. Calderwood Drive
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Thru
Establishment Within 300 Feet of a Residential Use
and Extended Hours of Operation from 5:00 am to
11pm Per Requirement of the Development
Agreement
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing of file number
H-2016-0028, the Dutch Brothers coffee, and let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, I'm filling in for Ms.
Watters this evening on the last three items, so bear with me as I share the
details with you. The project that's before you this evening, as you mentioned,
was continued for the sole purpose -- the main reason why they asked for the
continuance was so that we could renotice it, so that they could request extended
hours of operation and that's the main reason why it was continued from the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 40 of 75
previous hearing, because they need to operate beyond what the C-C zone
allows. So, if you -- this property is located on the southwest corner of East
Calderwood Drive and South Meridian Road. It's currently zoned C-G within the
city limits and it consists of 0.54 acres of land. The applicant is here this evening
to discuss the development of a drive-thru use, coffee kiosk on the site and
extended hours of operation as allowed in the UDC. This property was rezoned
in 2015 as the Calderwood Business Park and at that time the applicant brought
forth a concept plan and a development agreement that was approved as part of
the rezone application. That concept plan for that site did depict a drive-thru use
on this site and as it subsequently went through the public hearing process the
Council did allow two drive-thru uses to develop on the site, as long as they went
through that conditional use process and went through the conditional use
process for extended hours and so that's really why we are here this evening.
The restaurant itself is a principally permitted use in the C-G zone. We are
merely here to talk about the drive-thru use and how that interfaces with the
surrounding. So, one thing I did want to mention to you -- I did -- staff received
revised plans from the applicant late after -- after the print date for the staff
report, so this evening I will be sharing with you a revised -- revised elevations
and revised site plan and landscape plan for you to take under advisement this
evening. So, the slide before you here shows what was attached to the staff
report and so the plans that we received earlier this week -- generally the same
configuration just shows a larger footprint of the building. It increased to 640
square feet from 571 square feet and it was more L shaped before and now it's
more rectangular shaped. So, really, minor changes, nothing impacting the
drive-thru. The site circulation on here is merely just square footage increase
and a different design to the building. So, main access to the development is off
of Calderwood Drive, which is created through a cross-access easement with the
development of that subdivision. Cars will enter here and stack here with the --
it's a single lane stacking with parking located here and, then, an exit lane,
because the escape lane exceeds one hundred feet. So, in the site plan before
you is consistent with our drive-thru standards in the UDC. Here is the revised
landscape plan. You can see it kind of mirrors what was required. Staff did have
some additional conditions about requiring additional trees along the south
boundary, which the applicant added and, then, they were required to add a ped
connection here into the site per the design review standards that we have in the
UDC. So, everything that's before you this evening is consistent with the UDC.
Here are the revised elevations, which we find to be consistent with the recorded
development agreement as well, so it has stucco and rock consistent with the
elevations that were approved with that development agreement in 2015. So,
staff did receive written testimony from the Jeffrey Hall, the applicant's
representative. In the staff report there were a couple conditions they want you
to take under consideration. One of the conditions of approval -- it would be
condition 1.5. It relates to the hours of operation. Currently they are restricted
from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., unless modified you the Commission. So, in --
from the applicant they are requesting that they be able to operate from 5:00 a.m.
to 11:00 p.m. So, they would like you to modify that condition to reflect their
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 41 of 75
hours of operation and, then, one thing if I can step back here -- condition 1.7 --
when this development was -- came before -- when Larkspur came in front of you
-- and that happened in 2004, Intermountain Gas Company actually put in a --
basically a transfer station here. This is where they get their gas from the
Williams Pipeline and they disperse it through Meridian. So, this was screened
with a chain link fence and slats, basically, and so that is no longer an accepted
screening material under our ordinance, so staff recommended a condition that
they replace that existing screening with code compliant screening. But I did
want to point out to Commission that, you know, I don't know if this actually falls
on their property or not. It was part of that public infrastructure that was put in
with that development in 2014. So, the applicant is just requesting that the --
they are allowed to keep up their existing screening, because they don't have any
control over it. It's really an Intermountain Gas Company facility. So, those are
the two requirements to modify those conditions -- are the hours of operations, if
you choose to, and, then, leave that screening material as requested by the
applicant. With that staff has not received any additional testimony on this
application and we are recommending approval and I will stand for any questions
you may have.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? Actually, just a couple
questions. So, normal operation of hours are from 6:00 to --
Parsons: 11:00.
Yearsley: -- 11:00. So, all they just want to do is -- is go an hour earlier in the
morning?
Parsons: That is correct.
Yearsley: Okay. And then -- so, we conditioned a code compliant screening.
What -- what potentially could be done for code compliant there? I mean -- I'm
not quite sure -- you got to have a fence. So, I'm just trying to understand.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, there is a couple things
we have to verify. One is it actually on their property.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: So, do they have the right to do that. And, two, they don't own it -- they
don't own the fencing. So, if Intermountain Gas doesn't want to do anything
different --
Yearsley: Right.
Parsons; -- we kind of put them at the mercy of the gas company and they can't
reply with a condition that you placed on them.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 42 of 75
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Now the applicant if -- if they wanted to or the Commission wanted to
they could maybe put some screening or arborvitaes around there to help with
that. There is some landscaping they could do, probably, along that right of way
to help screen that, but -- but that's -- those would be by recommendations at this
point.
Yearsley: Okay. I just wanted to see if there is options. If there is no other
questions we would like the applicant to come forward, please. Please state your
name and address for the record.
Hall: Jeffrey Hall. Northwest Commercial. 3023 East Copperpoint, Meridian.
83642. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. You have seen the
staff report and we are in receipt of that staff report. We have held two
neighborhood meetings, not just one, because we did make that change
regarding the hours of operation. On our first meeting December 4th, there was
no public attendance to that meeting, except for representatives from Dutch Bros.
At the neighborhood meeting on April 7th we had a neighbor to the south of this
property project, Jack Simonson, 2197 South Meridian Road, he attended and
had questions that were addressed regarding increased traffic in the area and no
other property owners were in attendance at that either. So, we have addressed
all the concerns by the one property owner and that's all we have heard of
anybody. No other phone calls, e -mails, or otherwise. Per the staff the site plan
has been modified, so we have the elevations. You have seen those
modifications. Those were as a result, number one, the site plan suggestions by
staff in their staff report. We made those suggestions. And, then, as far as the
elevations, we actually kind of -- we made the building a little bit bigger, so it
really kind of enclosed everything on that drive-thru, so there is no, you know, cut
outs or carve outs for a cooler or anything there. So, it's just a very clean -- it's a
new concept Dutch Bros is going with. It's actually a single sided drive -thru
versus the two that -- you know, we have four other locations here in Meridian, so
they all have double sided drive-thrus. So, this is a single sided. It's very clean.
It gives a nice little patio area underneath the other side there, which they will
have some tables out there and stuff for the public to sit at and that type of stuff.
So, it's kind of user friendly. Lots of ample parking on this site and good
circulation. Great stacking lane. Thank you, Sonya, for recommendations there,
even though she is not here tonight. And, you know, honestly, we really
appreciate staff, everything they have done on this for us, to help us to come up
with a great site for this location. In regards to the conditions of approval, as Bill
has spoken of, condition 1.5, we would request that the hours be 5:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m. That is not necessarily by choice, that is totally because of the
franchise agreement. Dutch Bros, over 300 locations, that is their hours of
operation. We have -- if we don't have those hours we don't have a franchise
with Dutch Bros. So, unfortunately, all the other Meridian locations, same hours
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 43 of 75
and, you know, we do want to catch -- you know, this is to help -- this location on
Meridian Road is to help alleviate the Majestic location. So, if you think about the
Majestic location and, you know, your Mountain View High School and stuff,
unfortunately, that is very busy and this is to help the people from south Meridian,
Kuna, everything else, so they will go to that location before hitting the freeway
versus coming down and causing more congestion down there. So, this is just to
really release some of that pain and, you know, a lot of those people go to work,
you know, before 6:00 a.m., that's just the way it is. We have sat out there and
watched the traffic, so -- the other condition of approval, 1.7, we disagree with
that, the chain link enclosure surrounding the gas line equipment currently I
believe has slats in it. It is a screening. It is not on our property. We have no
control on it. Intermountain Gas is, obviously, not going to work with us very well,
especially if we put a CMU block enclosure around it over their lines. It's
probably not going to be feasible, unless, you know, we want to, you know, give
them a bond or something. I don't know. I just don't know how that would even
look. So, unfortunately, it's on their property, it's not on our property. We have
no control of that. So, at this point we are -- all other conditions of approval are
acceptable to us, so we just ask for the two modifications, 1.5 allowing the hours
of operation from 5:00 to 11:00 and, then, 1.7 applicant not be required to install
any additional screening around the intermountain gas equipment adjacent to our
property. With that I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Hall, just two quick questions.
Hall: Sure.
Fitzgerald: Would you guys be willing to put a couple of -- additional trees or
arborvitae or something in that area?
Hall: It really depends on Intermountain Gas. If they -- it's their property, so if
they feel that the trees won't interfere with the gas lines around, that -- that's a
pretty -- do you have a picture of that? We had a picture at one time that Sonya
had sent over, just so they can see what that looks like. This is big gas
equipment.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. That's what I'm -- I'm wondering what --
Hall: And I just -- I don't know if they would be very -- well, I don't know if they
would even allow us to put any type of shrubbery there for fear of root systems
getting into their lines.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 44 of 75
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Hall: I would hate to -- it would be great if we could. It would look wonderful, you
know, but this has been here since that subdivision back behind it was
developed, so I'm sure that it is what it is. If we can change it we would. We like
green and tulips and everything else like you can see here, so --
Fitzgerald: And, then, the second while Bill is pulling that up, is there any
concern about -- I mean you guys do have double stacking lanes in almost every
other Dutch Bros you have --
Hall: We do. Uh-huh. Yes.
Fitzgerald: And they are packed all the time.
Hall: Yes.
Fitzgerald: And so with a single stacking lane do you feel comfortable you have
enough room in that --
Hall: We do. So, this is really incredible and I know this is hard to understand,
but it started in Arizona and single stack lanes actually move faster for the
customers than doubles do and the reason is is we actually have greeters. So,
we don't have, you know, the speakers out there or anything going off, all that
kind of stuff. So, we actually have greeters that go out, they greet, they take your
order. By the time they get to the window the order is ready to be passed out the
door and they are gone. It actually works faster. But also we -- as you can see,
just off this illustration with larger vehicles and, you know, expanded room
between the vehicles, we are stacking just nine already there. So, if you really
think about it we are probably going to have 12 to 13 that we can stack. So, we
are not going to have an issue. And, then, we also have -- for the employees we
have ample on-site parking and for people that just want to pull in and go up and
sit at a table and relax.
Fitzgerald: Well, I appreciate the personal -- and the nonsquawk box idea. It's
exceptional, so --
Hall: Not Starbucks here. Sorry.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 45 of 75
Oliver: So, it's incredible how you pulled out up. That's pretty cool. So, it's got
the little fence around it. So, anything inside the inside of that sidewalk will be
your drive-thru?
Hall: In site -- yes. On the other opposite side of that sidewalk that is in place is
our drive-thru.
Oliver: Yeah. So, there really won't be any room in that area to put any kind of
screening, even if you could.
Hall: I'm not sure what's in the ground there or what's in those rocks.
Oliver: Yeah. You would have to go on the other side of the aisle.
Hall: They, obviously, didn't want to put screening either. They, obviously,
wanted to put rocks to make it low maintenance I guess for them, for their
costwise, because that is their property, so --
Oliver: Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Hall: You bet.
Yearsley: Any other questions? Thank you.
Hall: Thank you.
Yearsley: I have a couple people signed up here. Robin Hatcher. Would she
like to come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Hatcher: Robin Hatcher. 2236 South Blackspur Way, Meridian. 83642. I am
currently president of the HOA for the Larkspur Subdivision that's immediately
behind. I was actually surprised, he said there had been other mee tings that
nobody had been to, because we never got any notifications, except for the one
meeting that we went to. I'm not necessarily opposed for sure to the Dutch
Brothers, but I'm concerned about the traffic, because what we have seen, of
course, over on Overland Road by the -- by the high school and this exit coming
out of Calderwood is pretty bad in the mornings for people getting to work and so
forth. So, that's a concern. I'm also not sure how this is working with the exit. Is
it coming out on Blackspur, then, instead of back on Calderwood? That's how it
looked to me. And we have real problems on -- on Blackspur Way that the -- all
of the employees of the senior citizen residence right across the street, they all
park there on the street on both sides of the street. It's terrible getting in and out
of our subdivision, because of all that -- because the employees have been
forced to park on the street, because they no longer are allowed to park within
this -- the senior citizen area. Now, on Calderwood they have made that parking
on only one side of the street, but nobody has done that on Blackspur and it -- it
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 46 of 75
can be really nasty getting -- getting in and out of our subdivision. So, if you
have people coming out of Dutch Brothers onto Blackspur -- that's just a concern
to me with -- with all the parking, because they -- they park there -- heavy parking
during the day, but they are parked there 24/7. And, then, I guess I would just
like to know what else is going to be in there. I'm not understanding from the --
from the drawing. Is Dutch Brothers it or -- or will there still be other office
buildings? And, again, mostly my concern is the parking situation that we have.
Yearsley: Just really quickly. If you look at your screen --
Hatcher: Uh-huh.
Yearsley: -- I think the entire site is the -- kind of the yellow -- or the pink -- the
shaded area -- or the pink and the L-O.
Hatcher: Okay.
Yearsley: The first two little lots are -- is actually just going to be Dutch Brothers.
Hatcher: That's Dutch Brothers --
Yearsley: Yes.
Hatcher: -- on Calder -- right on Calderwood.
Yearsley: Right on Calderwood. And, then, if you look just to the right of there,
there shows your Blackspur Road. So, they are not even going to be close to
your roadway.
Hatcher: Okay. So, they are probably going to turn a lot sooner than --
Yearsley: Yes.
Hatcher: -- what it looked like when -- on the enlargement.
Yearsley: Yes.
Hatcher: Okay. Thank you so much for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. I have one other person to testify. I cannot read the
writing. So, is there anybody else that would like to testify on this application?
Nobody else? Okay. Is there anybody else? I guess with that would the
applicant like to come forward.
Hall: Jeffrey Hall. Northwest Commercial. 3023 East Copperpoint, Meridian,
Idaho. 83642. First of all -- and I apologize you did not -- the association didn't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 47 of 75
get notice. We are provided a list by the city of the neighbors within 300 feet of
this property. So, it may have not been within 300 feet of the back of this
development, but of this specific property. So, I apologize if you guys did not get
notice. So, we kind of just go by what the city gives us, so I'm sorry about that.
But I can tell you that access for this property -- there is a drive aisle that you see
in right now, so that drive aisle goes right out onto Calderwood and, then, also
across the street from that example behind O'Reilly's and the liquor store, there
is another access drive there. So, our guests are either going to turn out onto
Calderwood and go up to Meridian Road or they will take that access drive
behind Southern Springs retail there and they will hit it up on Overland Road.
So, just wanted make sure you know what's going to happen there. I do know a
little bit about the development, so I wanted to share it with you just because the
developer has shared this with me --
Yearsley: Can you, please, address the Commission.
Hall: Sorry.
Yearsley: You can answer her comment, but, please, if you would address us I
would appreciate it.
Hall: You got it. So, in regards to the development itself, where you see the
Dutch Bros is basically the shaded pink areas right there. The lots to the south
of that are all, basically, retail lots. So, he's planning on doing some retail
buildings up there and I'm not sure if he's applied for those -- oh, bingo. So,
anyhow, you will see the retail buildings that he's planning on putting to the south
there and, then, behind the access drive to the east, those are all office lots. So,
he's planning some office buildings there. So, I know he doesn't -- I know he's
going to be doing the office buildings fairly quick and I do not know any signed
deals regarding the retail at this point.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? I think that's it. Thank you.
Hall: Thank you.
Yearsley: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number
H-2016-0028.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I move that we close the public hearing on H-2016-0026.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 48 of 75
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. All in favor
say aye. Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Comments or thoughts?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just looking at the elevation of the new Dutch Brothers, compared to the
ones I have seen, that's probably the nicest elevation I have seen -- the nicest
look of it. So, I think it's going to be a nice addition to that part of town. So, I'm
all in favor of that.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would agree and I think it's -- you know, it's a -- this is a zone for this
kind of a setup. It's -- the neighborhood is right there. It will be I'm sure well
serviced and I think the concept of the -- taking the traffic off of the -- the Majestic
theater. That is crazy. And, then, I will buy Commissioner Oliver a Dutch Bros
card so he can get it on his way to school.
Yearsley: Thank you. I also agree. And I apologize, I didn't mean to bring up
the -- I was just kind of curious what type of screening was allowed more than
that. I agree, it's not on their property, it's Intermountain Gas, and it's probably
not something that we want to -- to mess with, but just kind of out of curiosity, so
-- I think it looks good. I think -- I think they did a good -- they have a good
approach, so I think I'm in favor as well.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I think he is not really butting up against -- right up against
housing, right on the other side of it, you know, and with the greeters instead of
the squawk box especially, I don't see a problem with having the 5:00 a.m.
opening.
Yearsley: Thank you. With that I would entertain a motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 49 of 75
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to
approve file number H-2016-0025 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of April 21st, 2016, with the following modifications and condition: That they
change the hours from 6:00 to 11:00 to 5:00 to 11:00 -- 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
And that they don't hold the condition 1.7 where they have to have the co -
compliant screening. It can't be expected for that area --
Fitzgerald: Second.
Oliver: -- from the gas company.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Opposed?
Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
E. Public Hearing for Granton Square Subdivision No. 2 (H-
2016-0034) by Granton Square Properties, LLC Located
1714 E. Challis Street
1. Request: Combined Preliminary / Final Plat
Approval Consisting of Two (2) Building Lots and One
(1) Common Lot on 0.28 of an Acre of Land Zoned R-
8
Yearsley: Next one on the list is the public hearing of file number H-2016-0034.
Granton Square Subdivision No. 2 and let's begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Next
application before you this evening is the Granton Square Subdivision No. 2. It's
located on the east side of North Locust Grove Road in between East Fairview
Avenue and Ustick Road. So, it's about half a mile north of Fairview. This
project was before you in 2014, known as the Granton Square Subdivision. At
that time there was an existing home that was to remain on this lot, so the
applicant came before the city, final platted it, and has since removed the home
and so now they are just coming before you this evening just to resubdivide this
lot and block in that original subdivision. The current zoning of the property is
R-8 and the Comprehensive Plan for this property is med ium density residential,
so -- the plan on the left-hand side is the preliminary plat. You can see here that
it is -- meets the minimum standards of the R-8 zoning district. The proposed
lots will take access from the internal local streets that were already constructed
with the earlier Granton Square Subdivision. So, this really is just a -- again a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 50 of 75
resubdivision of one lot into two lots and so code requires them to come back for
your approval, both you and City Council. So, staff did receive written testimony
from the applicant in agreement with all the conditions of the staff report. Again,
we find it consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC and staff is
recommending approval of the combined preliminary/final plat and with that I will
stand for any questions you might have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? Would the applicant like to come forward?
And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Grable: My name is Christy Grable with KM Engineering. 9233 West State
Street in Boise. We really don't have much to add. This is a very straight
forward project. So, I'm happy to stand for any questions if you have any, but Bill
has presented the facts as they are, so if you have questions I'm happy to stand
for them.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No. Thank you.
Grable: Wonderful. Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up for this application. Is there anybody
wanting to testify on this application? With that, no one wanting, I won't ask the
applicant to come forward again and I would entertain a motion to close the
public hearing on file number H-2016-0034.
Fitzgerald: Mr. -- so moved. Something. One of those two.
Yearsley: All right. So, let's start that again. Is there a motion?
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: Comments?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 51 of 75
Fitzgerald: Based on the fact that they have removed the house and just -- this is
a simple clean up of -- of a neighborhood that's already there, I think it's -- it
makes sense and there is no -- there shouldn't be any issue I wouldn't think.
Yearsley: Thank you. I guess if there is no other comments 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 of file number H-2016-0034 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of April 21st, 2016, as presented.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0034.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
F. Public Hearing for Howry Lane Subdivision (H-2016-
0030) by M3 Acquisition, LLC Located 5220 S. Howry Lane
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 41.07 Acres of
Land from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 Zone
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
136 Building Lots and 13 Common Lots on 40.46
Acres of Land in the R-8 Zoning District
Yearsley: Appreciate you guys all spending -- staying to the last -- for this final
application. At this time we would like to open the public hearing on file number
H-2016-0030, Howry Lane Subdivision. Sorry for the pronunciation. And let's
begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The last
public hearing on tonight's agenda is the Howry Lane Subdivision -- good thing I
tongued tied, too. The site consists of 40.46 acres of land, currently zoned RUT
in Ada county and is located at 5220 South Howry Lane. You can see here from
the vicinity that it's located adjacent to Ada county property zoned RUT to the
north. Rockhampton Subdivision on the east boundary, zoned R-4. To the south
we have Rockhampton Subdivision, zoned R-4 and Hill Century Farms property
-- preliminary platted, zoned R-8, and that's the same on the west boundary as
well. And, then, one thing that you don't know in here is that this project actually
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 52 of 75
has a small 20 foot sliver that goes out and touches onto Amity. That's currently
the private street access to this property. So, there is a 20 foot sliver that
connects this property to Amity Road and one of the recommended conditions is
that that is converted to right of way, deeded to ACHD commercial right of way --
or put up a road trust so that when Howry Lane gets punched through as a
collector road per the master street map of ACHD that this will be incorporated as
part of that providing connectivity to the area. So, the applicant is here tonight to
discuss annexation of this property to -- with an R-8 zoning district. The current
Comprehensive Plan for this property is low density residential, so the applicant
is -- has requested a step up from the City Council to allow for that R-8 zoning
district designation. The proposed preliminary plat consists of 136 residential lots
and 13 common lots for a gross density of 3.36 dwelling units to the acre. So,
under the LDR designation on the Comprehensive Pl an we envision three units
or less to the acre. So, this is slightly above that, so it's not that much of a step
up and I would also mention to the Commission that all the -- all the lots
proposed on this subdivision do exceed the minimum standards of the R-8
zoning district. So, they are just asking for that to have a little bit greater
flexibility to their frontages. The proposed plat itself has over ten percent open
space and multiple amenities. The applicant is proposing 17 percent open space
with this subdivision. The amenities include a private land -- or pathway along
these -- this linear open space essential to the development and, then, you have
a pool and a changing room here. As you can see from the plat on the left -hand
side there are multiple stub streets to this property from the adjacent Ada county
sub to the -- to the east boundary and those will be extended with the
development of the site, which is located here and, then, here and, then, when
Hill Century Farm came in they provided a stub street located in this general
vicinity and, then that -- again, that collector street touches in this location here,
which the applicant will -- will also connect there, so -- and, then, they are
proposing a stub street to the north. So, one thing th at I do want to mention to
the Commission this evening is that a traffic study was required as part of this
application submittal. But as of tonight we have not received official comments
from ACHD on this application. As noted, the plat itself is generally compliant
with the Comprehensive Plan if Council grants that step up. Open space
exceeds and the amenity package exceeds what our code requires. So, really,
the only issue before the Commission tonight -- it's really a block length issue.
Under our UDC here -- and I have highlighted that. Currently the way we
measure our block face is from the near edge of the street to a near edge of a
street. Well, there is no -- although the applicant placed this intersection here,
there is really in our opinion it doesn't meet the intent of the code and so that
block length, if you were to take this measurement in conjunction with the block
face that was developed in that county subdivision, we are looking at over 1,700
linear feet, which is a pretty long block face. So, our recommendation this
evening is that you continue this project out until they bring back a plat that you
can see and make sure that they comply with our block length standards. Now,
the applicant has submitted written testimony and they have requested that you
move this forward onto City Council and have -- take that issue under
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 53 of 75
advisement with them. Now, the applicant -- there are multiple waterways with
this proposed development that bisect this property and there are some
topography issues, particularly along here. This is the upper -- this half of the
development is higher than the lower half, so there are significant slopes there.
The applicant will be tiling the waterway that runs -- the Cunningham Lateral that
runs through this linear open space here and a drain ditch that runs through this
linear open space the applicant has asked for that to be incorporated -- or remain
open and be incorporated as a water amenity and that's an important feature,
because the adjacent subdivision in Rockhampton left it open and they
incorporated it and improved it as a water amenity. So, this open space is tying
into that open space. So, to me that is an important design element with this
project. We want that open space to interface, enough though it's developed into
different jurisdictions. And so they are asking Council to leave that drain ditch
open. Here are the proposed elevations that the -- of the homes that they
propose to construct within the development. Again, a lot of the homes won't be
fronting on a collector or an arterial, so we don't have our standard condition that
-- we have the condition to comply with the sample elevations, but we don't
necessarily need to see the rear or side of the elevation, because of the way --
the location with the surrounding developments. I would also mention that the
homes do compliment the existing homes in the area that are either proposed or
under construction in the area or existing. The applicant did want to take -- we
did receive written testimony from the applicant, so they do have, again, some
items that they want you to take under consideration this evening. One being
that block length that I mentioned to you. They feel they have met the
requirement of the code. Two, along that pathway staf f has recommended that
they provide bollard lighting to light up the pathway, because it's such a long run.
Now there is a provision in code that allows the director to waive that
requirement. At this time staff is recommending the bollard lighting. So, if that's
something that you want to look at or discuss with the applicant that's within your
purview this evening. It's been a pretty standard formality since 2011 that we
have been requiring bollard lighting. I can't -- I can go on record and tell you I
don't know -- can't name a single subdivision that's done it yet, so -- it's a new
provision and we certainly -- we are seeing it more and more with these
integrated pathways throughout the city. The other issue is staff requires that the
applicant provide a pedestrian connection between Lot 23 and 24 in this general
area, if you can see my cursor here. The applicant is requesting that that
condition be stricken. There is -- again, as I mentioned earlier to you, there are
some challenges with topography in the area and so they wanted -- they didn't
want to have that requirement of putting a pedestrian connection that connected
here. Based on their testimony they -- they believe there is slopes in excess of
ten percent there in that area. So, it would make a challenge. They would have
to meander that pathway quite a bit in order to create a slope to tie back into that
pathway. And, again, this is not a -- a pathway required by our pathways plan,
this is just an amenity for the proposed subdivision. Other than those two items,
as I mentioned to you, staff has not received ACHD's comments. Again, we are
recommending that you hold up on this or at least continue this until -- if you
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 54 of 75
agree with staff's recommendation on the block length requirement, that you at
least continue this out to see the revised plat before you move this on to City
Council. I will conclude my presentation and I would stand for any questions you
have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Bill, in that Y setup that they have now, is there a stop sign or a -- I
mean I guess what -- I understand your -- the description, you have a block
length. What makes it -- is there a stop sign or something that -- that defines it
as not being a long block in their minds?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, my understanding it
would be a controlled intersection with stop signs.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Interesting. Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Just a couple of questions, Bill. There are two connections going to
Rockhampton; is that right?
Parsons: Yes. That is correct. One here and one here.
Oliver: And then -- okay. Right to the south. I'm trying to get my bearings as to
where this is. So, the subdivision right to the south is Rockhampton?
Yearsley: Part of it is Rockhampton.
Parsons: Part of it is, yes.
Oliver: And the other is -- to be developed later?
Parsons: Yeah. By Brighton.
Oliver: Is that the soccer field?
Parsons: No. The soccer fields are farther south.
Oliver: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 55 of 75
Yearsley: Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: One more question. Bill, I -- I mean in the -- and I will let the
applicant describe it, but I think with the water issues you have and the different
elevations, is that kind of the reasoning for the long block length in their -- and
when you're working with them?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, that -- yes, that
topography can play into it. There is some significant water feature or even a
roadway, an arterial roadway or a state highway, which kind of prohibits access.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Parsons: Council can approve a block length of up to 1,200 linear fee t. But,
keep in mind, it's under 1,200 on their portion, but when you throw in that -- that
additional subdivision, all of a sudden there is another 500 feet that you're adding
on. So, it -- it's difficult, but that's certainly a nice looking design, a nice looking
plat, but there is ways that the applicant could cul-de-sac one of those roads or
maybe 90 it and design a little bit differently and still make it work, but, again,
they have chosen to go this route and we just want to make sure that we have
something that complies with our subdivision ordinance.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman, a couple more questions.
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: Bill, one more time. So, the road from Amity to the subdivision has not
been put in yet, but will be put in?
Parsons: That's correct. With the development of the YMCA and the school
that's currently under construction, there would -- this development agreement for
this property requires the construction of Howry Lane with the development and
so this applicant has that 20 feet. ACHD needs -- they were required to do half
plus 12. So, basically, three-quarters of the road and this 20 feet would be
incorporated and so there has to be a 20 foot buffer on that east boundary, plus
the sidewalk, plus the remainder of that road and that's what the 20 feet will turn
into. Or at least that's the vision.
Oliver: So, going right from there to Amity -- where is the new high school?
Parsons: It's right here.
Oliver; Okay. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 56 of 75
Yearsley: Any other questions? I actually have one. Will you go back to the plat
really quick? That open waterway -- is there another pathway along that open
waterway or was there planned to be a pathway on that?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, there -- there wasn't
planned to have a pathway along -- along this segment. I think -- I believe it was
just linear open space, if I remember correctly, because the adjacent subdivision
doesn't have a pathway --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- to this piece of ground. It's actually fenced off.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: And there is a basketball hoop and some open space and some
homes there, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- I don't think the applicant planned on providing a pedestrian
connection to that.
Yearsley: Okay. And that's what my following question is, would there have
been connectivity. Any other questions with that? If not, I would ask the
applicant to come forward.
Tate: Put up the presentation. Good evening. My name is Mark Tate with the
M3 Companies. Our address is 1087 East River Street, Boise, Idaho. Suite 310.
Thank you for having me here tonight. I want to thank staff for their work on this
project. I know Bill didn't work on it the whole time through, so I appr eciate him
filling in on it. This is the first time that I have been here in Meridian and so I'm
very excited to be in front of you guys. We have a project in Eagle called the
Foxtail Estates Subdivision, next to the Fred Meyer there. We are very proud of
that community. It's gone very well and I think this project is going to be very
similar in quality to what we have done there and we -- like the property here, this
was kind of a vicinity of what's going around the property. You're all familiar with
Brighton's Century Farms project. It borders some two sides. The YMCA and
elementary school combination is right across the street from us. Scott was here
-- Scott Curtis with the YMCA was here earlier. Actually made it up to the
podium. But he was here to voice his support for the project. We are big fans of
the YMCA. I have been swimming there since I was six years old, so very big
fan myself. As Bill mentioned, Howry Lane is the dashed line going out to Amity.
We do own the 20 foot strip that would go all the way out to Amity. We don't, as
he mentioned, have the staff report from ACHD, but we have had our discussions
with them. There is very minimal issues here, not having any sort of collector
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 57 of 75
frontage, anything like that, streets stubbed around it. The only thing that we
were analyzing with the traffic study was what our contribution to that road was
going to be. What we have agreed to is to dedicate the 20 feet of right of way to
ACHD, whether they need it eight feet or all of it, we are go ing to dedicate that
whole thing to them and our traffic study has shown that we are going to be
responsible for 15 percent of the traffic on that road and they are going to
condition us to pay for eight feet, plus the curb, gutter and sidewalk. So, that was
really it with ACHD, so, hopefully, that doesn't preclude you from moving the
project forward here and I would anticipate that they would have that before the
City Council meeting. The property, as Bill mentioned, does have some
topography. It's hard to see on the plans in front of you, so I wanted to kind of
point this out up front. There is a hill running diagonally through the property.
You can see on the topo map here and from the photos, that upper triangle area
is really elevated. It will have views on the top bench there and, then, we are
going to steepen up that slope underneath it. Excuse me. He also mentioned
there is two other features on the property. There is a drain that runs through the
middle and the Cunningham Lateral, which runs at the top of the ridge line. We
do plan to tile the Cunningham Lateral at the top of the ridge line and we are
going to make use of that opportunity to put the pathway at the top of the ridge
line, which is kind of a unique thing. Typically you wouldn't put a pathway behind
houses on a ridge that has a view, because it kind of diminishes the, you know,
premium of the view, but it's a really cool opportunity. Like Bill said, it's a private
pathway, it's not part of the city's pathway plan , but it would connect on either
side that will connect to the large community park as well and, then, the top little
bit more, about the drain here. This is the community plan that we originally
submitted. This does not include the changes that Bill showed to the stre et
layout. I'm going to go through those specifically related to the block length, but
you will notice this was different than what we are proposing, because we did
make the revisions or we feel like we made the revisions that really will hopefully
alleviate the concerns based on the long stretch of street and we do -- we share
those concerns. With the elementary school going in over here, we feel -- you
know, it's kind of a reverse impact of new development, we probably will be
seeing more of the traffic from Rockhampton coming through our subdivision
when it's built to go to the YMCA as it goes to the elementary school ultimately
there. So, just want to point out the open space landscaped water feature, there
is not planned to be a pathway there, but you can see there is some access
nodes along that the people can go and hang out and recreate there. And, then,
the landscaped area here, it includes the hillside behind those lots and, then, the
top of it will have a flat area with a pathway walking area and the other cool thing,
the swimming pool that we are planning is going to be on top of that ridge line, so
it's going to have a view looking down ove r the park area down below it, tot lot
down at the bottom and, then, a really neat opportunity to put lik e a turf hillside
into the park, do some really fun contouring. I can see some kids out there in the
winter grabbing their sleds and running out there in the summer, running home
with grass stains all over them. I know I would have done that. So, that's --
that's really the design for the community. It's got a lot more open space than a
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 58 of 75
lot of the subdivisions that you guys see, pushing 20 percent. It's got more
amenities than -- than are required by your code. This is an example -- I went
and took it, actually, two days ago out at Foxtail. This is what we have done with
the ditch out there. I have got experience -- I grew up here, but I have
experience developing in California and other places and I looked at these
ditches and think what a real opportunity to, you know, open them up and turn
them into something, why put them underground everywhere, so that's what we
did with the drain. Rockhampton has done the same thing. We think it looks
really nice, so we would like to landscape along it and make a little feature. So,
the main issue, as Bill brought up, is really the question on the block length. I'd
like to point out two major changes that we made from our original submittal. I
would like to go on record and say I still support our original submittal. The
reason is we -- we like the entry configured this way, because they are entering
into the park. It's more of a statement. It would be a really cool thing. We did
make this change. You will see the entry is reconfigured to push it further into
the project. What we lose is the T intersection into the park. It's now kind of
rounding the corner by the park. It changed the configuration of the lots so it
would be a cul-de-sac -- excuse me -- so, the shared drive that I'm not too
concerned about. It was more just the statement entry feeling there. And, then,
another big change here is to the intersection. It was a great question by one of
the Commissioners, is that going to be a controlled intersection and that would
be the purpose of T'ing Auckland into the other street to add a stop sign there
and before you will notice we had some traffic control devices in there. They
helped, but nothing makes you slow down like a stop sign and so, really, the
whole purpose of the code in block length is not to have these huge long
highways inside neighborhoods. We think that this intersection really achieves
the purpose of the code to slow traffic down. He mentioned there is -- there is
another 500 and some feet in the neighborhood next door. We would still leave
the pinch down right at the property line, which also includes the pedestrian
crossing. That actually is one of the exceptions in the code for block length and
having a waiver for the -- for the block length. So, PowerPoint 101 is never put
this many words on a slide, but, basically, this -- this is the code as it relates to
block length. I almost put everything on there, because, strangely enough, we hit
every exception on there, except for one. There is four. So, the typical
maximum is 750 feet. Exception A allows for that to be increased to a thousand
feet in the event that there is a pedestrian crossing from an open space to an
open space, which, coincidentally, we have one of those right on the property
line, so we -- back up. The pedestrian crossing between the neighborhood and
the intersection would be, you know, allowed for a waiver to increase that
amount. The next waiver amount or increase goes up to 1,200 feet when you
have steep slopes in excess of ten percent. Another reason would be a large
waterway or irrigation facility. We have that on both the south side and the north
side. So, we have a really unique feature in the project that kind of just creates
this corridor right through the middle. So, what we have done and what we have
been able to do there is by making these changes is to bring on our property that
north side down under 1,200 feet, so, you know, the code really is related to our
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 59 of 75
property and we do comply with that 1,200 foot maximum block length. You will
notice there on this little diagram, pardon the crudeness of it, you know, the 535
feet in Rockhampton, we have got a segment that's 570 feet. I view that -- oh, I
should probably read you the last block length waiver item that's Item D, which is
in the event that there is a 90 degree turn in a roadway, that may constitute a
break in the block face. So, what we have done is we have turned the road to
intersect the other road. That's a 90 degree bend in the block face. The way I
would interpret that would be on our property we would have two separate block
lengths because of that 90 degree intersection there and the stop sign. So, this
is really how it breaks down. There is 535 feet that aren't our property here and
subject to that block length requirement. There is a segment that's 570 feet to
the stop sign. There is another segment that's 560 feet to the intersection. So,
maybe it's just a slight different reading of the code. The way that we read the
code I do believe we are in compliance. We come under the 1,200 feet, even if
you didn't consider that 90 degree. If you do consider 90 degree it really splits it
up. Plus we have got the neck down for the pedestrians, so -- and I made some
squiggly marks on there, that means a slope, and the blue line is the water
feature that we are kind of sandwiched between. This is just a summary of what
I just told you on the reasoning behind and the citations of the city code as to why
we feel that we do comply with that block provision. Oh, I would -- I would note
at the end revised -- the condition one -- 1.1.2B states that Block 3 shall be
reconfigured to comply with the block length standards listed in UDC 11.6C.3F
prior to the Commission hearing. We did resubmit the preliminary plat with those
changes that you have seen tonight. So, with those changes I don't have an
issue with that condition being on there. It's my belief that we comply with that
condition. We do have two fairly minor modification requests that Bill brought up.
We have bollard lighting requirement on that pathway at the top of the ridge. The
reasoning that we are not wanting to do that bollard lighting -- one is it's a private
pathway, it's not part of the city's pathway plan. It won't have a huge amount of
use, but it will have some use. It's in a unique situation being at the top of a ridge
line and behind houses that will have view fences. The ridge line will be seen
from a distance. We would prefer not to have the bollard lights shining at the top
of the ridge line and we would like to have them not shining behind the houses at
the top of that ridge as well, so we would ask for that waiver as a
recommendation from your body. The other one is on the pathway, as Bill
mentioned, it's just a topographic issue. We do have another connection to get
up the hill up against the Rockhampton Subdivision, so there is a way to get up
there from below. You know, you're just talking about 600 foot separation there,
so you will be able to get up to the path from -- from that area and from the open
space down there. But just having the path up that very steep hill is probably not
feasible. We are fine with it on our side. That's it for me. If you have any
questions we are very excited about the project and listen to public testimony and
be back in a minute.
De Weerd: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 60 of 75
Tate: Any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Can I ask Bill real quick? Are there conditions that we can have on
bollard lighting that isn't four feet? Can we do two feet? I mean I'm just looking
-- because I think -- I like the concept of having lighting for safety, but I
understand the not wanting it up in the air concept, so is there -- is that
alternative compliance or is that just for edification?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the condition -- or the
ordinance requires bollard style lighting or an appropriate -- other appropriate
lighting source. So, we do give you that option if you don't go that route, just
provide some kind of safety lighting there. So, it's written in there. There is no
alternative compliance, it's either do that style or propose something else and let
us take it under advisement and I -- I have often liked the thought of maybe
having lighting on fencing up along the pathway and, then, that way the
homeowner can turn it on and turn it off or you can put it on a light cell and it
comes on from dusk to dawn and it's part of the fence . It's integrated. So, you
don't have it against -- along the pathway where people can vandalize it and
destroy it. So, there is other ways to do it. Again, I don't -- I can't turn Mark to an
example, because no one has done it yet. They have either gotten a waiver or --
we don't have that long of a segment where -- we are starting to see more and
more linear open space as part of subdivisions and we probably need to revisit
that code at some point to figure out how we are going to define that and put in
some kind of Public Works standard so we -- so developers and applicants and
property owners understand what really is -- what that commitment means, what
that part of the ordinance means.
Tate: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I might suggest a potential compromise that might
get both of our reasons for having it. We do have the swimming pool in open
space area on top of that and the pathway will be behind the swimming pool
area. I would be willing to have some sort of lighting in front of the swimming
pool which makes up -- you know, it looks like, just eyeballing it, about a third or
a quarter of the -- the distance there, if that's a possible compromise. I think that
would be -- it would look nice around the pool and be buffered from the houses
behind it and having lighting on the pool would look pretty cool at night. We
actually have some string lighting around the Foxtail swimming pool that we do.
It's kind of decorative lighting. So, we could do something like that.
Yearsley: Any other questions? I guess the other thing I have seen before is
they -- they have the bollard lighting that does have down cast, so it doesn't try to
go out, it goes down versus that. So, just really quickly is it Auckland Street that
has the little landscaping in between the -- at the intersection? Now, is there
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 61 of 75
going to be a little pathway to the end of that or is that just going to be
landscaping through there?
Tate: There will be a pathway -- you can kind of see it on this version along the
property with Rockhampton, if that's where you're speaking of.
Yearsley: No. Where you kind of have like the little 90, there is that landscaping
strip there, is that just a pure landscaping strip, no -- no pathway --
Tate: That's correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Tate: And we are actually -- we are kind of in a strange area with utilities,
because we have got Boise city and United Water on one side. We are kind of
the end of the line --
Yearsley: Right.
Tate: -- for water. So, we are going to loop the system inside of our
neighborhood and, then, we are going to have connections on one other side.
Typically if you have development on the other side you're just going to connect
through and you're going to have your -- your looping, so we are actually going to
need to run a water line up there, rather than having a side -- you know, a big
side easement on somebody's lot, we would rather just put in a nice little
landscaped area.
Yearsley: So, that's really, right, landscaping as far as for utilities underneath
the --
Tate: Yeah.
Yearsley: Now, Bill, doesn't Public Works require paving underneath their -- on
top of their utilities or are they okay with that type of stuff?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it depends. I mean if it's
sewer, then, they definitely want a gravel road or something to get to the
manhole. Water would be a little different situation.
Yearsley: Okay. I remember -- because some of those conditions I wasn't quite
sure exactly what the -- the different items were. Okay.
Tate: And that pathway would be drivable up top. So, what we would probably
end up with is a manhole kind of at the top and one down in the bottom --
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 62 of 75
Tate: -- to get to each end.
Yearsley: Okay. I think that's all I have. Anything else? Thank you.
Tatum: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do have one person signed up as a -- a Jananne Keating?
Keating: I'm Jananne Keating. 12528 West Auckland Street. I live just on that
street that's being developed there and, actually, I'm kind of pleased to see this
latest map, because the one on the left is the one that was e-mailed to me a few
days ago, but I haven't seen the -- the V added and I think that will help. One of
our greatest concerns -- and we have a really close street on Auckland, we are
all really good friends and we have a lot of kids. We have 23 kids that are out on
that little clubhouse section at anytime and when we first saw the map that was a
big long straight stretch, that just terrified us. So, I am -- I had requested the --
the narrowing where the two neighborhoods meet and I had requested speed
bumps and I was told that that's really not an option. So, I think that V is the
better option. I just wanted to make sure I understood. Is there going to be a
stop sign at that V then or --
Yearsley: It does look -- appear to. I think that's what they said. Yes.
Keating: Okay. I think that will help a lot, too. And, then, I did have a question
on the pedestrian crossing section where the two neighborhoods meet, what's
that really going to be. Is it going to be a designated crosswalk or -- I guess I'm
just unclear on what that is going to be.
Yearsley: And we will have the applicant explain that, because at this point we
don't know. So, when he comes back up we will have him respond to that
comment.
Keating: Okay. So, I think this looks a lot better. It will at least slow traffic down,
because I know Auckland comes up to Apsley and cars fly 45 miles an hour
down that road and they were -- when we saw that straight stretch we thought
that they would be doing the same in front of our street. The other question I had
was -- it looks like the traffic would be coming down Auckland until the
connection is made on Howry Lane through the neighborhood and down our
street to get to these houses, so I was just looking for clarification on that, too.
Yearsley: The property to the west there, it does have an access already
through Hill Century. So, they will make their main access through there first.
Keating: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 63 of 75
Yearsley: I don't have anybody else signed up wishing to testify. Is there any --
please. Come forward.
Naugle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, my name is Herb Naugle. I live
at 12511 West Lachlan. Rockhampton, Boise. 83709. Bear with me on some of
my comments and questions, because I haven't been privy to all of the
information presented. I would like to amplify the comments given by the
previous presenter, particularly about the increased flow of traffic on Lachlan into
this new subdivision. It appears there is only two access points, the one that will
be built to Amity and the one through Lachlan Street. There are, as she pointed
out, many children there and speed of vehicles is a concern. The subdivision
developer commented that they plan to install speed impediments. I'd like him to
clarify what he meant by that. Second comment relates to -- and this may have
been addressed -- verification of the legitimate water rights that are adequate to
provide sufficient water for irrigation of lawns and common ways in this new
subdivision and if there is any intention of expanding it, I would hope that those
water rights are adequate to include that expansion. Secondarily, the sewage
system. Now he may have alluded to that, but I didn't quite understand how that
would work. I'm hopeful that they will have their own independent sewage
system and that neither their consumption of water or use of the sewage lines will
in any way impinge on Rockhampton or there will not be a future petition by the
subdivision to somehow access our water allotment or use of the sewage system
and while it's apparently been addressed that there will not be speed bumps, I
think that makes it much more important that the subdivision planning somehow
instill speed impediments as he suggested and I'd like that to be a condition, as
the others. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else? The gentleman here in the front.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Nicholls: My name is Dennis Nicholls and I live at 12490 West Mardia in Boise.
93709. That's within the Rockhampton Two Subdivision and I wanted to make a
few comments that may help the Commission understand what's going on. The
western boundary of Rockhampton One and Rockhampton Two actually is the
boundary between The City of Meridian and the Boise city impact zone. That's
why there is probably some strange disconnects with respect to utilities and other
things. The Rockhampton Two Homeowners Association did not receive any of
the drawings and engineering things having to do with this subdivision and so I
have questions just to make sure that the main street going down the new
subdivision -- that actually is Auckland and the secondary connection to the
Rockhampton One Subdivision. That is Lachlan and Macumbo?
Yearsley: We will have to ask the applicant to answer that question.
Nicholls: And the drainage at the bottom, that's actually formed from several
upstream places. It -- for example, our irrigation pond overflow empties into that,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 64 of 75
but also several homeowners on the east side of Cloverdale Road all go into that
one drainage. So, it's good to see that it's not going to be blocked off or anything
like that. The path with lighting along the Cunningham Lateral, the Cunningham
Lateral is actually the legal boundary between the Rockhampton One and
Rockhampton Two subdivisions and on the Boise side it's actually blocked off
with fences and gates to prevent pedestrian accesses for the safety reasons of
kids not falling in the ditch. I think those are just the comments I wanted to make.
For some reason the -- these things were not discussed by previous commenters
and I don't know if the Commissioners have any questions for me?
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Nicholls: Okay. Thank you very much.
Yearsley: Is there anybody else? Yes. Please come forward.
Croft: My name Gordon Croft. Actually, my address now is 94 North Robinson
Road. I'm the former owner of this piece of ground that M3 is going to de velop.
Just wanted to be here to express my approval of their -- their plat and their plan.
My wife Ann and I have lived at that -- on that 40 acre piece for 35 years and we
have seen the Rockhampton development go in and now the -- the Hill Century
Farm development with the Hillsdale School and everything and we just feel like
this is a logical development for this piece of ground and having been there for a
long time, we -- of course, we are interested in how it's developed and seeing the
proposal that M3 has put in there and their plan, we are well pleased with what
they are doing and feel like it would meet the needs of the area, which in our
mind is that there should be a good connectivity between Rockhampton and the
development to the west of us to -- for the fact that a new school and the YMCA
will be going in there, that's going to make a nice community thing for access to
that as well as the facilities that M3 is proposing to put on the property. So,
again, I would just like to express our approva l for this project and hope that --
encourage its approval.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please
come forward. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Brown: Timothy Brown. 4060 East Amity Road where the connection adjacent
property from where Howry Lane hits Amity. I guess I just wanted to make sure
that the water shares were addressed, because we are the feeders -- or the end
of the Cunningham Lateral and how that water is going to be used and affect our
five acre parcel and, then, second, what the exact -- what's going to happen at
the end of Amity as it hits -- or Howry intersects with Amity, is that going to be a
widened access there that's going to be provided or are they just going t o try and
T that off? How does that look I guess in the future. So, if they could answer
those two questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 65 of 75
Yearsley: All right. Thank you.
Brown: Thank you.
Yearsley: Anybody else? All right. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Tate: Mark Tate again for the record. Just to run through some of the questions
that we heard. Appreciate the comments on the change in design. I do feel like
this new design is a much improved design for traffic flow. Somebody had a
question specifically on what I mean by speed impediments and the first
impediment -- it's called a neck down right on the property line there and what
that would basically be is a -- is a bulb in of the street where it goes from a typical
say 32 feet of asphalt down to say 24 feet asphalt. It would create a little planted
area where it bulbs out, along with sidewalk in that bulb. It would probably not be
striped like a crosswalk, it would just be pinched down with the sidewalks lining
up with one another. Ada compliant ramps. That sort of thing. What the effect
of that does -- and we all kind of either do it naturally without noticing, when
you're driving on an narrower street you just naturally slow down and when
you're driving on a street that -- you know, say you're in the north end with cars
on both sides of you and all of a sudden you just have, you know, 15 feet of
space, you just naturally go slower. So, that's what that does. It's been proven
to calm traffic a little bit. The speed impediment would be that intersection and
the stop sign. A 90 degree turn in the road there. So, we feel with those
changes should be sufficient to calm traffic. Another question that came up -- will
traffic go through Rockhampton One or with -- I think it was -- there was only two
connections. I just want to point out we do have six stub connections all over the
property. The main access of this, I should have said earlier, is going to be onto
Highlander Drive, which is right in front of the elementary school. You can
actually see a corner of the collector that will cross this property. That collector
road comes all the way through the Century Farms development. That initially
will be the primary access for this property when the YMCA moves forward,
hopefully within the next year. That road would be extended as Howry Lane up
to Amity and, then, I think the gentleman's last question was what does that
intersection to look like on Amity and to that I would say I am not sure yet. The
YMCA and the ACHD are discussing exactly how Howry Lane is going to work
and how it's going to intersect on Amity. You know, it's called for in the ACHD
master plan as a roundabout at the half mile, which is what Howry is. There is
some discussions about that, whether that's the right thing to have a main access
to a high school be a roundabout. I'm not sure that it is. So, that discussion is
being had right now. But regardless this project is not going to make or break it
one way or another. We know that we are going to pay 15 percent of what ever
the answer is, so -- any other questions on it? One gentleman commented that
they hadn't had the drawings yet. We do, again, rely on the city's list for notice
and radius and that sort of thing for who gets those notices and I believe that was
all the questions, unless you guys had any other questions for --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 66 of 75
Yearsley: I actually have a couple written down.
Tate: Okay.
Yearsley: One is irrigation.
Tate: Oh, that's right. There was a question about water rights and irrigation.
The property does have surface water rights through the Cunningham Lateral.
They actually have water rights through two locations, the Cunningham and they
actually have water right to the south through a user ditch. That user ditch is
feed upstream from the Cunningham, so what -- what we will likely be doing is
not diverting from the south and taking a hundred percent of the water that's
allotted to those properties out of the Cunningham in a pressure irrigation system
that will be owned and operated by the homeowne rs association. We have
looked at the water rights and they are sufficient to serve a development like this.
Yearsley: Okay. So, you won't be attached -- you won't be connecting to
Rockhampton at all, you will have your own separate system?
Tate: Own separate irrigation system and the gentleman that was asking about
sewer services, this is the dividing line between Boise and Meridian, so one
sewer is headed one way and one sewer is headed the other way, so there won't
be any sewer connections. We a re going to sewer out to Highlander through
Century Farms and out that way. That's where we are also going to get our
domestic water from, the City of Meridian, versus them being in United Water. It
makes for a strange thing along the boundary, but that's just kind of where we
are at.
Yearsley: Yeah. The next one was the street name for the second northeast
access into Rockhampton. What street was that?
Tate: I would have to go back and look.
Yearsley: Lachlan.
Tate: Is it shown as Lachlan on the plat? Yeah. And certainly there is a street
name -- strict street naming policy that would make sure that all names are going
to line up, even then the streets don't touch them, they can calm the same thing.
Yearsley: Okay. I think that's the ones I had. Are there any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 67 of 75
Fitzgerald: And I think just to clarify on your -- your access to Amity. You guys
are just donating your -- your right of way and all that stuff and you're just going
to deal with whatever comes from that?
Tate: And we are going -- we are going to -- it's almost an acre of land, even
though it's only 20 feet wide, it's actually a lot of land to be donating. It's worth,
you know -- we didn't -- unfortunately, we didn't get a break on the price, but it's
just -- but, yeah, we will be donating that to -- to ACHD. The whole thing.
Yearsley: Okay. Any other questions?
Tate: I would just add in the staff report there are photos of elevations of homes.
Those came on the similar lot product at Foxtail from some of the builders that
we work with there and, actually, one of the houses on there was last year's St.
Jude dream home, which we were really excited to be -- be a part of on that.
Yearsley: With that I thank you. I don't think there is any other questions.
Tate: Thank you.
Yearsley: I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number
H-2016-0030.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver?
Oliver: I move we close the hearing on H-2016-0030.
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: Comments or thoughts?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- I think it's a -- it's a unique piece of property, but I think it's a very
well thought out project. I think it lends itself well to Rockhampton and to the
neighborhoods around it. I love Bill, but I'm going to disagree with him on the
block length situation. I think when that comes to a 90 degree angle and laid out
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 68 of 75
as the applicant had stated, I think you have a break in that block, whether we
like the layout or not, I think the way that that land is, you're having a difficult
situation and doing something different. Especially the water the way it goes, the
way it's laid out, and the ridge line, I think that the new layout of that -- the block
length makes sense to me. I think with the chokers at the separation between
Rockhampton and the new neighborhood, I think you -- you will alleviate,
hopefully, the screaming traffic down that block. So, I think it's a -- it's a good
project. I think it looks nice. I think it has amenities that blend well into
Rockhampton. I think it -- it will be a good edition to that area. I would like us to
see if we can come up with something that is bollard lighting that makes sense. I
think that they have got enough latitude on that for safety reasons -- and maybe
that's who they work on. I don't know if there is a way to work on the pool or
whatever it is or whatever the Commission feels that that would be worth it. I
think I would like to see it somehow put in place, being that it's one of the things
we have in our code. That's my thoughts.
Yearsley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I agree. Especially with the lighting. I just -- I just -- whether it's
private path or public path, I just think the lighting is a good safety feature all
around. I mean if it doesn't have to be four feet, if it just -- if it's just, you know,
shining down or some illumination back there and I -- I'm going to agree with
Commissioner Fitzgerald -- sorry, Bill. I think that T off is enough to break the
block in this situation, just because of the constraints on either side. Maybe we --
so, I'm not opposed either to I guess continuing to see if they come up with
something else, but I'm not opposed to this layout either.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there any other comments?
McCarvel: No.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Just waiting to see where you guys go.
Yearsley: You want me to go -- oh. Go ahead.
Oliver: Go ahead.
Yearsley: All right. So -- so, my in-laws live over in Rockhampton, not too far
from this place and they have got a couple of T streets that actually have stop
signs and no one stops. That is my concern. This is not as big of a 90 degree
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 69 of 75
that I think you're going to have people not stop, even though that there is a stop
sign there and the concern that I do have is as kids and pedestrians trying to
cross right there thinking that people will stop, causes an unsafe -- unsafe
condition. I do like the choker at the entrance to the subdivision. I think that
does help and I do -- I struggle, I like the idea of the stop sign there, I think it --
but I still am a little concerned about that intersection and how it looks and how it
will play out, because I do believe you will get kids running through there and
there are cars that will not stop and not look -- paying attention to where they are
-- is my concern. And I do agree with Bill, I would -- I would personally like to
continue this until we find out what -- what comes from the -- the ACHD's traffic
study report. Really, there is -- there is one or two connections and both of them
are into existing streets -- subdivisions and streets, especially one by the school.
I just would -- would like to have their comments prior to moving this forward, just
for that fact, especially by the school and what conditions they would like to have
just to make sure we are comfortable before we push this on. So, like I said, I
struggle with the intersection, but I do see what other people -- what typically
happens in these areas, because they will come up and look both ways quickly
and, then, just keep going and can cause a potential problem and that's where I
keep coming back to is I struggle with that long block length.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I wish I would have asked the lady that was -- came up and talked that
lives on Auckland and just ask her if some of her neighbors felt the same way as
she did about the way the design looks. I happen to have a nephew and his wife
and kids that live on Auckland right near that choker where that's going to go in
and they -- they are ready to sell. They are not happy about it. I think the choker
will help slow the traffic down, but I just don't think it will do what it's supposed to
all the way around. And I'm going with the chairman that I just don't think that
that's going to be adequate for that area and I have big concerns about Howry
Lane going up to Amity and what is going to happen there on Amity, especially
when the high school gets in and the elementary goes in, how much traffic is
going to be flowing through there. So, I think it needs a little bit more
continuance and looking at the ACHD to look at the traffic.
Yearsley: Thank you. So, we got two for and two against.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman, I'm not opposed to continue this. I wouldn't mind
seeing other options, because I don't have the vision on how that -- that's going
to get separated. Bill, you say there is other options. I'm not opposed to
continuing it to see other options.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 70 of 75
McCarvel: I don't mind this, but I -- if there is other options I think we ought to
take a look at them now.
Yearsley: No. I agree. And, you know, even with the other options, we still
could come back and say that this is the best alternative.
McCarvel: Yeah. I guess that's what I'm saying. I'd like to have all of it laid out.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: I was just going to say, I think if we do that we are doing our due
diligence to -- before we send it on to City Council.
Fitzgerald: And I agree. I wasn't saying that I was opposed to -- I was just laying
out my thoughts. I think you're going to have people running stop signs no
matter what -- where you are. It doesn't matter. I lived in Woodbridge on that
and it was a T -- dead end into a T and they -- no one ever stopped there either.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: So you could put chokers around that if you wanted to, landscape it
differently, I'm up for that. But I have no problem with the concept of
understanding what Howry is going to look like. I don't have a problem at all,
so --
Yearsley: Okay. So, with that I think we kind of come up to a consensus and we
would -- I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2016-0030 to the hearing date of --
Yearsley: I think it's May 5th.
McCarvel: May 5th. Okay. To allow for the traffic studies and other options on
the plat.
Yearsley: On the block length?
McCarvel: On the block length.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Pogue: Mr. Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 71 of 75
Yearsley: Yes.
Pogue: I will point out that the hearing was closed, so it's just a technicality, but
maybe you need to reopen.
Yearsley: Oh. Absolutely. So, I guess, first of all, I would entertain a motion to
open the public hearing back up for the sole purpose of talking about the traffic
study and the block length issues. Because if we do that, t hen -- if we open it up
for everything we can talk about everything else again . We are only opening it
up for those two purposes is what I'm recommending. Is that correct?
Fitzgerald: I'm confused. Why can't we just continue it?
Yearsley: No. We need to open first and, then, continue is what we need to do.
Fitzgerald: Oh. Okay. That makes sense. Yes. I was confused.
Yearsley: So is what she's saying is we need to open it first and we are going to
open it for the sole purpose to talk about the block length and the ACHD study.
First of all, open and, then, we will continue. Okay.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel?
McCarvel: I move that we open the public hearing on file number H -2016-0030
to further discuss block length and the traffic study to Howry.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. To open the public hearing. All in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Now we need to have a motion to continue the public hearing.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I move to continue file number H-2016-0030 to the hearing date of
May 5th to further -- to allow changes to the block length on the plat and to have
the traffic study on Howry Lane.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 72 of 75
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to continue file number H -2016-0030.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: With that I would like to take a five minute break, if we don't mind,
before we move onto the next two items.
(Recess: 9:12 p.m. to 9:19 p.m.)
Item 5: Other items
A. Request for Approval to Change a Certain Planning
Application Checklist by the Planning Division
Yearsley: So, we would like to start again. We are to Item No. 5, other items.
First one on that one is the request for approval for -- to change a certain
planning application checklist by the planning division and the staff report.
Parson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman -- yeah. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Commission, I will make this one brief. Essentially the UDC -- we have
checklists that accompany our applications and whenever we have a substantial
change to that checklist the UDC requires us to bring that forward to this
Commission for approval and so I did prepare a memo and the revised changes
to that checklist. So, basically, what we are asking you to approve tonight is the
requirement that developers submit autoCAD drawings with their final plat
applications. We have heard from our Public Works Department that as you -- as
you're aware and as you have seen tonight that preliminary plats are often
phased over time and so they just want to make sure that they get that CAD file
and that they can model water and sewer to make sure that that phase can still
be serviced by city utilities and still meet the parameters for fire flows. So, that's
really the only change this evening. So, I will stand for any questions and just
ask that you approve that change to the checklist.
Yearsley: Are there any changes? Or any -- I guess -- sorry. Not changes.
Any comments. Sorry.
Fitzgerald: The only question I guess I would have is will this put any undue
burden on anyone for establishing CAD files? If they are like little dinky
neighborhoods or -- I guess, Bill, is there a threshold that -- you know, as are we
putting any undue burden on small type planners or anything like that? I'm just
asking the question.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 73 of 75
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, we -- we require autoCAD
files with preliminary plats, so it's really just kind of extending that on to final
plats. So, we already get that regardless of the size of the development and
Public Works always has the discretion of whether or not they need it.
Sometimes they require it and sometimes they don't. So, that option is still
available, but we just at least want to be consistent and keep that message going
forward and we haven't seen any -- to much kickback from the developers
providing those autoCAD standards -- or those autoCAD files.
Yearsley: And being in the business most everybody deals with some CAD, so --
because we -- most of it has to be surveyed or something like that and the
surveyors are using CAD. So, I don't see that being an undue burden, so -- so,
with that, if there is -- I guess is there any other comment before I move forward
and, if not, I would entertain a motion to approve the -- the change to the
application checklist.
Fitzgerald: So moved.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve the application checklist
revision. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Ten Mile Urban Renewal District Update by Bill Parsons,
Planning Division
Yearsley: Last one on the list is the Ten Mile Urban Renewal District update by
-- by Bill.
Parsons: I'm also in for Caleb as well tonight. But the planning division wanted
to let you know that we are entertaining establishing an urban renewal district.
Caleb will be back before you sometime in May. So, second hearing -- May 19th
to give you more details on it, but the exhibit before you tonight -- I'm just going to
give you some -- a quick overview of what -- what kind of work has been going
on behind the scenes and what you can expect moving forward, but, essentially,
we want to spur economic development in our Ten Mile area and so the graphic
before you shows what properties will be part of that -- hopefully that urban
renewal district boundary moving forward and so, really, there is a couple points
that I just want to read into the record for you. So, one, the city has engaged a
consultant and he's prepared, basically, what we call an eligibility rep ort and,
basically, there is findings -- there is findings that need to be made that support
that and so that report has been reviewed and approved by Council and
endorsed to move forward. So, basically, the Council approve that and, like I
said, in about a month Caleb will come back, provide you with the study of what
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016
Page 74 of 75
that is, get your blessing -- one of the findings for the Commission is that you
have to make sure that it's consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As you
know a lot of these properties are already annexed and zoned, so you -- you
have made that finding already, but that's one of the -- the requirements. And so
right now what we have here is we -- Caleb has highlighted this for you, so it
looks like City Council wants to support it, the urban renewal agency prepared
and approves the plan, so that that draft plan will be coming forward before you.
So, it looks like the plan will be before City Council on May 3rd and, then, at that
point they will ask for that to go to you and Caleb will pre sent that again on the
19th for your approval -- making that finding that it's consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. And, then, that will have to go back to the taxing entities
for their approval or they may or may not say anything and, then, Council wi ll
hold a public hearing and, then, ultimately, approve the plan. So, really, we just
want to get that early on -- early on your radar and let you know that's coming
down the pipeline. It's key that we get this established by July 1st to do some
legislative changes that are going into effect on that date. So, again, keep that
on your radars and, again, Caleb will be back with more specifics and if you have
any questions for him regarding this, please, direct those to him as well. So, with
that I would complete my presentation or my update and, then, just stand for any
questions you may have.
Yearsley: Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman? Bill, is this going to be overseen by MDC or is that a
whole new board?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, no, the MDC board will
oversee this area as well.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Bill, can you go back to the beginning? So, that green parcel, is it -- is
it actually annexed into the city yet?
Parsons: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, it is. It was the Calnon
property annexation. It recently -- I think the last Commission -- Council meeting
or the previous one it was -- the development agreement was signed and
approved by Council and the ordinance was approved. So, yes, it's officially in
the city at this point.
Yearsley: Okay. And I couldn't remember if that had come through yet or not, so
I wasn't sure, so -- okay. And from what I understand on this -- I think this is only
to help with infrastructure -- bring -- putting in the infrastructure only and not
much else beyond the infrastructure, so it's what -- what I heard what they were
planning to do with this urban renewal, so -- are there any other questions?
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0012
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Drive-Through Establishment within
Three Hundred Feet (300’) of a Residential District and Residence for the Gyro Shack at Fairview
Lakes, Located at 1050 E. Fairview Avenue in the C-G Zoning District, by Fairview Lakes, LLC.
Case No(s). H-2016-0012
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 7, 2016 (Findings on April 21,
2016)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0012
Page 2
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby approved in accord with the
conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016, attached as
Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: April 7, 2016
(Continued from: March 3, 2016)
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Watters, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP (H-2016-0012)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Fairview Lakes, LLC, has applied for a conditional use permit for a drive-through
establishment within 300 feet of a residential district and residence on 0.35 of an acre of land in the
C-G zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on April 7, 2016. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Doug Tamura
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Doug Tamura
v. Staff presenting application: Sonya Watters
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0012 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7,
2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0012 as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2016, for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to
gain your approval with another application.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2016-0012 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 2
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at 1050 E. Fairview Avenue, in the southeast ¼ of Section 6,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East
B. Owner(s):
Doug Tamura
1124 Santa Maria Drive
Boise, ID 83712
C. Applicant:
Fairview Lakes, LLC
1124 Santa Maria Drive
Boise, ID 83712
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 15 and 29, 2016
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 5, 2016
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: February 19, 2016
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Restaurant, retail and a daycare center, zoned C-G
East: Car rental office, zoned C-G
South: Vacant property, zoned C2 in Ada County; and commercial property, zoned C-G
West: Restaurant, zoned C-G
C. History of Previous Actions:
In 2002, this property received the following approvals as part of the larger Fairview Lakes
development: annexation and zoning (AZ-02-011) with a development agreement (DA) (Inst.
102143306); preliminary plat (PP-02-034); and conditional use permit (CUP-02-014) for a
planned development.
In 2003, a final plat (FP-03-033) was approved which included the subject property as Lot 3,
Block 3, Devon Park Subdivision No. 1. A conditional use permit (CUP-03-014) was also
approved to revise the conceptual and detailed planned development approved with CUP-02-
014. Later, another conditional use permit (CUP-03-054) was approved that modified the
original approvals regarding lot configuration and structure size to be consistent with Devon
Park No. 1 (FP-03-033).
In 2004, a detailed conditional use permit (CUP-04-049) was approved for Fairview Lakes
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 3
Phase II of the commercial development along E. Fairview Avenue.
In 2006, a conditional use permit (CUP-06-032) was approved to modify the previously
approved concept plan for Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, Devon Park Subdivision No. 1.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
b. Location of water: Water mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Flume Canal runs across the northeast corner of this site and
has been piped.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not within the flood plain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
This property is designated Mixed Use - Community (MU-C) on the Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use Map (FLUM).
The purpose of MU-C designated areas is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and
dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,
including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. All
developments should have a mix of at least three land use types. Residential uses should comprise a
minimum of 20% of the development area at densities ranging from 6 to 15 dwelling units per acre
(d.u./acre). Non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in with adjacent residential
buildings. See Comprehensive Plan for more information (pages 27-28).
The proposed restaurant with a drive-through is a compatible use in MU-C designated areas. Further,
the proposed use will provide a convenient fast food option for nearby residents and employees as
well as passersby and will contribute to the variety of residential and commercial uses in this area.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to
the proposed use (staff analysis in italics):
“Require all commercial and industrial businesses to install and maintain landscaping.”
(2.01.03B)
There is an existing landscaped street buffer on this site along E. Fairview Avenue that was
installed with the development of the subdivision in accord with UDC Table 11-2C-3.
Additional parking lot landscaping will be required with the development of this sit e in
accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C.
“Locate industrial and commercial uses where adequate water supply and water pressure are
available for fire protection.” (3.04.02A)
There is adequate water supply and pressure available to the site for fire protection.
“Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational
areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C)
The proposed drive-through restaurant will be located within walking distance of nearby
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 4
residents as well as employees and patrons of the surrounding commercial development.
“Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02O)
Direct lot access is not proposed or allowed via E. Fairview Avenue. A cross-access
easement exists between lots in this development and access points via Fairview are already
established for the Fairview Lakes development.
“Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and
along streets.”
Planter islands are proposed in the parking area and are required to be landscaped in
accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C.
“Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial
development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B)
The drive-through is proposed approximately 250 feet from the nearest residential property.
Therefore, noise, odor and air pollution from the proposed use should have a minimal impact
if any on nearby residences.
“Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City Impact.”
(3.05.01J)
The proposed restaurant with a drive-through will contribute to the variety of services
available in this area of the City.
For the above-stated reasons, staff believes the proposed use is consistent with the applicable
comprehensive plan policies and is appropriate in this location.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Purpose Statement of Zone(s): The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail
and service needs of the community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6)
districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated
in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in
proximity to streets and highways.
B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory,
conditional, and prohibited uses in the C-G zoning district. A restaurant is a principal permitted
use in the C-G zoning district; a drive-thru establishment requires conditional use permit approval
when located within 300 feet of a residence, residential use, or another drive-thru establishment.
C. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2B-3 for the C-G
zoning district apply to development of this site.
D. Structure and Site Design Standards: Development is required to comply with the design
standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards
Manual.
IX. ANALYSIS
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP): The applicant requests conditional use permit approval of a
drive-through establishment for the Gyro Shack restaurant within 300 feet of a residential district and
existing residence in the C-G zoning district as required by UDC Table 11-2B-2 and 11-4-3-11. The
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 5
proposed restaurant consists of 400 square feet (s.f.) and will have outdoor patio seating.
The previously approved site plan for this site (CUP-06-032) depicts generally the same layout as the
proposed plan but does not incorporate a structure. Because the square footage of the structure built
on the lot to the east (Enterprise Rent-a-Car) was below the anticipated 2,275 s.f. shown on the
previous site plan by 375 s.f., staff finds the proposed site plan in substantial conformance with the
previous plan.
Specific Use Standards: Drive-through Establishment: Per UDC 11-4-3-11, the following specific
use standards apply to the proposed drive-through use as follows:
All establishments providing drive-through service shall identify the stacking lane, speaker
location, and window location on the plans submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance (CZC) application. These items are not clearly depicted on the site plan; the site
plan submitted with the CZC application shall identify these items.
A site plan shall be submitted that demonstrates safe pedestrian and vehicular access and
circulation on the site and between adjacent properties. At a minimum, the plan shall
demonstrate compliance with the following standards:
Stacking lanes shall have sufficient capacity to prevent obstruction of the public right-of-
way by patrons. The site plan appears to demonstrate sufficient area for stacking that
won’t obstruct the public right-of-way or any interior drive aisles.
The stacking lane shall be a separate lane from the circulation lanes needed for access
and parking. The stacking lanes are separated from the circulation lanes needed for
access and parking.
The stacking lane shall not be located within ten feet (10’) of any residential district or
existing residence. The site plan demonstrates compliance with this standard (the nearest
residence is approximately 250 feet away to the northeast).
Any stacking lane greater than one hundred feet (100’) in length shall provide for an
escape lane. The stacking lane is less than 100 feet in length; therefore, a stacking lane is
not required
The site should be designed so that the drive-through is visible from a public street for
surveillance purposes. The drive-through is not visible from E. Fairview Avenue but is
visible from the driveway via Fairview that is located along the west boundary of the site.
The Police Department has indicated that this provides sufficient visibility of the drive-
through.
The applicant shall provide a 6-foot sight obscuring fence where a stacking lane or window
location adjoins a residential district or an existing residence. The nearest residence is
approximately 250 feet away, therefore this standard is not applicable.
Parking: The UDC requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site in accord with the
standards listed in 11-3C-6B for development in commercial districts. One space is required for every
500 square feet of gross floor area. Therefore, based on 400 square feet, a minimum of one vehicle
parking space is required. A total of 6 spaces are proposed in accord with this standard.
One bicycle parking space is required to be provided for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion
thereof per UDC 11-3C-6G. Therefore, based on 6 vehicle spaces, a minimum of one bicycle parking
space should be provided. Bicycle parking should be depicted on the site plan submitted with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 6
If ADA standards require a handi-cap stall, one should be provided; none are shown on the site
plan.
Landscaping: Street buffer landscaping already exists on this site along E. Fairview Avenue as
required by UDC Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-
8C. Planter islands and perimeter buffers shall include vegetation that results in 70% coverage at
maturity per UDC 11-3B-5N and shall be a minimum of 5 feet in any dimension, measured inside
curbs.
Pathway: A multi-use pathway is not depicted on the Pathways Master Plan for this site. A 5-foot
wide detached sidewalk exists along E. Fairview Avenue in accord with UDC 11-3A-17 that was
installed with the subdivision improvements. A minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway should
be provided from the perimeter sidewalk along E. Fairview Avenue to the main building
entrance (or patio area) in accord with UDC 11-3A-19A.4; a 4-foot wide walkway is shown on
the site plan. The cross-way depicted on the site plan across the driveway for the drive-through
should also be widened to 5 feet.
Access: Access exists from a driveway via E. Fairview Avenue located along the west boundary of
the site; direct access is not allowed to Fairview Avenue.
Fencing: No fencing exists or is proposed on this site.
Lighting: All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed restaurant,
included in Exhibit A.4. The structure is proposed to be a single story in height; building materials are
not depicted on the plans. Detailed review of the structure will take place with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance and Design Review application; the proposed elevations are not approved with
this application.
Design Review (DES): An Administrative Design Review application is required to be submitted for
approval of the proposed structure per UDC 11-5B-8. Development is required to comply with the
design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian Architectural Standards
Manual.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC): A CZC application is required to be submitted to ensure
that all construction and the establishment of the new use complies with all of the provisions of the
UDC.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Previously Approved Conceptual Site Plan
3. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (REVISED)
4. Proposed Building Elevations
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Division
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 7
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Parks Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 8
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 9
Exhibit A.2: Previously Approved Conceptual Site Plan
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 10
Exhibit A.3: Proposed Site/Landscape Plan (REVISED)
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 11
Exhibit A.4: Proposed Building Elevations
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 12
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 Development of this site shall be consistent with the provisions of the development agreement
(Instrument No. 102143306 & 103097614) and all previous conditions of approval as applicable.
1.2 The site/landscape plan shall be revised as follows:
a. Identify the stacking lane, speaker location, and window location on the plans.
b. Provide a minimum of one bicycle parking space on the site in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3C-5C.
c. All required landscape areas shall be at least 70% covered with vegetation at maturity, with
mulch used under and around the plants per UDC 11-3B-5N; depict vegetation on plan
accordingly.
d. Depict a minimum 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway from the perimeter sidewalk along E.
Fairview Avenue to the main building entrance (or patio area) in accord with UDC 11-3A-19A.4.
Also, widen the walkway across the drive-through driveway to 5 feet.
e. If ADA standards require a handi-cap stall, one should be provided.
1.3 All outdoor equipment areas shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and
landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are ful ly contained and out
of view from adjacent properties and public streets per UDC 11-3A-12.
1.4 All lighting on the site shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.5 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of
the new use and to ensure all site improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the
conditions in this report prior to application for building permits, in accord with UDC 11-5B-1.
1.6 The applicant shall submit an application for Administrative Design Review concurrent with the
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site and
building design is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the
City of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Applicant shall be responsible to install sanitary sewer and water services to the proposed use.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department has no concerns with this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department has no comments related to this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Obtain approval from Republic Services for trash enclosure prior to submittal of
Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
ACHD has reviewed the submitted application and has determined that there are no improvements
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 13
required to the adjacent street.
The applicant shall be required to:
1. Pay a traffic impact fee. A traffic impact fee will be due prior to the issuance of a building
permit by the lead agency.
2. Comply with all ACHD Policies and ACHD Standard Conditions of Approval for any
improvements or work in the right-of-way.
3. Obtain a permit for any work in the right-of-way prior to the construction, repair, or
installation of any roadway improvements ( curb, gutter, sidewalk, pavement widening,
driveways, culverts, etc.).
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department had no comments on this application.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 14
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the proposed restaurant
with a drive-through and comply with the dimensional & development regulations of the C-G
zoning district (see Analysis Section IX for more information).
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Staff finds that the proposed use of the property will be harmonious with the UDC and
Comprehensive Plan.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
proposed drive-through establishment should be compatible with residential and commercial
uses in the area and should not adversely change the character of the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this report, the
proposed use will not adversely affect other property in the area.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are currently
available to the subject property. Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately
by all of the public facilities and services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. Staff finds there
will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and nor will they be detrimental
to the community’s economic welfare.
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Staff finds the proposed use of the site as a restaurant with a drive-through establishment will
not be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare of the area.
EXHIBIT A
Gyro Shack at Fairview Lakes – CUP H-2016-0012 PAGE 8
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated
with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0026
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for modification to an existing Conditional Use Permit for a the
purpose of altering the approved building materials for an accessory structure for Church God 7 th
Day, located at 1827 NW 3 rd Street in the R-8 Zoning District, by Glenn Walker, Neudesign
Architecture.
Case No(s). H-2016-0026
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: April 7, 2016 (Findings on April 21,
2016)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by
reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016,
incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-5A.
4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose
expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed.
6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this decision, which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2016-0026
Page 2
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
7. That this approval is subject to the conditions of approval in the attached staff report for the
hearing date of April 7, 2016, incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be
reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the
application.
C. Decision and Order
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for modification to an existing conditional use permit is hereby
approved in accord with the conditions of approval in the staff report for the hearing date of
April 7, 2016, attached as Exhibit A.
D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits
Notice of Two (2) Year Conditional Use Permit Duration
Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum
period of two (2) years unless otherwise approved by the City in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.1.
During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the
conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and
acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or
in the ground. For conditional use permits that also require platting, the final plat must be
signed by the City Engineer within this two (2) year period in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F.2.
Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord
with 11-5B-6.F.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the
use not to exceed one (1) two (2) year period. Additional time extensions up to two (2) years as
determined and approved by the Commission may be granted. With all extensions, the Director
or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian
City Code Title 11.
E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
F. Attached: Staff report for the hearing date of April 7, 2016
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: April 7, 2016
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: Church of God 7 th Day – MCU (H-2016-0026)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Neudesign Architecture, has applied for a modification to the existing conditional use
permit (CUP in 1997) for the purpose of altering the building materials for the accessory structure
from the canvas walls to prefabricated steel panels. The subject property is 6.34 acres of land in the
R-8 zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed MCU with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C of the Staff Report.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on April 7, 2016. At the public
hearing, the Commission moved to approve the subject CUP request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Glenn Walker
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application: Josh Beach
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of April 7,
2016, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City
Council of File Number H-2016-0026 as presented during the hearing on April 7, 2016, for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial and what the applicant could do to
gain your approval with another application.)
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 2
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2016-0026 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The subject property is located at 1827 NW 3 rd St., in the southeast ¼ of Section 1, Township 3
North, Range 1 West
B. Owner(s):
General Council Churches of God
1827 NW 3 rd Street
Meridian, ID 83642
C. Applicant:
Glenn Walker, Neudesign Architecture
725 E. 2 nd Street
Meridian, ID 83642
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit modification. A public hearing is required
before the Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code
Title 11, Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: March 21 and April 4, 2016
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: March 10, 2016
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 29, 2016
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The site is developed with multiple structures that are used for
religious worship.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Single Family Residential properties, zoned R-4
East: Undeveloped land, zoned RUT (Ada County)
South: Commercial property, zoned L-O
West: Manufactured Home Park, zoned R-8
C. History of Previous Actions:
• In 1997, a conditional use permit (CUP-09-97) was approved to allow the construction of an
84 foot by 60 foot wide metal building with canvas sides.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 3
b. Location of water: Water mains to provide service to this project currently exist.
c. Issues or concerns: None.
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Settlers Canal runs along the northeast corner of this site.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not within the flood plain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this site as Medium Density
Residential (MDR). MDR designated areas allow smaller lots for residential purposes within City
limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre
(d.u./acre). Religious worship is an approved use within the R-8 zoning designation, as well as the
MDR Comprehensive Plan designation.
The existing and future use of this site with a steel structure was deemed consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and approved through a conditional use permit (CUP-09-97) in 1997.
Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application and apply to
the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics ):
• “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation and
development requests, and the impacts on services. “ (3.04.01H)
Staff has received comments from other city departments on this application. The Building
Division and the Fire Department indicated that the property will need to meet the various
requirements of the International Fire Code and International Building Code.
• “Designate land for a variety of uses.” (3.05.01H)
This parcel has various buildings located on it, including this existing building that is used
for an annual camp service.
• “Promote area beautification and community identity through building and site design, signs,
and landscaping.” (2.01.04G)
Staff feels that the site is underdeveloped for the type and size of use located on the property.
Staff feels that the applicant should install additional parking and landscaping in the areas
where additional asphalt is being added as part of this application.The site will need to meet
the requirements of UDC11-3A-19, which are the site design standards, as well as UDC 11-
3B, which contain the landscaping standards. Specifically these standards set forth the
standards and requirements for parking lots and parking lot landscaping.
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 4
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
The UDC (11-5B-6G.3) requires modifications to existing conditional use permits to be considered
by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing. The Commission may modify the
conditions, limitations and/or scope of the permit, in accord with the limitations and requirements of
subsection F in UDC 11-5B-6.
IX. ANALYSIS
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant requests a modification to the conditional use permit (CUP) approved in 1997 for the
General Council Church of God 7 th Day steel building with canvas walls. The building is used for a
one week period during the year for their annual camp meeting, so its use is very limited. The church
use is currently established on the site. The modification to the existing conditional use permit is
solely related to the type of building material that is approved for the structure.
The site plan included in Exhibit A.2 shows the footprint of the existing building. The building will
not be enlarged or moved as a part of this application. New paving is also depicted on the submitted
site plan. Staff recommends that this area, not only be paved, but also be improved with additional
parking in accord with the standards set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5. Further, staff recommends that
a bike rack, capable of supporting 10 bikes, be installed within the new parking area.
Because staff is recommending that additional parking be added with the subject application the new
parking area must also comply with the landscape standards set forth in UDC 11-3B-8C. With the
submittal of the certificate of zoning compliance application, the site plan shall be revised to
include the requested changes.
The applicant will also be required to obtain certificate of zoning compliance (CZC) and design
review (DES) approval for the design of the site. The site will need to meet the requirements set forth
in the UDC 11-3A-19. Administrative design review (review of the architectural standards) for the
building will not be required, because the property is screened from vision from all adjacent
properties.
The applicant will need to coordinate with the Building and Fire Departments to ensure that the
proposed building will meet the current fire and building codes.
In summary, staff recommends approval of the application with the conditions included in Exhibit B
of the staff report.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 02/22/16)
3. Proposed Elevations (dated: 02/22/16)
B. Agency & Department Comments/Conditions
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 5
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 6
Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 02/22/16)
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 7
Exhibit A.3: Architectural Elevations (dated: 02/22/16)
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 8
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The applicant shall comply with all previous conditions of approval associated with this site
(CUP-1997).
1.2 The applicant shall submit a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Administrative Design
Review application for approval of the site layout. The new parking area must comply with the
applicable design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19. The proposed changes to the building
materials are not subject to design review standards due to its limited visibility from the adjacent
properties.
1.3 The site plan prepared by neUdesign Architecture, dated 02/22/16, must be revised with the
submittal of the CZC application as follows:
a. The new paved area depicted on the site plan must be improved with additional
parking in accord with the standards set forth in UDC Table 11-3C-5.
b. Install a bike rack, capable of supporting 10 bikes, within the new parking area.
c. Additional parking shall be depicted on the site plan to accommodate the existing
buildings on the site.
d. The new parking area shall comply with the landscape standards set forth in UDC
11-3B-8C.
e. The site shall meet the requirements for parking lots that are set forth in UDC 11-
3A-19.
1.4 The applicant shall complete all required improvements prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy. It is unlawful to use or occupy any building or structure until the Building Official
has issued a Certificate of Occupancy.
1.5 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions does not relieve the applicant of responsibility
for compliance.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no concerns with this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The applicant shall to coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure that the proposed building
will meet the current fire codes.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Republic Services did not submit comments on this application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 ACHD has no comments on this application.
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 9
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department did not submit comments on this application.
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day - A-2016-0026 PAGE 10
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to accommodate the future
use and the dimensional & development regulations of the applicable districts (see Analysis
Section IX for more information).
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
The Commission finds that the planned use of the property is consistent and harmonious with
the UDC and Comprehensive Plan.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the existing and future development should be compatible with other commercial uses
in the area and should not adversely change the character of the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
The Commission finds that if the applicant complies with the conditions outlined in this
report, the future use on the site will not adversely affect other property in the area.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
The Commission finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water, refuse disposal, and irrigation are
currently provided to the subject property. The Commission finds that the proposed use will
be served adequately by all of the public facilities and services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
The applicant will be financing any improvements required for development. The
Commission finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and nor
will they be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare.
Exhibit A
Church of God 7 th Day – MCU H-2016-0026 PAGE 11
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Staff finds the existing and planned use of the site will not be detrimental to any persons,
property or the general welfare of the area.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds that there should not be any health, safety or environmental problems associated
with the proposed use. Further, staff finds that the proposed use will not result in the
destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature of major importance.
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
Ap
r
i
l
2
1
,
2
0
1
6
It
e
m
#
4
B
:
W
h
i
t
e
a
c
r
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Ph
a
s
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
f
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
l
o
n
g
N
.
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
R
o
a
d
Pr
o
d
u
c
t
t
y
p
e
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Al
l
e
y
L
o
a
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
St
a
f
f
’
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
p
l
a
t
l
a
y
o
u
t
:
1.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
m
i
c
r
o
p
a
t
h
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
W
.
F
a
l
l
e
n
L
e
a
f
D
ri
v
e
t
o
N
.
E
l
s
i
n
o
r
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
2.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
i
c
n
i
c
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
n
d
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
o
n
L
o
t
1
,
B
l
o
c
k
3
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
l
a
y
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
3.
Mo
v
e
N
.
A
m
b
e
r
c
r
e
e
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
W
.
H
a
l
p
i
n
St
r
e
e
t
a
n
d
W
.
W
a
n
d
a
St
r
e
e
t
)
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
t
o
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
p
r
o
v
i
de
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
t
h
e
pa
r
k
.
4.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
m
i
c
r
o
p
a
t
h
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
W
.
K
a
i
b
a
b
T
r
a
i
l
St
r
e
e
t
t
o
N
.
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
R
o
a
d
.
5.
St
a
f
f
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
L
o
t
s
1
8
-
2
1
,
B
l
o
c
k
8
b
e
r
e
c
o
n
f
ig
u
r
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
w
o
l
o
t
s
t
a
k
e
ac
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
N
.
E
l
s
i
n
o
r
e
W
a
y
a
n
d
t
w
o
l
o
t
s
t
a
k
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
N
.
P
r
i
c
e
P
l
a
c
e
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1
.
1
.
1
(
J
)
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
p
u
b
l
i
c
w
o
r
k
s
o
n
t
h
e
t
i
m
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
th
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
.
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
w
h
e
n
w
i
th
t
h
e
T
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
h
o
m
e
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
s
L
o
t
1
7
,
B
l
o
ck
8
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
p
h
a
s
e
o
n
e
(
1
)
o
f
th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
c
i
t
y
u
t
i
l
it
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
s
i
x
t
y
(
6
0
)
d
a
y
s
o
f
a
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
an
d
t
a
k
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
a
d
d
s
t
r
e
e
t
n
a
m
e
h
e
r
e
.
Ad
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1
.
1
.
1
(
K
)
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
o
b
t
a
i
n
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
mp
l
i
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
o
r
a
l
l
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
h
o
m
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
u
b
di
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
St
a
f
f
’
s
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
P
l
a
t
It
e
m
#
4
C
:
T
h
i
r
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
q
u
a
r
e
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
D
:
D
u
t
c
h
B
r
o
s
.
C
o
f
f
e
e
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
Re
v
i
s
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Re
v
i
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Re
v
i
s
e
d
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
E
:
G
r
a
n
t
o
n
S
q
u
a
r
e
N
o
.
2
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
2725 1747 2689 2649 1853 2667 1833 1855 18 1852 1830
16
3
2
16
4
0
24
9
9
16
6
2
16
2
4
17
2
2
1883 1837 1864 2453 1856
16
4
3
17
0
3
181725 1769 1817 1815 1812 1834 1856 2701 2692 2625 2710
14
7
7
1840 1842
24
4
7
16
5
5
1815 1822 1843 1835 1869
13
9
7
2765
16
2
1
16
6
5
16
8
7
2783 1837 18 2747 1813 1831 2734
1
7
0
5
1
7
3
7
2650
26
5
1
2716
1
7
2
3
16
2
9
17
0
0
1784
16
8
6
17
1
6
24
7
5
25
5
2
24
3
8
1866 1859 1818 1741 1738 1754 1796
16
7
3
2412
16
4
8
24
6
4
16
7
6
17
3
6
16
9
9
25
2
0
24
8
8
1891892421 2479 2505
26
7
8
1848
26
5
6
1
7
2
1
1763
1
7
0
7
14
9
3
14
5
9
14
3
1
14
0
9
24
4
8
24
3
4
15
5
3
15
1
9
25
9
8
14
2
1
14
8
1
27
1
6
1
6
5
7
1
6
7
3
27
0
1
16
4
1
2672
1
6
2
5
1
6
1
7
2694
27
0
4
26
3
4
26
7
3
1
6
3
3
2628
1
6
8
9
1751
17
1
4
24
6
2
24
0
6
27
7
0
27
4
0
24
9
2
25
1
0
25
0
2
15
2
4
26
1
6
26
2
8
25
9
3
14
5
7
14
6
9
14
7
3
14
4
5
14
8
3
14
8
2
14
3
4
24
9
0
24
2
0
14
7
9
24
7
6
24
8
9
14
8
2
26
1
1
25
7
5
24
4
8
24
1
8
15
3
7
15
0
1
27
3
8
25
2
3
25
0
7
26
2
5
25
2
0
24
8
0
15
0
8
25
9
4
26
3
0
14
0
5
14
7
4
14
3
3
27
4
6
25
2
4
25
7
8
26
1
0
25
3
0
L-
O
RU
T
R-
8
N
L
o
c
u
s
t
G
r
o
v
e
R
d
a d o w g r a s s
S t
N Valm et Pl
E C h e m i s e S t
E L o c h m e a d o w C t
E C h a l l i s S t
NSequoiaAve E L o c h m eNChiantiWay
N
V
a
l
m
e
t
A
v
e
E G l
N Lochness W a y
N
L
o
c
h
n
e
s
s
A
v
e
N
S
u
m
m
e
r
b
r
o
o
k
A
v
e
E
S a g e
H e n
C t
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Fi
n
a
l
P
l
a
t
It
e
m
#
4
F
:
H
o
w
r
y
L
a
n
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
M
a
p
""d
RSW
R4
RU
T
C-
N
R-
4
R-
8
S
E
a
g
l
e
R
d
E
A m i t y
R d
E
L a c h l a n
S t
S
S
t
o
c
k
e
n
h
a
m
W
a
y
E
L
a
G
r
a
n
g
e
S
t
E
R o c k h a m p t o n
S t
E L a c h l a n
S t
E
L a
G r a n g e
S
t
S
M
a
r
t
i
n
e
l
L
n
S
T
i
n
d
a
r
i
s
P
l
S
H
o
w
r
y
L
n
S
W
a
y
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
S
P
a
l
a
t
i
n
o
A
v
e
HI
L
L
'
S
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
F
A
R
M
SU
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
DI
A
M
O
N
D
VI
E
W
A
S
S
I
S
T
E
D
LI
V
I
N
G
HI
L
L
S
C
E
N
T
U
R
Y
FA
R
M
P
H
A
S
E
1
LO
G
A
N
C
R
E
E
K
SU
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
HI
L
L
S
CE
N
T
U
R
Y
F
A
R
M
PH
A
S
E
2
BL
A
C
K
R
O
C
K
LI
F
T
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
HO
W
R
Y
L
A
N
E
SU
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
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
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
RE
V
I
S
E
D
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
R-4
R-8
R
-
8
R-4
R-
8
R-
8
R-8
R
-
8
N
A
M
B
E
R
C
R
E
E
K
A
V
E
N ELSINORE AVE
N
A
L
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
E WHITE SANDS ST
W KAIBAB TRAIL ST
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
N
P
R
I
C
E
A
V
E
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
W KAIBAB TRAIL ST
N
A
L
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
PUBLIC ALLEY
W FALLEN LEAF DR
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
W YOSEMITE DR
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
W YOSEMITE ST
N
A
L
E
S
T
E
R
A
V
E
E HALPIN DR E HALPIN DR
ME
R
I
D
I
A
N
R
O
A
D
Development Features
Site Location Map
Entry Sign Concept
Development Features
SCALE: 1"= 70'-0"
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, P.C.
Site Location Map
April 20, 2016
Entry Sign Concept
50.-*/40/$0/46-5*/(*/$
20
16
17
21
10 12111
5
1234
10
R-4
R-
8
N
P
R
I
C
E
A
V
E
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
W YOSEMITE DR
N
E
L
S
I
N
O
R
E
A
V
E
50.-*/40/$0/46-5*/(*/$
25' BUFFER
SHRUB AND PERENNIAL GRASSES WITH
WOOD CHIPS IN A MEANDERING
PLANTER BETWEEN THE FENCE AND
FRONT OF BERM
CONIFERS
BARK MULCH ON THE
BACK OF BERM
LARGE SHADE TREES
6' VINYL FENCE ON
REAR LOT LINE
MEANDERING LAWN TO
BACK OF SIDEWALK
4' +/-
MERIDIAN ROAD
R.
O
.
W
.
SIDEWALK
GRAVEL SHOULDER
RESIDENTIAL LOT
LOW
POINT
50.-*/40/$0/46-5*/(*/$
I �
I I
I E. BOWER ST
-r - -
co
c I
LOTS 7-12 I
I I
a-- I
— — — —W(8")—
E.
w(a")—
E. ADA ST.
Q
Z
O
0
Ld
0
—ALLEY---s(8")----'c^o---
SSMH
LID ELEV. = 2607.94'
INV. IN (S) = 2599.66'
END OF CHANNEL (N)
E. KING ST.
WILLIAMS ADDITION
TO MERIDIAN AMENDED
LOTS 1-7
z'z
12�h 7� 1282.95'
13 18 V
SECTION CORNER
CP&F No.
98117248
00
L1
Q)
I Q)
I Z
I
I I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
00
N I
I
LQ
N
N
,N
O
O
PRELIMINARY PLAT
PLATTING OF THIRD STREET SQUARE SUBDIVISION
PORTIONS OF LOTS 7, 8, AND 9 OF BOWN'S SECOND ADDITION,
BOOK 5 OF PLATS, PAGE 233, ADA COUNTY RECORDS.
LYING WITHIN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 07, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M.
CITY OF MERIDIAN COUNTY OF ADA STATE OF IDAHO
AMENDED PLAT OF BOWN'S SECOND ADDITION
LOTS 4-6
ft E. FRANKLIN RD.
ko
1118.76'
— — — — — N 89° 19'28" E 2401.71'
BASIS OF BEARING
i
MERIDIAN
BUSINESS PARK
RECORD OF SURVEY
No. 6 74 4
R•
1/4 CORNER
CP&F No.
104161986
GENERAL SITE NO TES:
PROPERTY SIZE: 75,648 S.F. ±
1.737 ACRES ±
INTENDED USE: RESIDENTIAL
SITE ADDRESS: E. THIRD ST.
PARCEL ID No.: R1042150858
FEMA MAP No. 16001CO232
ZONE X
PANEL 0232 H
FEBRUARY 19, 2003
•
LEGEND
OWNER/DEVELOPER
TRENTEN W. SELTZER &
THERESA SELTZER
3072 WILDFLOWER LN.
ENCINITAS, CA 92024
APPLICANT
ROGER SMITH
1693 S. CORONADO AVE.
BOISE, IDAHO 83709
(208)-870-1015
SURVEYOR
NATHAN J. DANG
ACCURATE SURVEYING
AND MAPPING, P.C.
1602 W HAYS ST. SUITE 306
BOISE, ID 83702
208-863-4198
BASIS OF BEARING
N 89" 19'28" E BETWEEN THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER AND THE
SOOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M.
LINE TABLE
LINE
BOUNDARY LINE
- -
- CENTERLINE
- -
- - SECTION LINE
E140.00'
PARCEL LINE
EASEMENT
W
w EXISTING WATER LINE
P
P EXISTING POWER
EP EP
EP EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT
x x
x EXISTING FENCE LINE
- - -s(4")- -
-s(4")- - - PROPOSED SEWER LINE
- - -W(8")- -
-W(8")- - - PROPOSED WA TER LINE
— ——PI(4")— -
-Pi(4")— — PROPOSED PRESSURIZED
IRRIGATION LINE
•
FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN
•
FOUND 1/2" IRON PIN,
O
SET 5/8" IRON PIN, PLS 11463
A
CALCULATED POINT
8O
PLATTED LOT NUMBER (R1)
�Q
EXISTING WATER VALVE
OM
EXISTING WATER METER
EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
�D
EXISTING STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
PROPOSED SAND AND GREASE TRAP
REFERENCES
RI = RECORD OF
SURVEY No. 3501
R2 = RECORD OF
SURVEY No. 6744
R3 = BOWN'S SECOND ADDITION. BOOK 5 OF PLATS,
PAGE 233, ADA COUNTY RECORDS
R4 = MERIDIAN BUSINESS PARK. BOOK 70 OF PLATS,
PAGE 7158
R5 = RECORD OF
SURVEY No. 9057
BASIS OF BEARING
N 89" 19'28" E BETWEEN THE SOUTH 1/4 CORNER AND THE
SOOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 7, T.3N., R. 1E., B.M.
LINE TABLE
LINE
BEARING
I DISTANCE
1-1
IS 90°00'00"
E140.00'
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR
I, Nathan J. Dang, do hereby certify that I am a
Registered Land Surveyor, licensed by the State of
Idaho, and that this map has been prepared from
an actual survey made on the ground under my
direct supervision, and that this map is an
accurate representation of said survey and that it
is in conformity with the Corner Perpetuation and
Filing Act, Idaho Code 55-1601 through 55-1612.
Nathan J. Dang,
P.L.S. 11463
AV
07 0
,C
S 'V4'ozq� a
1602 W. Hays St., Suite 306
Boise, Idaho 83702
(208) 863-4198
www.accuratesurveyors.com
\STF,��.
� o
11463
OF P�
\NJ.OP%
JOB NO.
15-167
DRAWN BY:
PGL2
SHEET:
1 OF 1
Ho
w
r
y
L
a
n
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
&
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Ap
r
i
l
2
1
,
2
0
1
6
Th
e
S
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
Hi
l
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
r
e
-
z
o
n
e
&
c
o
m
p
p
l
a
n
am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
f
r
o
m
LD
R
t
o
m
i
x
e
d
-
u
s
e
,
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Hi
l
l
s
d
a
l
e
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Sc
h
o
o
l
,
Y
M
C
A
,
Pu
b
l
i
c
L
i
b
r
a
r
y
,
C
i
t
y
Pa
r
k
Ce
n
t
u
r
y
F
a
r
m
s
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
~
2
2
0
ac
r
e
s
,
R
-
8
Z
o
n
i
n
g
Ho
w
r
y
L
a
n
e
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
T
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
Ot
h
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Cu
n
n
i
n
g
h
a
m
La
t
e
r
a
l
–
a
t
to
p
o
f
r
i
d
g
e
Dr
a
i
n
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
d
r
a
i
n
i
n
Ro
c
k
H
a
m
p
t
o
n
Ho
w
r
y
L
a
n
e
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Fo
x
t
a
i
l
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
Di
t
c
h
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
We
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
o
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
th
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
i
n
a
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
ma
n
n
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
F
o
x
t
a
i
l
Es
t
a
t
e
s
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
t
c
h
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1
.
1
.
2
.
b
–
B
l
o
c
k
Le
n
g
t
h
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
Re
v
i
s
e
d
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
De
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
st
r
e
e
t
l
e
n
g
t
h
,
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
en
t
r
y
&
p
a
r
k
Modified intersection to include 90 degree intersection and stop sign
Me
r
i
d
i
a
n
C
i
t
y
C
o
d
e
1
1
-
6
C
-
3
F
–
Bl
o
c
k
F
a
c
e
1.
L
e
n
g
t
h
I
n
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
:
I
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
ia
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
n
o
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
s
e
v
en
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
i
f
t
y
f
e
e
t
(
7
5
0
'
)
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
a
n
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
e
t
o
r
a
l
l
e
y
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
a
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
su
b
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
F
3
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
3.
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
s
:
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
a
r
e
a
l
l
o
we
d
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
l
e
n
g
t
h
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
b
e
l
o
w
,
i
t
i
s
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
m
o
s
t
b
l
o
c
k
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
ex
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
:
a.
Wh
e
r
e
a
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
mu
m
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
m
a
y
b
e
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
u
p
t
o
o
n
e
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
f
eet (1,000') in length
in
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
;
a
n
d
u
p
t
o
s
e
v
e
n
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
i
f
t
y
f
e
e
t
(
7
5
0
'
)
i
n
l
e
n
g
th
i
n
t
h
e
T
N
-
C
a
n
d
T
N
-
R
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
on
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
fr
o
m
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
ol
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
s
u
b
s
ec
t
i
o
n
11
-
3
G
-
3
B
o
f
t
h
i
s
t
i
t
l
e
,
a
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
o
r
a
co
m
m
o
n
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
b.
Th
e
c
i
t
y
c
o
u
n
c
i
l
m
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
a
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
u
p
t
o
o
n
e
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
e
e
t
(
1
,
2
0
0
'
)
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
w
h
e
r
e
block design is
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
b
y
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
:
a
n
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
a
r
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
r
e
e
t
o
r
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
s
t
r
e
e
t
,
r
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
t
r
a
c
k
s
,
st
e
e
p
s
l
o
p
e
s
i
n
e
x
c
e
s
s
o
f
t
e
n
pe
r
c
e
n
t
(
1
0
%
)
,
an
a
b
u
t
t
i
n
g
u
r
b
a
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
t
h
n
o
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
a
l
l
e
y
o
r
s
t
r
e
e
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
r
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
e
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
o
r
p
a
r
k
,
a large waterway
an
d
/
o
r
a
l
a
r
g
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
c.
W
h
e
r
e
a
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
x
c
ee
d
s
e
v
e
n
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
i
f
t
y
f
e
e
t
(
7
5
0
'
)
i
n
a
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
,
o
r
f
i
v
e
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
e
e
t
(5
0
0
'
)
i
n
t
h
e
T
N
-
C
a
n
d
T
N
-
R
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
s
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
j
u
s
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
t
o
w
h
y
e
x
p
li
c
i
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
i
s
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
l
ock
la
y
o
u
t
i
s
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
o
r
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
r
e
qu
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
d.
A
n
i
n
e
t
y
d
e
g
r
e
e
(
9
0
°
)
t
u
r
n
i
n
a
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
m
a
y
c
o
n
s
ti
t
u
t
e
a
b
r
e
a
k
i
n
t
h
e
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
v
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
w
h
e
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
e
s
s
o
f
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
s
e
v
e
n
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
i
f
t
y
f
e
e
t
(
7
5
0
'
)
i
n
l
e
n
g
t
h
.
Where
an
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
s
a
n
i
n
e
t
y
d
e
g
r
e
e
(
9
0
°
)
t
u
r
n
t
o
b
r
e
a
k
u
p
a
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
,
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
4.
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
B
l
o
c
k
F
a
c
e
:
I
n
n
o
c
a
s
e
s
h
a
l
l
a
b
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
e
x
c
e
e
d
o
n
e
t
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
t
w
o
h
u
n
d
r
e
d
f
e
e
t
(
1
,
2
0
0
'
)
.
5.
M
e
a
s
u
r
i
n
g
B
l
o
c
k
F
a
c
e
:
B
l
o
c
k
f
a
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
ed
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
d
g
e
o
f
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
t
o
n
e
a
r
e
d
g
e
of
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
w
a
y
o
f
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
a
l
l
e
y
s
a
s
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
(
O
r
d
.
1
3
-
1
5
5
5
,
5
-
1
4
-
2
0
1
3
)
Re
v
i
s
e
d
B
l
o
c
k
L
e
n
g
t
h
53
5
’
57
0
’
56
0
’
90
d
e
g
r
e
e
t
u
r
n
(
a
n
d
st
o
p
s
i
g
n
)
b
r
e
a
k
s
u
p
bl
o
c
k
p
e
r
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
d
.
Sl
o
p
e
o
v
e
r
1
0
%
gr
a
d
e
o
n
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
bl
o
c
k
a
n
d
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
dr
a
i
n
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
si
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
l
o
c
k
p
e
r
pa
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
b
q
u
a
l
i
f
y
fo
r
1
2
0
0
’
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
be
t
w
e
e
n
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
s
an
d
t
r
a
i
l
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
im
p
r
o
v
e
s
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
lo
n
g
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
p
e
r
pa
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
a
.
Bl
o
c
k
L
e
n
g
t
h
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
•
Re
a
s
o
n
s
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
b
l
o
c
k
l
a
y
o
u
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
–
Ci
t
y
c
o
d
e
a
l
l
o
w
s
f
o
r
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
u
p
t
o
1
2
0
0
’
w
i
t
h
h
i
l
l
s
i
d
e
a
nd
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
t
c
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
.
(
1
1
-
6
C
-
3
F
-
b
)
–
Ou
r
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
IN
C
L
U
D
I
N
G
th
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
do
e
s
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
–
Th
e
9
0
d
e
g
r
e
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
t
o
p
s
i
g
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
c
o
u
n
t
a
s a new
bl
o
c
k
a
s
i
t
w
i
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
s
t
o
p
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
a
n
d
m
a
k
e
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
more
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
r
i
e
n
d
l
y
.
(
1
1
-
6
C
-
3
F
-
d
)
–
An
y
a
t
t
e
m
p
t
t
o
c
u
l
-
d
e
-
s
a
c
t
h
e
s
t
r
e
e
t
w
i
l
l
h
i
n
d
e
r
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
ion within
th
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
–
Re
v
i
s
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
o
m
p
l
i
e
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
1
.
1
.
2
.
b
t
h
a
t
s
t
a
t
e
s
, “Block 3
sh
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
t
o
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
b
l
o
c
k
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
t
a
n
dards
li
s
t
e
d
i
n
U
D
C
1
1
-
6
C
-
3
F
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
”
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
C
l
a
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
1.
1
.
2
.
g
–
H
o
w
r
y
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
w
a
n
t
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
w
e
f
ul
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
W
e
a
g
r
e
e
t
o
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
.7
a
c
r
e
s
t
o
A
C
H
D
a
n
d
wi
l
l
a
g
r
e
e
t
o
d
o
t
h
a
t
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
i
t
i
s
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
i
g
h
t
-
of
-
w
a
y
o
r
b
u
f
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
th
a
t
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
.
W
e
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
b
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
to
A
C
H
D
a
n
d
n
o
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
na
l
r
i
g
h
t
-
o
f
-
w
a
y
wo
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
n
H
o
w
r
y
L
a
n
e
.
I
f
t
h
i
s
i
s
t
h
e
i
n
t
en
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
n
no
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
.
•
1.
1
.
3
.
b
–
“
I
f
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
i
s
l
e
f
t
o
p
e
n
a
s
a
w
a
t
e
r
a
m
e
n
it
y
a
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
,
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
d
p
e
r
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
U
D
C
1
1
-
1
a
-
1
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
a
m
e
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
r
a
w
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
t
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
e
pa
r
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
li
c
e
n
s
e
d
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
a
t
e
o
f
I
d
ah
o
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
bo
t
h
t
h
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
”
As
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
b
y
U
D
C
1
1
-
1
-
A
-
1
,
w
e
a
r
e
no
t
pr
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
o
p
i
p
e
t
h
e
d
r
a
i
n
.
I
t
i
s
o
p
e
n
to
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
,
a
n
d
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
p
l
a
n
,
w
e
a
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
i
n
g
t
o
l
e
a
v
e
i
t
op
e
n
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
w
i
t
h
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
.
P
l
e
a
s
e
ve
r
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
pl
a
n
m
e
e
t
s
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
i
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
m
o
d
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
re
q
u
e
s
t
s
•
1.
1
.
3
.
d
–
“
D
e
p
i
c
t
4
-
f
o
o
t
t
a
l
l
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
o
r
o
th
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
so
u
r
c
e
,
a
l
o
n
g
a
l
l
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
c
o
m
m
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
n
o
t
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
t
r
e
e
t
a
s
s
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
n
U
D
C
1
1
-
3
A
-
8
H
,
un
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
w
a
i
v
e
d
by
t
h
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
.
S
u
c
h
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
f
ro
m
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
.
”
Th
e
p
a
t
h
i
s
a
t
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
a
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
b
e
h
i
n
d
h
o
u
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
t
t
h
e
to
p
o
f
t
h
a
t
s
l
o
p
e
w
i
t
h
v
i
e
w
f
e
n
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
b
o
l
l
a
r
d
s
w
o
ul
d
n
o
t
b
e
d
e
s
i
r
a
b
l
e
be
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
h
o
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
e
e
n
f
r
o
m
a
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
r
i
d
g
e
l
i
n
e
.
In
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
i
n
U
D
C
1
1
-
3
A
-
8
H
t
h
a
t
al
l
o
w
s
t
h
e
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
t
o
wa
i
v
e
t
h
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
,
w
e
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
w
a
i
v
e
r
at
t
h
i
s
t
i
m
e
.
•
1.
1
.
3
.
g
–
“
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
5
-
f
o
o
t
w
i
d
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
L
o
t
s
2
3
&
2
4
an
d
7
&
8
,
B
l
o
c
k
3
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
a
l
o
n
g
th
e
C
u
n
n
i
n
g
h
a
m
La
t
e
r
a
l
.
”
We
h
a
v
e
a
d
d
e
d
t
h
e
5
’
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
L
o
t
s
7
a
n
d
8
,
bu
t
L
o
t
s
2
3
a
n
d
2
4
a
r
e
at
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
o
f
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
a
t
h
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
a
b
l
e
t
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
u
p
t
h
e
hi
l
l
.
A
s
s
u
c
h
,
we
a
r
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
t
o
o
n
l
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
addition
of
a
5
’
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
L
o
t
s
7
a
n
d
8
,
B
l
o
c
k
3
.
Th
a
n
k
Y
o
u
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor
RE: Request for Approval of Revisions to Final Plat Application Checklist
DATE: On Commission Agenda April 21, 2016
CC: City Clerk, Legal Department
Per UDC 11-5A-3B2, the Planning Division of the Community Development Department is
requesting approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission to revise the final plat
application checklist. Specifically, Staff is proposing to modify the checklist to require
AutoCAD files be submitted with an application submittal. Attached is the copy of the proposed
revisions to the checklist.
Planning Division
FINAL PLAT Application Checklist
Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
(05/28/2015)
Project name: File #:
Applicant/agent:
All applications are required to contain one copy of the following:
Applicant
() Description Staff
()
Completed and signed Development Review Application
Narrative fully describing the proposed project
Legal description of the subject property (Lot, Block, and Subdivision name if located in a recorded
subdivision OR a metes and bounds legal description of the property if not in a subdivision)
Recorded warranty deed for the subject property
Affidavit of Legal Interest signed and notarized by the property owner (If owner is a corporation,
submit a copy of the Articles of Incorporation or other evidence to show that the person signing is an authorized agent)
Scaled vicinity map showing the location of the subject property (If this is a phased development,
show this phase in relation to previously approved phases)
Written confirmation of parcel verification from Community Development. Please email the
project name, parcels number(s), and a vicinity map to
communitydevelopment@meridiancity.org to obtain confirmation
Fee (Please call the Planning Division to calculate correct fee. Applications with
incorrect fees will not be accepted)
Note: Only one copy of the above items need be submitted when submitting multiple applications
Additional Requirements for Final Plat Applications:
Applicant
() Description Staff
()
Include the following additional information in the project narrative:
A statement of conformance with the approved preliminary plat and meeting all
requirements or conditions thereof. If not in conformance, describe the proposed
changes and why they are needed*
A statement of conformance with all requirements and provisions of the UDC
A statement of conformance with acceptable engineering, architectural and
surveying practices and local standards
Note the approved annexation/rezone ordinance number and development
agreement recorded instrument number (if applicable)
Copy of the approved preliminary plat (8 ½” x 11”)
Copy of the “final” Ada County Street Name Evaluation Letter
Detail of any proposed amenities (tot lot play equipment, etc.)
Submit two (2) hardcopy sets, and one electronic version in PDF format, of final engineering
construction drawings for streets, water, sewer, sidewalks, irrigation and other public
improvements with copies of the final plat attached. These drawings must be stamped and
signed by a registered engineer/surveyor in the State of Idaho
Storm drainage calculations must be submitted for private drives and parking areas within
subdivisions.
Applicant’s engineer is required to submit a signed, stamped statement certifying that all
street finish centerline elevations are set a minimum of three feet above the highest
established normal groundwater elevation.
Submit cross section (civil plan drawing) of private street to the Planning Division (if
applicable).
Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
Final Plat—13 copies (in addition to the copies for Public Works as required above),
dimensions of 18” x 27” per Idaho Code (folded to 8 ½” x 11” size )
The following items must be included on the final plat:
• Approved plat name
• Year of platting
• Section location and county (situate statement)
• North arrow
• Scale of plat (not smaller than 1"=100')
• Streets and alleys with widths and bearings
• Street names
• Consecutive numbering of all lots in each block, and each block numbered
• Each and all lengths of the boundaries of each lot including curve and/or line table
• Exterior boundaries shown by distance and bearing (heavier lines than streets and lots)
including curve and/or line table
• Description of survey monuments
• Initial point and tie to at least two public land survey corners or, in lieu thereof, to
two monuments recognized by the City Engineer or County Engineer or surveyor
• Common area lots and/or landscape easements
• Existing and proposed easements (show graphically on the plat)
• Pertinent notes for easements, restrictions, dedications, etc.
• Basis of bearings
• Land Surveyor signed seal
• Land Surveyor business name and address
• Legend of symbols
• Adjacent platted subdivision names
Reduction of the final plat (8 ½” x 11”)
Signature sheet of the final plat (2 copies)
Landscape plan – 2 copies (folded to 8 ½” x 11” size)
NOTE: Internal (parking lot) landscaping will not be reviewed with the final plat for commercial
developments unless a separate CZC application is submitted concurrently.
Plan must have a scale no smaller than 1” = 50’ (1” = 20’ is preferred) and be on a standard drawing
sheet, not to exceed 36” x 48” (24” x 36” is preferred). A plan which cannot be drawn in its entirety
on a single sheet must be drawn with appropriate match lines on two or more sheets.
The following items must be included on the landscape plan:
• Date, scale, north arrow, and project name
• Names, addresses, and telephone numbers of the developer and the person and/or
firm preparing the plan
• Stamp/signature of a landscape architect, landscape designer, or qualified
nurseryman preparing the plan
• Existing natural features such as canals, creeks, drains, ponds, wetlands,
floodplains, high groundwater areas, and rock outcroppings
• Location, size, and species of all existing trees on site with trunks 4 inches or
greater in diameter, measured 6 inches above the ground. Indicate whether the tree
will be retained or removed
• A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected
from damage during construction
• Existing buildings, structures, planting areas, light poles, power poles, walls,
fences, berms, parking and loading areas, vehicular drives, trash areas, sidewalks,
pathways, stormwater detention areas, signs, street furniture, and other man-made
elements
• Existing and proposed contours for all areas steeper than 20% slope. Berms shall
be shown with one-foot contours
Community Development Planning Division 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity.org/planning
• Site Triangles as defined in 11-3A-3 of this ordinance
• Location and labels for all proposed plants, including trees, shrubs, and
groundcovers. Scale shown for plant materials shall reflect approximate mature
size
• A plant list that shows the plant symbol, quantity, botanical name, common name,
minimum planting size and container, tree class (I, II, or III).
• Planting and installation details as necessary to ensure conformance with all
required standards
• Location and drawing/detail of all proposed fencing
• Calculations of project components to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of this ordinance, including:
Width of street buffers, lineal feet of street frontage, and number of street trees
Width of parkways, lineal feet and number of street trees
Acreage dedicated for qualified open space (include detail of calculations)
Number of trees provided on common lot(s)
Mitigation for removal of existing trees
Reduction of the landscape plan (8 ½” x 11”)
Electronic Submittal ( Separate disks required )
Submit two (2) hardcopy sets, one electronic version in PDF format and an AutoCAD format
in compliance with the Specifications for Project Drawings located at:
http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works/autocad_standards/index.asp , of final engineering
construction drawings for streets, water, sewer, sidewalks, irrigation and other public
improvements with copies of the final plat attached. These drawings must be stamped and
signed by a registered engineer/surveyor in the State of Idaho.
Electronic version of the approved preliminary plat, final plat, and landscape plan in pdf
format on a disk with the files named with project name and plan type (i.e. approved
preliminary plat, final plat, landscape plan, amenities, etc.). We encourage you to submit at
least one color version for presentation purposes
If the number of buildable lots has increased or there has been an overall reduction in the amount of open space, the
final plat shall be determined not to be in substantial compliance with the preliminary plat. If the Director
determines that there is substantial difference in the final plat than that which was approved as a preliminary plat
or conditions that have not been met, the Director may require that a new preliminary plat be submitted to the
Commission (UDC 11-6B-3C2b).
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ALL APPLICABLE ITEMS ON THE CHECKLIST ARE
SUBMITTED.
Te
n
M
i
l
e
A
U
r
b
a
n
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
St
e
p
s
t
o
C
r
e
a
t
e
a
n
U
r
b
a
n
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
1.
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
a
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
f
o
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
an urban
re
n
e
w
a
l
d
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
2.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
n
E
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
t
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
i
n
S
t
a
t
e
L
a
w
3.
U
R
A
B
o
a
r
d
c
o
n
c
u
r
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
o
f
e
l
i
g
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
report
an
d
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
s
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
St
e
p
s
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
4.
I
f
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
c
o
n
c
u
r
s
w
i
t
h
U
R
A
B
o
a
r
d
,
t
h
e
y
d
i
r
e
ct the
pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
U
r
b
a
n
R
e
n
e
w
a
l
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
5.
U
R
A
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
s
an
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
s
i
t
t
o
th
e
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
.
6.
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
r
e
f
e
r
s
i
t
t
o
t
he
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
ensive
Pl
a
n
.
Ma
y
3
r
d
We
a
r
e
he
r
e
St
e
p
s
(C
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
)
7.
C
i
t
y
r
e
f
e
r
s
P
l
a
n
t
o
T
a
x
i
n
g
E
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
.
8.
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
Pl
a
n
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
.
9.
T
a
x
i
n
g
E
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
m
a
y
o
r
m
a
y
n
o
t
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
.
(C
o
n
s
e
n
t
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
)
10
.
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
h
o
l
d
s
a
P
u
b
l
i
c
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
.
11
.
C
i
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
a
d
o
p
t
s
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a .
Ma
y
1
9
t
h