2016 09-01Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 1, 2016
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of Septmber 1, 2016,
was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Steven Yearsley.
Members Present: Chairman Steven Yearsley, Commissioner Patrick Oliver,
Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Absent: Commissioner Gregory Wilson.
Others Present: Michelle Hill, Andrea Poque, Sonya Waters, Bill Parsons, Josh
Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-Call Attendance:
Roll-call
______ Gregory Wilson __X__ Patrick Oliver
__X__ Rhonda McCarvel __X__ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X__ Steven Yearsley - Chairman
Yearsley: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I'd like to call to
order the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting for the hearing date of Thursday, September 1st, 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.
We have no changes to the agenda, so I would entertain a motion to adopt the
agenda as presented.
McCarvel: So moved.
Fitzgerald: 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.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of August 4, 2016 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 2 of 44
B. Approve Minutes of August 18, 2016 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and on that we have
to approve the minutes of the August 4th, 2016, Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting and to approve the minutes of the August 18th , 2016,
Planning and Zoning meeting. If there is no changes or comments to those, I
would entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would move that we approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: We have a motion and a second to approve the Consent Agenda. All
in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR YES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: Before we move onto the next phase of this, I would like to explain the
hearing process. So, we are going -- on the agenda we are going to open each
item one at a time. We will start off with the staff report. The staff will present
their findings regarding how the -- the items adhere to our Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code with staff recommendations. The staff will have
their chance to present their recommendations. The applicant will have an
opportunity to come forward to present their case for approval of their application
and to respond to any of the staff's comments . The applicant will have up to 15
minutes to do so. After that we will open this up to the public testimony. There is
a sign-up sheet in the back for anybody wishing to testify. Any person wishing to
come forward will be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger
group, like an HOA or if there is a show of hands, they will be given up to ten
minutes. After the public has had a chance to testify, we will ask the applicant to
come back and have an opportunity to respond to the applicant's -- or the public
testimony and they will be given up to ten minutes to do so. At that point we will
close the public hearing and the Commission will have an opportunity to discuss
and deliberate and, hopefully, be able to make a recommendation to City
Council.
Item 4: Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued and Re-Noticed for September
1, 2016 for Laurels Townhouses (H-2016-0065) by
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 3 of 44
Northside Management Located at 2116 S Accolade
Avenue
1. Request: Rezone of approximately 1.87 acres of
land from the TN-R zoning district to the R-15
zoning district
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Consisting of 20
Building Lots and Eight (8) Common Lots on 1.38
Acres of Land in the TNR Zoning District
Yearsley: So, with that I would like to open the public hearing for continued and
re-noticed application from file number H-2016-0065 with Laurels Townhomes
and let's begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you are a request for a rezone, a preliminary plat, and a development
agreement modification. The last of which does not require Commission action.
This site consists of 1.38 acres of land. It's zoned TN&R and it's located at 2116
South Accolade Avenue, which is south of East Overland Road and west of
South Eagle Road. Adjacent land use and zoning. To the north is vacant land
zoned C-G. To the south are multi-family residential apartments, zoned R-15.
To the east is developed common lot -- undeveloped common lot, zoned TN-R
and multi-family residential apartments, zoned R-40. And to the west are also
multi-family residential apartments and vacant land, zoned R-15. This property
was annexed back in 2006 with an R-15 zoning district and a development
agreement was required as a provision of an annexation, along with the Kenai
Subdivision. A modification of the agreement was approved back in 2007, along
with a rezone for R-15 to TN-R and a new preliminary plat for Gramercy
Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for this
site is mixed-use regional. The applicant has submitted a request to City Council
for a modification to an existing development agreement to change the land use
and building elevations from live-work units to solely living units. A rezone is
1.87 acres of land is proposed from the TN-R to the R-15 zoning district,
consistent with the mixed-use regional future land use map designation. The
rezone will facilitate the development of 20 townhomes. A preliminary plat is also
proposed as shown that consists of 20 b uilding lots and seven common lots on
1.38 acres of land in the proposed R-15 zoning district. A north-south local street
is proposed along the east boundary of the site. You can see my pointer right
there. And a public alley is proposed off the local street for access to homes. A
north-south pedestrian pathway is proposed mid -block within the development
and conceptual sample building elevations for the townhomes were submitted as
shown on the right. The ones on the left are the live-work units that were
previously proposed that are being changed . All structures are required to
comply with the design standards listed in architectural standards manual.
Written testimony has been received by the applicant Scott Noriyuki, who is in
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 4 of 44
agreement with the staff report. Staff is recommending approval with the
conditions in the report. Staff will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? With that would the applicant
like to come forward?
Noriyuki: Commission, Scott Noriyuki, Northside Management, 6810 Fairhill
Place, Boise, Idaho. Staff did a great job of explaining everything. We formally
agree with all conditions of approval and I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? Thank you.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Yearsley: We will wait here to see if anybody has signed up. So, I do not have
anybody wishing to testify on this application. Is there anybody with -- that would
like to testify? With that I don't think we need to bring the applicant forward to
comment on his own comments, so at this time I would entertain a motion to
close the public hearing for file number H-2016-0065.
Fitzgerald: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
Oliver: 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: Any comments or thoughts?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: I am in -- in favor of this. I think the thought for this kind of
development is good with all the different accesses out to the two major streets.
I think it fits nicely back in there.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 5 of 44
Fitzgerald: I agree. I think there is a ton of employment around that area. The
live-work is not necessary in this -- I think in this location just because of the
employment and commercial that's there, so I'm in agreement.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I as well agree. I think it fits the area. It's a good design. It looks well
and it fits in the area.
Yearsley: I also, too, and I think it gives it a -- you know, there is some homes
there, there is a lot of apartments, so this kind of gives it a separate mix of
housing out in that area and so I think it works. I think it will look really nice. So,
I guess with that I would entertain a motion.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I moved to
recommend approval of file number H-2016-0065 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing date of September 1, 2016, has presented.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0065.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
B. Public Hearing for Hill's Century Farm Commercial (H-
2016- 0092) by Martin Hill Located 3625 E. Amity Road
1. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
Twenty (20) Building Lots on 19.73 Acres of Land
in a C-N Zoning District
Yearsley: Next item on the agenda is the public hearing for file number H-2016-
0092, Hill Century Farm Commercial, and let's begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next application is for a
preliminary plat. A development agreement modification is also proposed.
However, it does not require Commission action. This site consists of 19.73
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 6 of 44
acres of land. It's zoned C-N and R-8 and located at 33625 East Amity Road at
the southwest corner of East Amity Road and South Howry Lane. Adjacent land
use and zoning. To the north is East Amity Road and agricultural land zoned
RUT in Ada County. To the south is a future city park, a YMCA, library and
elementary school, zoned C-N. To the east are rural residential agricultural
properties zoned RUT in Ada County. And to the west is agricultural property.
Future single family residential has been approved there, zoned R-8. A little
history on this property. An amendment to the future land use map was
approved last year to change the future land use map designation on his property
in the larger area from low density residential to mixed -use neighborhood. The
property was annexed with a C-N and R-8 zoning districts, with the requirement
of a development agreement. A property boundary adjustment record of survey
was later approved in 2015 and that was the map shown here on your left, the
current configuration of the property. The Comprehensive Plan future land use
designation is designated as mixed-use neighborhood. The applicant is
requesting a modification to the development agreement to include a detailed site
plan and modification of certain provisions of the agreement. Although that
application does not require Commission action, I am going to go ahead and run
through the applicant's request, just so that you're fully aware of everything that's
being requested. The existing development agreement included a conceptual
bubble plan for the mixed-use designated area that lists future possible uses and
no site details. For this reason the development agreement required a detailed
site plan to be submitted and approved prior to a plat application being submitted
and any development occurring be yond the school and YMCA, park site to
ensure development is consistent with the objectives and vision of the mixed-use
neighborhood designation. A detailed plan for the first phase of the development
is proposed as shown, which includes a medical clinic at the northeast corner of
the site, with an assisted living facility immediately to the west on two building
lots on six acres of land. Details are not shown for the 18 building lots
surrounding these lots on the remaining 13.7 acres of the commercial area. The
applicant anticipates that many of these lots will be consolidated as users are
determined in the future and has included a list of possible uses , all allowed uses
in the mixed-use neighborhood designation, and requests the development
agreement not be required to be modified again i n the future to include a more
detailed site plan as required in the development agreement. To insure the site
layout is consistent with that desired in mixed-use neighborhood designated
areas, staff does recommend the development agreement is still required to be
modified in the future to include a more detailed site plan for the remaining area ,
since none was ever submitted on this part. The applicant also proposes to
delete Development Group Provision 5.1, which states the maximum building
size should be limited to 20,000 square feet building footprint. Because the
provision states should, rather than shall, and is not necessarily a requirement,
but rather a recommendation, staff does not recommend deletion of this
provision. However, staff has included a modification to the provision for
clarification on that matter. Last, the applicant proposes a modification to
provision 5.1-I, to require annexation area to be so divided prior to issuance of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 7 of 44
any single family residential building permits, but would allow commercial
development to proceed with building permits that require subdivision of the
property prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy permits beyond those
required for the development of the school and the YMCA and the park site.
Because the development agreement requires detailed site plan approve through
modification to the agreement and because details haven't yet been provided for
the 13.7 acres of the commercial area, staff does not recommend modification of
this provision. However, staff is amenable to modifying the provision as follows:
The annexation area shall be subdivided prior to issuance of any building permits
beyond those required for the development of the school , YMCA, and park sight
as shown on the concept developmen t plan and the assisted living facility and
medical clinic shown on the detailed site plan approved with this application . So,
that is just a review of the development agreement modification. Next the
applicant's preliminary plat, it consists of 20 building lots and two common area
lots as shown on 19.73 acres of land in a C-N zoning district. The boundary of
the plat does not include all the area included in parcel as shown on the record of
survey. So, this is parcel two on the record of survey and their plat stops right
here at this red line here. This area right here shown in red is a 171 foot wide
strip of land zoned R-8 along the west boundary. It is not included. Because this
will create a remnant parcel that's not legal to build on , staff does recommend
that this area is included in the boundaries of the proposed plat. This area is to
be included in a preliminary plat in the future with rest of the residential property
to the west when it develops. It's the intent of the applicant, as you can see here
when this residential property here develops, to include that portion at that time.
However, not -- so that a remnant parcel isn't left staff is asking that it be cleared
within the boundary of this plat. It does not necessarily need to be final platted,
as long as the applicant gets around to filing it with this part that would be fine. A
driveway access is proposed via East Amity Road. You can see right here where
my pointer is at. And another driveway access is proposed via a South Hillsdale
Avenue, which is currently Howry Lane, but will be named Hillsdale in the future.
It will be a future collector street. A local street, South Tavistock Way, is also
proposed for access in this location here via Amity in the future and, then,
another local street Hill Park Street along the south boundary of the site is also
proposed to be at Hillsdale Avenue . Because the UDC requires access to be
provided via local streets when available, the proposed direct lot access via
Amity and Hillsdale will require Council approval of a waiver. A c ross-access
ingress-egress easement is required between lots in the proposed subdivision. A
25 foot wide landscape street buffer is required along Amity. A 20 foot wide
buffer is required along Hillsdale and a ten foot wide by buffer is required along
local streets, Tavistock and Hill Park Street. Conceptual building elevations were
submitted as shown for future retail office and professional service buildings on
the left and assisted living memory care facility as shown on the right. All
structures are required to comply with the design standards listed in the
architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from Mike
Wardle, the applicant's representative, in response to the staff report and I will let
the applicant go over his comments with you. Staff is recommending approval
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 8 of 44
with the conditions with the request that a comment is added for the Parks
Department under Section 6 in Exhibit B of the staff report that the Parks
Department desires East Hill Park Street to have on-street parking on the south
side of the street adjacent to the city park. Staff will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? I actually have a couple -- just a couple.
Are they proposing to -- and maybe I should ask this of Mike Wardle, but to do all
the frontage improvements first or are they just going to do in -- for those first two
lots; do you know?
Allen: Chairman, as a requirement of the subdivision plat all the street buffers
adjacent to streets are required to be in --
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: -- as a subdivision improvement.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? With that would the
applicant like to come forward.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle, Brighton
Corporation, 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. Sonya, if you could pull up my
slide presentation, I'm going to -- there we go. Just a brief run through before I
discuss the conditions of approval that Sonya addressed. This first schematic is
the very, very simple bullet -- or bubble plat that was submitted with the original
annexation and zoning application. I did note that the final action taken by the
Council did slightly change the zoning at that point, so that black hatched line
delineates the R-8 and C-N zones. I'm not smart enough to run -- okay. Turning
around and looking to the south just for an update. This aerial photograph was
taken in April at the time when the Hillsdale Elementary School was under
construction, but, obviously, has been completed and is now being used for the
first time. Shortly -- well, within the next few months it's anticipated that the
YMCA complex immediately to the north that we are common joining with that
elementary school will begin construction. So, the red oval is the area that we
are discussing this evening within the C-N zone and, then, the yellowish gold
oval is the future R-8 zoned property that will be forthcoming in a few months. It
kind of specifically shows that same area. A little bit more definition in terms of a
boundary. I would just make a notation relative to the home -- Marty and Dixie
Harris home in the northeast portion of this slide that there is a specific condition
that I will refer to in a bit concerning that. Next slide, please. Now, putting the
concept together showing, again, the YMCA-Hillsdale Elementary School
complex and the Hill Park that the city would be constructing -- and I don't have a
date on that, but this complex would be coming together over the next few
months and year or so, so that -- that area will be richly benefited from public and
private facilities combined and, of course, it does show on -- the next slide gets a
little bit more specific to the items Sonya identified as our detailed plan at this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 9 of 44
point being the clinic at the northeast corner, the assisted living. The two arrows
show the points of access that the Council will be requested to waive to the
collector -- Hillsdale on the right, Amity, the arterial to the north, those two access
points have been approved by ACHD. They have not formally submitted their
staff report, but I believe they communicated that to staff and I actually forwarded
ACHD's concurrence e-mail some time ago. Another slide, please. This -- I just
wanted to show the juxtaposition of the school and YMCA and park facilities that
are directly south of Hill Park Street, the east-west street that basically serves to
front door both projects, the commercial to the north and these community
facilities to the south, and I believe -- okay. One other item -- and I'm going to
just let this one rest for a moment while I take you through the conditions,
because there is a specific request that I have proposed. I learned something a
little bit from Sonya's presentation. Apparently -- the item five, the DA
modification elements are really probably not something that -- well, you won't be
making any recommendation, so unless you have questions to the comments I
would just wait until we get to the City Council and just take you to page three of
the handout that was provided. I hope that you have that. Color coded to assist
in the sense that anything and really -- we are not asking for any changes. We
conclude with a few comments on some of those. The first point on page three
under the Planning Division site specific conditions of approval, refer back to the
slide that Sonya showed you where the red outlined portion to the rest that is
zoned R-8 -- there you go. We did not include it, because -- yes, we can include
it if we are required to do so, but it will not be final platted, it would just simply
show up on a -- on a map. But my concern is sometimes you get something on a
drawing it becomes part of a project that it doesn't really relate to and causes
confusion in future applications. So, from my perspective under condition 1.1.1,
items A and B and, then, the next condition down, Item A, all relate to that same
question and it's my belief that it does not change any of the issues by removing
that parcel or that portion of the parcel from the plat , because it is zoned R-8.
So, I have requested deletion of those particular items on page three. On page
four I'm going to retract my request to delete condition 1.2.4. That was kind of a
peak of frustration, because I had -- was not aware that the code had been
changed and there was now a new process that requires -- that there is a
process that we can deal with the irrigation laterals. We will deal with that at the
final plat stage of this action. So, we can just go ahead and assume that 1.2.4
stays, because, frankly, nobody has the ability at this point to waive or delete it.
It's a -- it's a requirement that we will deal with in due course. On page six -- and
that's why I wanted to go back, Sonya, if you would, to that last slide that I had up
that showed the water mains -- yes. There you go. Thank you. Condition 2.1.1
talks about, you know, the extension of the sewer and looped water around the --
I have added a word there -- looped water mains to provide service to the park,
YMCA, Hillsdale Elementary School, and Hills Century Farm Subdivision. All of
those water mains will be installed -- the solid lines will be installed and we will
end up with looping systems for not only this project, but also the Hill Century
Farm residential project to the south, the YMCA and school complex -- all of
those will be in a dual looped system. We will also extend -- because we will be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 10 of 44
constructing the new Hillsdale Avenue north from the YMCA site to Amity Road,
we will install a 12 inch main there. We are simply requesting that we not be
required to construct a 12 inch water main between those that form s a third loop,
because there will be a development on the north side of -- of Amity in the future
and at this point the school district owns that property for a high school . Whether
they build it or not I can't say, but they own it and they have done some planning
on that. It's our belief that that water main does not serve us or make any --
doesn't provide any additional security because of the dual looping that we have
as noted down into the Century Farm Subdivision back to Eagle Road. So, I'm
simply requesting that we delete the requirement along the frontage of Amity for
that 12 inch water main. Would appreciate your consideration of that. 2.2.3 was
a simple wording change. That's the thing that we have actually -- the City
Council has approved in two recent applications for us and that is that the
easements for all of these utilities need to be submitted, reviewed and approved
prior to signature of the final plat by the city engineer, not prior to development
plan approval, because that simply can delay the process unduly. So, it's a
simple language change that the City Council has already concurred with in the
past. Next page. Page seven. This is simply a statement -- because there are
some farm buildings and so forth that are on the property that we are simply
saying that existing structures within the bounds of the plat or right of way that
are required to be removed be -- do so, but some of those facilities lay to the
west in property that won't be developed until that R-8 goes in the future. So, we
just don't want to have to take out any structures before their time . 2.2.9. This is
simply an acknowledgement that commercial property is different from
residential. You can build more than one commercial structure on a lot and so
it's appropriate for residential to have everything including the plat recorded prior
to applying for building permits, but in this particular case, since you can
construct commercial on this parcel without the subdivision being completed, we
simply asking to change the word building to occupancy and, actually, this has
been done in a couple of earlier applications that we have brought forth through
the Council -- Commission and the Council. And, then, finally, in 2.2.11, it's an
issue that we have found interesting. I know staff has been very cooperative, but
we get to a point where homes are constructed, occupancy permits are
requested, but some of the landscape and fencing items that are common area
facilities have not yet been completed, so it's up to staff to determine whether or
not they would be able to -- be willing to grant an occupancy permit for a
residential structure if those things aren't done, but they are bonded for. They
had to be bonded for in order to secure -- you know, to sell that parcel for the lot.
So, we have added that language -- we actually did this with the City Council
about two weeks ago. Just to note that rather than have to do some negotiation
with staff, if the bonding is in place, which it must be, then, we believe that even if
the fencing and the common area improvements are not totally done, that there
is no reason not to issue the occupancy permit. The city is covered. There is no
liability. So, those are the only changes that I would propose, given the fact that
item five at the very beginning on pages one, two and into page three are
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 11 of 44
development agreement considerations for the Council. I hope I haven't
confused, but I would be happy to answer questions to unconfuse if I did.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Mr. Wardle, in regards to the remnant parcel, what's your plan for --
it's not in the original R-8 plat and if you don't want it in this plat, where do you
want it -- where do you want it to go or how do you want it to be handled in
planning? My concern is that it gets -- it's just out there and, then, there is -- it's
kind of a remnant parcel that we don't know how to deal with later on.
Wardle: We actually have concepts for three different types of residential,
because that parcel is R-8, it does have -- we have got concepts that we are
working on currently. It will be platted with that proposal. So, everything that's
coming up to this north-south street, Tavistock as it's called, that will incorporate
that parcel, that remnant. So, it will be a part of a preliminary plat that will be
coming to the Commission within a few months.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Wardle: I would just restate, Mr. Chairman, that it can be added to the
preliminary plat. It doesn't hurt necessarily, but it has the potential to confuse if
it's part of a preliminary plat versus being handled when it's taken up with the
zoned property consistent with it. So, that's the reason. Thank you.
Yearsley: Any other questions? I actually have a couple and some of this
maybe Sonya can help me with. The 2.2.3, didn't we go through this a couple of
weeks ago about -- another applicant asked for this same -- I believe very similar
comment and I'm not exactly sure -- I think at that time we didn't allow that and
I'm kind of curious to what staff is thinking on that.
Allen: Chairman, I don't recall.
Yearsley: It's been a while, so I --
Allen: Yeah. And, I'm sorry, but we -- we got the applicant's response this
afternoon and I was not able to catch up with the staff member that wrote these
conditions, so I really don't have a response --
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 12 of 44
Allen: -- to address those. I can, of course, make contact with him before
Council and get that squared away.
Yearsley: Okay. Well, I would I assume the same thing with 2.1.1, since that is a
Public Works comment, we would -- we would need Public Works to make that
decision or is that --
Allen: That's correct. Everything under section two.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parson: Mr. Chairman, if I may interject here.
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Parsons: Our department put together a committee called Development
Services Advisory Committee and the one question -- the one condition we can't
answer tonight is the looping of the water system. That's going to require
someone from Public Works to tell us if it would still work with that line not being
included, because when we accept an application we have them provide
AutoCAD drawings and our Public Works Department models the development
based off of the AutoCAD drawing that we got. So, if their AutoCAD drawing
show that line being as part of the development and we need to get AutoCAD
drawings that don't include that water line to see if they still have the fire flows
per our requirements. So, we can't handle that. As Sonya stated, those are
things that we have to answer before City Council and we are more than willing
to do that. The other condition, 2.2.3, if you could refresh my memory on that. Is
that in relation to getting building permits ahead of the platting?
Yearsley: Yes.
Parsons: Well, we had a de sec meeting yesterday and I was in that room with
Mr. Freckleton at that time and he has agreed to allow some of those things to
change, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: -- Public Works is amenable to some of that happening prior to
signature on the plat and that was communicated to the de sec group yesterday
and representation from Brighton Corporation was at that table. So, I think,
again, we will follow up with Mr. Freckleton, but I think that's something staff
would be amenable to --
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 13 of 44
Parsons: -- and you have the power to make that recommendation that Council
support that or allow it to go forward as is and let Council make that change.
Yearsley: Okay.
Parsons: Now, the 2.1.11 -- refresh my memory on that one. Is that the building
permits?
Yearsley: That's to be bonded --
Parsons: Oh. And that's another clarification that we had at the de sec meeting.
So, our code gives the developer flexibility in getting occupancy permits for
commercial and residential developments. We don't give temporary occupancy
for single family homes, but we do give temporary occupancies to commercial
developments. So, again, this is something that we have had quite a bit of
discussion with the development community and we will look at that on a case -
by-case basis. They can get occupancy as long as there is bonding in place for
the amenities, the fencing, and, of course, the landscaping. So, we have the
ability to do that and so, again, I think we have that covered as well to address
the applicant's concerns. So, I can help you with the -- we can help you with a lot
of those, it's just that looping of the water system that we can't help you with this
evening.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: Mr. Chairman, may I just add a comment?
Yearsley: Absolutely.
Wardle: Two items where the -- just the simple language additions that I noted
-- actually, the Council in recent approvals has already dealt with those and I
believe with the meeting that -- that we talked about yesterday, some of those
things are clean-up items that will be clarified. As to the water line, the actual
application we did submit the AutoCAD files. The plan does not show the water
line connection along Amity Road. It shows up to Amity on the east side and
from Amity south to the YMCA and across the south boundary of that commercial
site. So, I'm sure by City Council that there will be the modeling issue to note
whether there is the need or not.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: So, I think we are fine. It's just -- it will come out in due course.
Yearsley: Okay. All right. That's good. Any other comments? So, my guess is
speak now forever hold your peace, to be honest with you, so -- thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 14 of 44
Wardle: Thank you.
Yearsley: I do not have anybody signed up to testify on this application . Is there
anybody wanting to testify on this application? So, with that I would entertain a
motion to close the public hearing on file number H-2016-0092.
Fitzgerald: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to close the public hearing on file
number H-2016-0092. All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: We have a lot to go over. Any comments or questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I'm excited -- everybody's excited for this area of the -- I think the
south is going to be very cool when it's all said and done. I think Brighton is
master planning it very well. I appreciate the staff's efforts. I'm a little bit
concerned about the remnant parcel being there, not being handled and being
left out there. And that's my only concern. I understand the points that have
been brought up and kind of how we can get the applicant a little bit of leeway. I
do understand that the city has some challenges when we have -- we leave
parcels that are not platted and hope they get platted later. That being said, I
also understand not having -- taking down buildings we don't need to right at this
second. So, that's my only concern. I like the project. I think it's going to be
great. I know what they are building in Paramount right now it's -- it's going to
look nice. It looks like this is very similar to this project. And so I think it's -- it's a
good project. Again, it will be very complementary to what's getting built to the
south. That's the one piece is just that parcel for me.
Yearsley: Thank you. I agree. I understand that they are talking about coming
in a couple of months to plat that piece, but my concern is there is a lot can
happen in a couple of months and I would hate to have that be left out there and,
then, kind of be a no man's land. So, I have a tendency to agree. With regards
to most -- most of the others, they -- they seem amenable. You know, the one I
think with the water line at this point I would recommend we leave it in until we
have comments from staff .
Fitzgerald: Agreed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 15 of 44
Yearsley: And the Council can reflect upon that one, so -- so, I think it looks
good.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I agree. I think we can okay off on 2.2.3, 2.2.9, 2.2.11. It
sounds like those are all issues that we have worked through and I think -- I'm in
agreement of 2.2.5 I think -- staying in there. I think -- I think that section should
be in there -- I mean just for bookkeeping and stuff.
Yearsley: Right.
McCarvel: And, then, 2.1.1 we can -- I think as long as they have got it ironed
out prior to Council, it makes sense. Okay. 1.1.1 was the R-8, though; right?
Yearsley: Yes.
McCarvel: So, 2.2.5 --
Yearsley: And that was the one that leaves the -- leaves the -- or the buildings
on the property, was 2.2.5?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: Yeah. Okay. Any comments, Commissioner Oliver?
Oliver: Yeah, I do have just one comment. Is that -- considering that there is
going to be a lot more commercial put into the section, I think that the first two
pieces they are putting in are essential and I feel like having the medical care
right next to the senior -- is a -- is a good start for that corner and I think it will
work perfect to start as a stepping stone to other public works around the retail.
I agree also with all the comments that the other commissioners said about the
changes.
Yearsley: Okay. Well, this will be a big one. So, at this point I would be --
entertain a motion.
Fitzgerald: I'm going to leave it to the professor over here.
McCarvel: Okay. Well, let me --
Yearsley: And don't forget on the staff report it talks about the other
recommendation for the --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 16 of 44
Fitzgerald: Apartment complex?
McCarvel: Yeah. It's included with their recommendations. So -- okay. 2.2.5
with the extra buildings in there --
Yearsley: Well, what is underlined is what needs to be added.
McCarvel: Okay.
Yearsley: And at this point we have this document here, you can just -- my
thinking is we can just say we agree with --
McCarvel: The numbers?
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay. So, yes on 2.2.5 I guess. Are you -- I guess are you okay with
that, staff?
Allen: I just -- excuse me. I just wanted to clarify something. If we are
concerned about the existing home being required to be torn down before they
are necessarily ready to do that, an option would be to have that platted in say
the last phase -- final platted and, then, that would remain until such time as that
-- that portion is final platted and, then, prior to signature it would need to be
removed. So, if the applicant does not include this in a final plat, but, rather,
would like to include it with the development to the west, require -- and hopefully
this makes sense what I'm trying to say. Per the staff report, if you require that
remnant parcel to be included in the preliminary plat at this time, it won't
necessarily require that that structure need s to be removed right away, just prior
to signature on the final plat in the phase in which it is located. The applicant did
not submit a phasing plan for this development, but that is -- that is something
that could happen.
Yearsley: So, what you're saying is -- is he can leave the buildings there without
having to modify 2.2.5. Is that what I'm hearing?
Allen: Yeah. Because it requires them to be removed prior to signature on the
final plat.
Yearsley: And so if it's just not part of the final plat, then, they can stay.
Allen: This is a preliminary plat that's before you, so it can certainly be phased.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: So, we don't need to include 2.2.5 in the motion.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 17 of 44
Yearsley: Okay. I like that. So, I guess the one question I did ask -- are you
okay with just saying yes to those conditions on the numbers, instead of having
to read everything out?
Allen: Like I said, I would feel more comfortable speaking with Public Works
before any -- agreeing with anything on Section 2. But, yes, numbers are fine on
the rest.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: All right. Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval of file number H-2016-0092 as presented in the staff report
for the hearing of September 1st, 2016, with the following modifications: To
specifically include staff's recommendation as read earlier as part of the staff
report. To leave in Section 1.1.1 as recommended by staff. To move forward
with applicants request on 2.1.1 --
Yearsley: No, we talked about --
McCarvel: As long as -- after -- I'm sorry. After staff has had consult with Public
Works and the AutoCAD drawings are available for discussion prior to Council.
And to grant 2.2.3, 2.2.9, 2.2.11 as discussed.
Yearsley: And, then, also the staff recommendations for the parking.
McCarvel: Yes. I think I said that right at the beginning.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Yes. To include the staff -- specific recommendation as read in with
conditions with the request that a comment -- let's see. Is added for the Parks
Department under Section 6 in Exhibit B of the staff report. That the Parks
Department desires East Parkhill Street to have on -street parking on the south
side of the street adjacent to the city park.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 18 of 44
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify. So, we are making recommendation on
2.1.1? I just want to make sure so I'm clear.
Yearsley: I guess that's your -- Commissioner McCarvel, your recommendation
on that? You said to include --
McCarvel: Recommendation to allow staff to work with Public Works prior to City
Council.
Fitzgerald: Got it.
Yearsley: Okay. All right.
Allen: And may I clarify? Excuse me. If Public Works is in agreement with the
requested changes are you stating that the Commission is in recommendation of
those?
McCarvel: Yes.
Allen: As requested by the applicant? Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: All right. With that I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIES: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
C. Public Hearing for Maddyn Village (H-2016-0075) by A
Team Land Consultants Located West Side of N.
Meridian Road, South of E. Ustick Road, North of W.
Sedgewick Drive
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of
Approximately 10.398 Acres from the RUT Zoning
District to the R-8 Zoning District (Approximately
6.874 Acres) to the R-15 Zoning District
(Approximately 3.524 Acres)
2. Request: Preliminary Plat Approval Consisting of
TwentyNine (29) Single-Family Residential Lots,
Ten (10) MultiFamily Residential Lots and Five (5)
Common Lots on Approximately 10.398 Acres in
the Proposed R-8 and R-15 Zoning Districts
3. Request: Conditional Use Permit for a Multi-
Family Development Consisting of Forty-Eight
(48) Dwelling Units in the Proposed R-15 Zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 19 of 44
Districts
Yearsley: All right. The one we have all been waiting for. Next on the agenda is
for file number H-2016-0075, Maddyn Village and let's begin with the staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Chair, Commissioners. As you said, this is an application
for Maddyn Village, an application for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat,
and for a conditional use permit. The site consists of approximately 10.4 acres of
land. It is currently zoned RUT, located at 2975 and 3001 North Meridian Road.
To the north we have Parkview Christian Church and Spring Creek Assisted
Living Facility, which are both zoned L-O. To the east we have North Meridian
Road and single-family residential property, zoned R-8 and R-4. To the south is
single family residential properties in the Salisbury Lane Subdivision, which is
zoned R-4 and to the west are single family residential properties in Parkway
Subdivision, also zoned R-4. There is a little history on this property. As I said,
it's currently zoned RUT in Ada County. They are applying for annexation, so
that's when the history would start at the City of Meridian. The Comprehensive
Plan future land use map designation for this parcel is medium density
residential. The applicant is proposing to develop this 10.4 acre site with 29
single-family residential lots, ten multi-family residential lots and five common
lots. The R-15 portion of the site consists of approximately 3.5 acres and will
have a gross density of 13.7 dwelling unit to the acre. So, the R-15 portion is the
portion here with the multi-family. So, this portion here -- it kind of wraps around
these existing homes that will remain as part of the subdivision, if you're following
my mouse here. So, this -- this portion here is all the R-15 multi-family portion.
The R-15 portion of the site consists of three and a half acres and will have a
gross density of 13.7 dwelling units to the acre. The R-8 portion of the site
consists of 6.9 acres and will have a gross density of 4.2 dwelling units to the
acre. The overall gross density within the proposed project is 7.4 dwelling units
to the acre, which falls within the density range for the medium density residential
land use designation, which is between three and eight dwelling units per acre.
The project is subject to specific use standards for multi-family developments as
set forth in the UDC. There are two -- as I said, there are two existing homes
and associated outbuildings on the site that are proposed to remain on Lot 16
and 31 of Block 1. All existing structures that are proposed remain with the
subdivision of the property must comply with the setback standards of the R-8
district or be removed prior to city engineer's signature on the final plat.
Additionally, staff recommends that the existing homes connect to city utilities
and terminate their access to North Meridian Road with the first phase of
development and since the existing home s will no longer have access to North
Meridian Road, the property owner will have to coordinate with the city's
addressing specialist to obtain a new street address for both of those homes.
There is an existing outbuilding on Lot 31, which is this lot here that would look
into the required street yard setback with the subdividing of the property. The
UDC restricts detached accessory dwellings from being located in this setback
and the applicant is requesting that the City Council allow the accessory building
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 20 of 44
to remain on the property in its current location. Staff recommends that the
structure be removed with the development of the first phase, unless approved to
remain by Council. I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that. But it's not --
you can see the formal phasing plan. The applicant has indicated that the multi-
family portion of the site will be phase one and the single-family portion will be
phase two. As I said this, this portion here that I'm kind of outlining is -- is phase
one. Access is proposed for the site via one access to North Meridian Road for
the multi-family portion of the project and it will be an extension of an existing --
an existing driveway and the single-family portion will be provided from the
subdivision to the south, which is the Salisbury Lane Subdivision via a stub street
that currently exists to the property. ACHD has approved the connection to North
Meridian Road for this portion of the project and some correspondence there
from the highway district they have indicated that they are -- they are warning --
or in discussions with the applicant on the exact location of -- of that access and
maybe the applicant can address that a little bit further as part of his
presentation. So, having said that, Council will also have to approve the access
-- direct access to North Meridian Road. So, of Council does not approve the
access to North Meridian Road, the applicant will have to redesign the project so
that the multi-family portion would take access through what they are calling their
single-family portion in some way, shape or form. The applicant is proposing one
common driveway in the project. The common driveway should comply with the
standards listed in the UDC, unless limited by a significant geographic feature or
separated by a minimum of five foot wide landscape common -- common lot. All
properties taking access from -- that front the common drive are required to take
access. So, the proposed common drive is here, so these lots would have to
either provide a five foot landscape strip or take access from that common
driveway. A 25 foot wide street buffer is required along North Meridian Road,
which is considered an arterial street and it's required to be landscaped in accord
with the UDC, which requires a mixture of trees and shrubs. The buffer width
along North Meridian Road should be measured from the back of curb or the
ultimate curb location as determined by the Ada County Highway District. A
minimum of ten percent of qualified open space is required to be provided for this
development and based on the area of the preliminary plat, which is
approximately 10.4 acres, a minimum of 1.04 acres of qualified open space is
required to be provided as set forth in the UDC. The applicant is proposing that
approximately 1.59 acres or 15.3 percent qualified open space for the
development, which consists of half the street buffer along North Meridian Road
and an internal pathway that connects the multi-family portion of the site to the
single family portion. A micropath lot and internal common open space, which
appear to comply with the requirement. Based on the area of the preliminary
plat, city code requires that a minimum of one qualified amenity to be provided.
The applicant proposes to provide a bocce ball court, internal pathways, and
gazebo or plaza, a community garden and an internal grassy area, which is at
least 50 feet by 100 feet in the area in accord with the UDC. The applicant has
submitted some conceptual building elevations. This is the multi-family portion
and the rest is single family homes that we have included here. Building material
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 21 of 44
consists of a mix of board and batten siding, horizontal and vertical lap siding,
stone veneer, corbels and architectural shingles. Staff believes the proposed
elevations comply with the architectural standards manual and the design
standards set forth in the UDC. Did receive written testimony from a neighbor
Ted Williams, as well as the applicant's representative Steve Arnold. With that
staff is recommending approval of the project and I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: If I could just ask a quick questions, Josh, if I could. They are in the
midst right now of widening that intersection on Meridian and Ustick. Will that
impact that subdivision to where it will be one as well there or will that be closer
to Ustick to where they are widening that?
Beach: The staff report from the highway district has indicated that that is
already at it's -- it's already been constructed to where it needs to be, so they are
not asking for any additional right of way for this length. So, it shouldn't impact.
Oliver: Okay. Thank you.
Parsons: Mr. Chairman? Just for clarification on that. Additional right of way
isn't required, but with that rebuilding of the intersection it will extend past the
front of this property, so there will be some impacts to this -- to the frontage of
this property.
Oliver: That helps a lot. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? With that would the applicant like to
come forward. Please state your name and address for the record.
Arnold: Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record my name is
Steve Arnold. I'm with A-Team Land Consultants. 1785 Whisper Cove, Boise.
83709. I think staff did a great job covering overall. Let me see if I can't hit some
of the questions that came up, along with some of the visioning that we had
putting this project together. When you're dealing with two existing homes there
is several challenges that go into laying this out and I will get into that, but the
read off -- we did dedicate right of way and we have been working with the
highway district to the expansion of the roadway and the location of the driveway
we are currently working with the district. We may end up shifting it a little bit
south, but that's not going to impact the site layout whatsoever. And as I stated,
the right of way has been dedicated and the buffer and the whole sites been
designed around the expansion of the road way. Going to some of the buildings.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 22 of 44
These are -- on the multi-family -- you have seen these before. You have seen
me present these -- the pinwheel type design where each of the entrance -- each
side of the building has its own entrance where we don't have any one person
living above the other and we have strategically placed those south adjacent to
the residential portion. We had one four-plex building that's adjacent to a single
family to the south. Those are the majority of the styles of the buildings that we
are doing. The eight-plex building it's a little bit different. We have four down
and four above, but we have tried to model the same architectural styles that we
are doing on the four-plex units. So, that the nice thing about putting the other
four-plexes -- which is the pinwheel design south is they, blend very well with
single family and we put these adjacent to our single family homes there, too.
Single family buildings will be in the range of 1 ,500 up to probably 2,300 square
feet, which is very compatible with the adjacent uses. One thing to note here,
too, the developer of this project is also the homeowner of the five acres , which is
-- I will call it the Ida Sweet, her old home. So, they are planning to build there
and they are also the homeowner. He will be the builder of the multi-family,
along with the builder for the single-family. So, our developer in this case has got
quite a bit of interest in building a nice product. And as presented earlier tonight,
you can see that we are adding additional open space, additional amenities to
the project to help enhance and make this a nice subdivision . One of the
challenges that we face was we have got two fairly large homes that are up along
Meridian Road and we looked at doing office along Meridian Road, but the --
there is quite a bit of higher demand for the multi-family, so that was kind of the
natural dividing point that everything east of the single -family homes we were
going to do a separate product type, then, everything that was west of the single-
family homes and, then, tie in the single family homes to the new single family
home to the west, because that blended well with the neighborhood. We are
providing a pathway from this site to future connect to the church site north of us,
so we are constrained by the church there. We only had one stub straight into
this development, into the backside of this from the subdivision to the south.
There wasn't anything stubbed east -- or, excuse me, west -- from the west east
to us, so we are constrained with that six acres to just one access point. We did
look at also connecting the single -- the multi-family with a drive aisle going west
to the single family, but we understood that there was concerns with the
neighbors to the south and the perceived additional traffic that we would have on
that. Because we were able to work with the highway district and split the traffic
patterns, we took the multi-family east to Meridian and, then, combined all the
single-family west and south through the existing sub . Traffic volumes -- and to
give you an idea for the traffic on the road to the south, Cedric Drive, it's got
approximately 352 trips per day on it, you know, we are going to add
approximately 290. The threshold for these roads are between 1,000 and 2,000
vehicle trips per day. So, the additional traffic, although it's not welcomed, it is
well within ACHD's threshold and, as stated earlier, ACHD has reviewed this and
has approved the site plan. Some of the things that -- other thoughts that went
into our development. We located the park very central. We added the
community garden as one of the amenities. We are finding that those are often
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 23 of 44
used and well utilized and also central we have the gazebo and bocce ball court
and all this is going to be shared between the multi-family and the single family
uses. One thing to note, too, is -- and we are asking that the shop remain and I
think staff has left that fairly open. The shop to the south to the house, it's an
outbuilding that is in the setback that needs to not be in, but we are -- we found it
difficult to try to lay this out any other way to make it fit and that's one of the
constraints that you get when you're laying out a subdivision with existing homes
on it, is making everything fit and work well and smoothly on it. There are going
to be two separate HOAs, one for the single-family and one for the multi-family
and as staff has suggested, we will -- but they are currently connected to --
existing homes are connected to city services, but I envision that we will have to
modify those connections to take the infrastructure , the sewer and water, to the
west. We have read through all of the staff conditions, the ACHD conditions, and
we are in compliance with all those. So, that being said, I will stand for any
questions.
Yearsley: Thank you. Are there any questions? No? Thank you. I have quite a
few people here signed up and this does go to the record. There is just enough
that -- I apologize, I don't want to slaughter your names, so I'm going to open it
up to anyone wishing to testify please raise your hand . This gentleman in the
front, he had his hand up first. Yes. You. If you want to come forward and
testify. And, please, state your name and address for the record.
Grossman: My name is Mike Grossman and I'm at 3056 Northwest 3rd Street,
Meridian, Idaho. And I will apologize first, because I have no legal background,
no government background, and this is new to me. So, if I stick my foot in my
mouth I apologize in advance. I would like to state that I would not even be here
tonight if it was not for the multi-family proposal. I'm in an R-4. Most people on
the west side of Meridian Road are R-4 and they want to take it to an R-15. So,
they want to go from a low density to a high density is my understanding. I would
also like to say -- and, once again, I'm not familiar with the procedure, so if I
overstep my bounds I apologize, but we have not had very much communication
with the developer. He has sent out a letter. We had a meeting at the builder's
house, which is where the outbuilding is occupied and I asked to have a plat map
at that time and said, no, that he would e-mail. So, several of us signed up for
that e-mail and to my knowledge, talking with some of my neighbors and myself,
that e-mail or no further communication had happened. So, when we got this
information just recently there has been changes from what the original proposal
was and that is basically to increase in both areas . Now, the single family was a
very small increase, but it was an increase and the multi-family is just outside the
box. When you take in consideration what someone has already brought up
about the highway, I don't know if any of you live over there , but they are pulling
houses out of there right now at the corner of Meridian and Ustick and that road
system -- I'm not sure how long it will take, but are going to change that from
Meridian Road clear to Cherry Lane. They are also going to increase from Ustick
to Linder. While some of that might alleviate the traffic, but at current time -- and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 24 of 44
I'm sorry I do not understand, I could not -- I read all 31 pages of this and I'm not
the best at reading. My wife is sitting back there nodding her head yes. But I
cannot see the completion date about -- with ACHD -- and I probably apologize, I
didn't do my due diligence -- I probably got three minutes, but I do have the head
of our household -- or homeowners association member here Trent Clemmons
and he is let me -- if it's all right with you, to continue on as representation of
Parkway Subdivision.
Yearsley: So, just for that deal, those people who were in Parkway Subdivision,
you are speaking on behalf of them and that they will not be allowed to testify
and if they are in agreement with that, then, we will let you have the seven more
minutes.
Grossman: Well, to my knowledge Trent is the only one here, so you can ask
him. He's the actual president.
Yearsley: Okay. So, we will give him -- he was in agreement and so we will give
him seven more minutes.
Grossman: So, to go through this -- and, once again, I reiterate that I would not
probably be standing in front of you had it not been for what I consider -- and
sorry for my poor verbiage, but somehow when I got into this process -- my wife
works for a commercial developer and she's just kind of shaking her head looking
at me, but it seems like to me -- and I'm not trying to be rude here, but it seems
like the developer is in the old days, because I'm an old-timer that when you went
to buy an automobile and you would go in and you would ask for a price and they
would come back with a, no, no and you go back and forth and back and forth.
So, I hope that's not what the developer is doing. You probably have not seen
that, but it seems like to me somewhat there is a bait and switch on some of the
information that we have been given as to where we are moving forward and I
will go through this real quick -- and I don't know -- I have tried -- do you want a
page number of where I'm referring to? Would that help? Or would you want me
just to go on or how would you like me to proceed real quick?
Yearsley: If you want to specify at least the -- the --
Grossman: The section?
Yearsley: The section number. Yeah.
Grossman: Okay.
Yearsley: Yeah.
Grossman: Okay. So, the first -- sorry. Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 25 of 44
Yearsley: Go ahead.
Grossman: The first section number is 3.07 .02 and insured will provide safe
routes and access to schools, parks, and other communities. Under, once again,
the construction currently, if this is going to be approved soon, which I don't get, I
would like it to be tabled until the construction or a continuance no matter which
way the Council votes, but that is not a safe environment. There is a home --
and I think it's for -- I have not researched it, but it is on the left side by a horse
pasture and the home I think is for mentally challenged young people. The bus
stops there, which I don't care, but it becomes a real problem currently. Going
forward when they improve the lanes it's not -- there is sometimes 30 minutes to
get those poor kids off and get them to their hands -- the caretakers. Meantime,
people break the law, they are now passing and it could cause a dangerous
accident and I'm not sure that it hasn't. Section 3.07.02, once again, the
construction is horrible and the timing of this proposal is -- is not good, if I'm
reading this right. The car count survey that was stated in this goes clear back to
2014 and, as we all know, Meridian has drastically changed in that period. So, I
would propose a new car count before there is a decision made. On section I
believe 11-2A-2, I'm not quite sure -- and maybe this is why I was never a
mathematician, but I do not believe the spaces that they are stating for the multi-
complex, R-15 high density, is adequate. With a mathematician -- mathematical
where they came up with 96 spaces, but they are going to put in an extra five.
Now, that's allotting two cars per occupant of a multi, which is probably
something they have researched. But my question is to you, do these people
never have any company? Do they never have any teenage drivers? If you go
down a little bit farther on Meridian Road and you look at Aaron Valley and you
look at the private road any Saturday, Friday night, that road is packed with cars,
because there is not enough places for them to park in that complex, to the point
I think it jeopardizes and hinders emergency vehicles. I promise I'm trying to get
through this. I'm not sure why -- and I know some of my neighbors will be
against me on this, but I'm not sure why we are having just a pathway, instead of
an actual access for the single-families through the multi-complex, other than the
builder owning a home there, and Mr. Sweet my understanding was still there,
maybe somebody else is, with those two existing homes will basically have no
impact traffic wise. Absolutely none. So, my question is why is it for them to
propose to have no problems traffic wise an d, yet, for us as neighbors and
people across the street, people to the other subdivision, which is, to my
understanding if I read properly, which is an R-4 also, why should we have to
deal with that situation? And staff I believe recommended -- and, I'm sorry here,
I'm not seeing a reference. I think it's under 7.21. No. That's the square
footage. I apologize. It's a reference to the outbuilding existing. It seems
somewhat ironic that that belongs to a builder of one of the -- that's going to build
in that subdivision and I may be wrong on this, but if I read this correctly, the
single family will not be allowed to have exterior buildings, but yet that location
will be able to. And it's coming out of there from Mr. Sweet, whose plans have
changed. Anyway, I appreciate your time. I hope that we will take into that
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 26 of 44
consideration and because of the multi-problems, I would ask you to either deny
or at the least have a continuance until the construction is addressed. I thank
you and have a good evening.
Yearsley: Thank you. Who wants to be next? The gentleman in the back.
Name and address, please, for the record.
Tucker: Hello. My name is Todd Tucker. Address 2857 North Fairglen Avenue
here in Meridian, Idaho. I would -- I guess full disclosure, I am a city planner for
Boise City, so I will just put that on the record, but I am in full support of this
project. The density -- the density is what this area needs. We are at a very
closest intersection of two arterial roadways. That's generally where we want to
see density is at -- on arterial roadways. We are also very close to a large
regional park. We are also very close to services where people need to -- to buy
things and so this is the perfect place to have a higher density . If you look at the
project overall, yes, they are asking for what's considered medium density
residential up -- up front and lower density towards the existing single-family
residential properties. The overall project there is only seven units per acre,
which I would not consider that to be even medium density. In Boise City we
would consider that to be low density, to have less than eight units per acre. So,
the density might actually -- could even be higher I think. As far as the design of
the buildings, they are great. As Mr. Arnold stated, we are seeing quite a bit of
these throughout the Treasure Valley. It's a great design. It puts windows on all
sides. It puts doors on all sides. And so we got a nice presence on the street
where you have got doors and windows and eyes on the street, which is very --
very good in the planning world. We like to see that. The single-family
residential is putting like yards to like yards. Mostly we have backyards matching
backyards and it's about a 1.5 to one ratio, which is very good as far as matching
those -- those yards and the density there. It's got good landscaping . It's got
great access. I think, you know, some of the concerns about traffic, local roads,
ACHD allows up to 2,000 vehicle trips and you're not even going to get to a
thousand, even with this development and with the widening of Meridian Road it
can accommodate that traffic. I am in support of the project for a little bit of a
selfish reason, I think with density comes transit and I'd like to see transit in this
area. Meridian doesn't have really good transit. Like I said, I live very close to
this. I work in Boise. I'd like to see a bus system. We are never going to get
transit out in this area unless we have higher density. Ustick Road is a great
road to support transit. This is a great project. Very close to Ustick Road where
if we get a lot of -- if we get more people in this area we are going to get a higher
likelihood of getting transit in this area and I think that's going to be a benefit not
only for Meridian, but for the valley as a whole. And so that will conclude my --
my comments, but just on the whole I would like to say that I support this project,
it has a lot of good planning concepts behind it, and I think the design is very well
laid out and I support this project. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 27 of 44
Yearsley: Thank you. The gentleman in the back. You, with the bald head. I
would say that, because I'm getting there close to you as well, so --
Lewis: No offense taken. Thank you very much. My name is Jim Lewis and my
address for the record is 101 West Sedgewick Drive in Meridian. 83646. So, I
am in the Salisbury Lane Subdivision. I will try and keep my comments brief and
they are kind of more general. I have several concerns about this project.
Number one, obviously, it has been addressed in regard to the traffic on -- you
know, I live in the cul-de-sac that is very close to Meridian Road off Sedgewick
and, obviously, with increased traffic through there that is a concern with this stub
road coming through from the single family. I also do have concerns about this
overall project becoming more of a rental community. Salisbury Lane, while,
obviously, there is -- there are rental houses within the subdivision , there -- we
still have a large number of owner-occupied residences. I think if you look at the
size of the -- of the plots and, you know, it being so close to multi -- multi-
residential, I think that those are -- kind of lend themselves to being a rental type
community after a couple years. If you look at the subdivisions further south of
me, I think pretty much there are -- a considerable portion are owner-occupied,
which is -- you know, affects the character of the area, which we would like to
retain. So, that being said, kind of the second component is the two existing
houses on there. I think my one concern is whether the developer at some point
is going to come back and request a variance or to try and put additional
properties on that. It seems very -- kind of an odd mix of three different
components of housing here, so I have some concerns about what the future of
that may look like. And, then, in terms of the -- the multi-family residential, you
know, what a lot of communities are trying to do is develop what are so -called
lifestyle communities that are -- that appeal a lot to Millennials, which is,
obviously, an increasing demographic. You know, a lot of Millennial renters
statistically look for amenities, such as a swimming pool, such as athletic
facilities. This complex, on the other hand, offers a community garden, a
gazebo, and a bocce ball court, none of which are likely to be used in any sort of,
you know, extensive manner whatsoever. Let's be honest here, it's just to meet
the minimum requirements for open space and amenities, but it's not going to do
anything to encourage long-term renters or long-term individuals within this
complex. Finally, I think the big question mark is in regard to what happens on
Meridian Road, because this access road and, of course the, ACHD project, will
it be restriction to right turns only, because that is so close to the Ustick and
Meridian Road intersection? ACHD could very well come back and say that that
would be a right turn only, in which case those residents would, then, have
problem accessing areas north for the commercial districts or in terms of coming
back from any commute pattern. Thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Thank you. Who wants to be next? Please. Come forward. Name
and address for the record.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 28 of 44
Hitchcock: Clay Hitchcock. 93 West Sedgewick and some of the thunder has
already been taken out of some of my comments, but I'm going to jump on what
Jim just got through saying there and one of -- I'm going to start off -- one of the
first things that I'm going to say is I think the traffic study of 352 a day versus 290
-- I would challenge where those numbers came from. It just doesn't seem -- in
terms of today's world, it just seems like more than that to me . The other thing --
there has been a total lack of communication between the developer and the
residents around the area. The only thing I received and I feel real inadequate
doing here -- I had a little three-by-five card that came over from the city
planning, but it wasn't even this complete plan that I saw here. So, you know, I
had my magnifying glass and I was looking at it. I tried to navigate your website,
but I couldn't find the details there either. So, the t raffic that's going to be coming
down through -- through Sedgewick from the residential areas there, in terms of
the number of residential areas there versus how many are down on our street,
you know, I can see a significant increase in traffic going through there and there
has already been two points brought up about , you know, we are waiting what's
going on with the Meridian project versus now kind of integrating that into what
this project is going to do in terms of people turning out and turning right on
Meridian if they are going down to the freeway or, you know, trying to get on
Ustick, which I don't see any access to Ustick for these people that are here. So,
as far as doing this development for future transit projects, I think you got a little
ways to wait on something like that. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Come forward. Name and
address for the record, please.
Carver: My name is John Carver. I live at 730 West Claire, which is at the end
of Sedgewick. Sedgewick is virtually one of two little roads that I can use to get
in. Indian Rocks and Sedgewick are the only way that I can get into where I --
which is called Vallencourt at the end of that. I have heard nothing from
anybody. Now, they may not think that I -- first of all, this is -- I mean it's a
stone's throw away from my house and , secondly, nobody bothered to tell us
what was going on. So, I heard about this tonight, so I'm unprepared. There is a
perfectly good park across the street, by the way. You don't need bocce balls
and you don't need gazebos. As was mentioned earlier, that's part of a
smokescreen. We have a lovely little gazebo in our neighborhood, too. I think I
have seen three people use it in nine years. They are not used. This thousand
cars that ACHD has come up with, how on earth did they come up with that kind
of a number? How do they determine that's safe? Has anybody stopped to think
about all the kids that live in that neighborhood ? There are any number of kids
that are on -- just on the edges of these cul-de-sacs these gentlemen were
talking about. I drive very, very slowly when I go down that street , because I
know there are kids and I know how kids act. The biggest problem I have with all
of this -- two of them. One is you cannot access this from Ustick. Why not?
That would take a lot of the pressure off of Sedgewick for starters. But they
might lose a lot doing that. And multi -- multi-families, are we talking low
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 29 of 44
income? What are we talking about here? We just -- the term is 48 dwelling
units of what sort? And where is the money coming from? Is HUD involved in
this? Because I heard that HUD is cutting out of a whole lot of these programs
and if they do where is the money going to come from to finish those projects ?
And to have just one access. This is all directed to -- to make it easy on the folks
that live in those two houses now, as was mentioned earlier. They are giving up
nothing and they are making a ton of money doing this. They could take a road
and put it right between their houses and go right on back in. But, again, they
might lose a lot that they could sell. This is very convenient for them, but they
are not thinking of the rest of us and when I bought my house nine years ago,
about 20 minutes before the market fell apart, I paid a hell of a lot of money for
that house and I'm nowhere close to getting it back. You do this -- you allow this
to happen in its present form -- I don't mind houses back there, but this multi-
family stuff and only one ingress and egress -- what does the fire department say
about that by the way? I will stand for any questions.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Carver: Thank you for your time.
Yearsley: Anybody else? Name and address for the record, please.
Drouillard: Jeanette Drouillard of 166 West Sedgewick. Some of the things I'm
going to say have already been said. The first concern is the multiplexes out on
Meridian Road. Originally we were told at the first meeting they would be four,
not eight, which seems to be overstated. Our next concern is how many parking
places per unit are there going to be ? How many guest parking? How many
extra cars per unit? Sometimes there is three or four cars per unit. So, where
are all these people going to park? They can't park on Meridian Road. Are they
going to come over and park along -- into Sedgewick? That is a big concern of
ours. And, then, also I was told that -- I don't know how soon this will happen,
but that they will be coming onto Meridian Road, but they will have to turn right,
they will not be able to go left, excuse me, and so those people that really want to
go left will probably turn into Sedgewick, go into our first cul-de-sac, turn around,
go back out and go left. That is a real concern, because we are already
overloaded on Sedgewick. On Sedgewick we have 40 houses. We have a
subdivision behind us, which is Salisbury -- what's it called? Yes. And there are
60 homes back there. They use Sedgewick and they have an alternative to use
Indian Rock, which I have talked to many people that live in that subdivision , they
do not like to go out Indian Rock, because they have four dips in the road to slow
them down. It is a higher profile of cars lined up on the street and so I would say
out of the 60 houses probably 40 to 45 use Sedgewick to get to Meridian Road.
Our road, other than the third party or, you know, company, doesn't have a lot of
cars on the road and we do have a speeding problem down Sedgewick. We
have the 60 homes behind us, the 40 in our subdivision, and now they are going
to add 29 houses coming out of this new subdivision , so that is 60 cars a day
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 30 of 44
more just on Sedgewick and our other concern is why is -- is there only one
outlet for that subdivision? All of those homes are going to have to come out on
one road and it just seems like the impact is going to be tremendous on
Sedgewick and just trying to get out on Meridian Road, even if it is four lanes, it is
going to be a tremendous impact on the people. There is houses, there is -- you
know, living in the subdivision all the UPS and all
these --
Yearsley: Your time is up. If you could wrap it up, please, I would appreciate it.
Drouillard: Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else that would like to testify? Please come
forward.
Simunich: I am Joe Simunich and I live it 2715 Venable Avenue. I have lived in
that area for 47 years and most of these subdivision projects there is no address
made to the irrigation. It's just left to the developer to do what he wants. So, I
don't know -- there is some pipe there along -- in the front of this subdivision
there is a lateral that goes south, the lateral goes north and there is also a
measuring weir and I don't know if this is going to be reconstructed by the
developer or Ada County Highway District when Meridian Road widens there
from Ustick south. Can you -- can someone answer that for me?
Yearsley: When we have the applicant come back after everyone's talk ed I will
have him answer that question, because at this point I can't answer that question,
so we will have him answer that question for you when he comes back up.
Simunich: I just want to reiterate that these -- some of these developers do what
they want. For instance, about two years ago at 9:00 o'clock Nampa- Meridian
Irrigation called me and said there is water coming out behind a lot on Indian
Rocks Street, 150 inches of water, nobody knows where it's coming from,
because Nampa-Meridian has no control on the laterals and the developer that
did Indian Rocks did not close off the pipe. Somebody figured they needed to
irrigate, they closed off a box and the water came out behind Indian Rock Street.
So, it's important that we take a look at irrigation in the subdivisions. Thank you
very much.
Yearsley: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? Please.
Thomas: Good evening. My name is Nick Thomas. I reside at 2975 North
Meridian Road. The second house in question. And I appreciate the time you
have given us all to come here tonight. I -- I would like to appreciate those that
have commented so far. They are passionate and that's great. I want to live in
this house for a long time and I want people that are passionate about where
they live surrounded by me. And I realize this isn't a perfect project. Nothing's
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 31 of 44
perfect. It's what the developer has put together with what was left. This could
become a strip mall, it could become all kinds of things. I appreciate that it's a
place for me to live with my wife and kids and we can enjoy the neighborhood
together and I like what's planned. I appreciate the concern of the traffic. I drive
up and down Meridian Road every day. Imagine right now how it is to get access
on without -- with just a private driveway. With ACHD helping out and with the
requirements here, it's going to be great for the community. I only have one
request, because I am the second in question with the detached garage, I'd like
to keep it -- I'd like to have a variance for it. My wife and kids and I would love to
get a boat someday and park it in the garage. If I tear it down I spend the money
building another garage and never buy the boat. So, that's selfish on my part.
But I appreciate your time. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Into the microphone. No. No. We have got to get it on
record, so -- sorry. Name and address for the record, please.
Brown: Wayne Brown. 2858 Springwater. And I did mark, no, I didn't want to
speak, but --
Yearsley: No, you're more than welcome to speak.
Brown: However, I heard some things tonight that kind of disturbed me. So, I
will make it very brief. Everybody talks about Sedgewick. Well, I live on Spring
Water. There are four houses on Spring Water and the total impact is going to
come right out past by my house. We have lived there since 2002 and did I know
that there was a stub street when I bought there? Yes, I did. Did I think that I
would be impacted like this development? No, I did not. However, I think when it
comes down to economics, as this gentleman said, my house is going to be
worth about half, because nobody wants to buy it, because there is 97 cars going
by my house every day. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Please.
Enzler: Good evening. My name's Kyle Enzler. I'm at 3001 North Meridian
Road. So, I'm the big, bad developer, builder, but I'm also the homeowner and a
little bit of background. We actually searched out this project, because as a
builder we build custom homes and we don't build spec homes, we don't build
production homes. Everybody we build for is a friend or somebody that's
personally referred and we have a lot people coming to us -- in this particular
area there is not a second home -- there is Corey Barton and there is older
homes, but there is not a second home option. So, there are -- a lot of our
friends are moving out to Bainbridge and Paramount and Eagle and other places
and they were looking for a community and a product that was nice that they
could stay in the area, they could stay by the park, and we were part of that, my
wife and I, we have three kids. So, obviously, in planning this we -- all of the
comments that were made tonight I appreciate. Obviously, as a father we have
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 32 of 44
the same concerns, thinking about traffic and kids and our little kids on bikes and
everything else and we went into this with that in mind of how could we plan a
really nice community that we could live in and I was thinking back when I was
14, I -- one of my first jobs was a development my father did years ago and I -- I
was out there shoveling dirt and what I liked about it was it was a mixed -use
project, it had multi-family, it had nice residential homes and as I got older one of
my first jobs I could actually afford the -- to live on that site. I actually moved into
one of the apartments. So, these apartments that we are building, as talked
about, they are a pinwheel design, which if you know about the construction of
them, they cost more money to build. There is a lot more cost that goes into it.
There is granite in there. Our price point for our rents are higher. We are trying
to attract people that want to stay the re. Say with the homes, you know, they are
-- in fact, we -- where we had our community meeting we invited everybody to
our house, because that's the kind of community we are trying to create. So, we
are super excited about this -- this project, to be able to use the existing houses,
which were built in the '90s, they are not tearer downer houses, they are -- they
are houses that, you know, are worth keeping and -- and I feel like staff has done
a great job in recommending how we can meet the requirements -- as you can
see the extra open space that we did, the extra amenities we did were because
we care about living here on site in this project and so I appreciate your time.
Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Please. Name and address for the
record, please.
Steiger: My name is Janice Steiger and I own a home at 2881 North Spring
Water. That just borders the -- what we have here and the only thing that I want
to say about it is everybody has said a lot of stuff. I am opposed to it. I just think
it's -- a development of that size needs to have more accesses out of what they
are developing, instead of going through other neighborhoods and everywhere
else. They need to have access off of Ustick. Meridian Road where they are
coming -- where the multi-family is going to be coming out is a two lane right
now. I know that they are going to expand that to a four-lane. I'm not sure when.
I know it's on the plan. But at the very least should it not wait until it is four lane,
so all that traffic can have somewhere to come out on. This is really close to
Ustick and you can't get in and out of there and if you bring all that development -
- wait until there is the infrastructure to support the traffic and don't go through
everybody else's subdivision, make more accesses to Ustick or Meridian Road
and wait for infrastructure to support it.
Yearsley: Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you. Would the applicant like to
come forward?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, for the record again, Steve
Arnold, A-Team Land Consultants. I will try to address as quickly as I can the
majority of the concerns. Again, the number one that came up that I hear
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 33 of 44
repeatedly is the traffic and the traffic generation number that I got, that's from
ACHD, the 2010 traffic count. I did send that to staff and show that comes
directly off of their information, the 352 trips per day on Sedgewood Drive, and,
again, we are adding 290. The traffic counts you essentially assume ten trips per
household. We have got 27 new, but we are adding the two existing homes, so
that's how I come up with the 290. The site is constrained. There was only one
stub street provided into it -- into the back portion and we have got development
that occurred west of the site with no stub to us and we got development that is --
that has occurred north of us without a connection . My fear is if -- and we didn't
connect the multi-family to the single-family for a planning purpose. We were
trying to keep, you know, the two separate uses -- the traffic separated and not
increase potential additional traffic onto Sedgewick Drive, because we knew
there was a concern there with the traffic. We did however -- and as a staff
recommendation and we agreed with it -- we -- we did provide pedestrian
connectivity to the north. So, we do have a pedestrian pathway that will get
future pedestrians to the -- to the church or to the playing fields there and/or
north to the -- to the park site and so there was a lot of thought that went into how
this site was laid out, how we can best make the uses compatible and try to keep
like uses next to like uses with the single family and the existing and, then, then,
multi-family out closer to the arterial, as stated earlier tonight, you know, in hopes
that we can have eventually density that would support transit in the future.
There has been several comments about the changes in the plan, they are a bait
and switch that's occurred. If anything has occurred we have gone down with --
working with staff on the density that we originally proposed. We have lost multi -
family units and we have lost single family units and I apologize for anyone that I
had -- did not e-mail the site plans to. I do have my e-mail on all the notifications
and the public -- the neighborhood request. I have replied to everyone that -- you
know, that responds to me. I have done this enough -- you guys have seen me
here enough that I'm not going to bury my head and not reply to neighborhood
concerns, so I apologize to any neighborhood that -- or neighbor that we did not
get information to. Another issue came up about irrigation and you wanted me to
address that. Our intent is -- when we develop this -- any pipes we -- any
irrigation canals we pipe to and through. There has been an issue that I believe
Mr. Simunich brought up about some flooding that had occurred. This property,
because of the subdivision to the west of us, was -- they did not account for the
tail water of our two five acres irrigating. So, there has been a problem with
these two existing five acres when they irrigate there is flooding going on. Well,
as a part of our development when we develop this site, we are going to provide
pressure irrigation and all of that will be cleared up with -- with our development.
So, there has been an irrigation issue out there that will be cleaned up as we
develop. The driveway that's being proposed -- we have been working with
ACHD and that's going to be a full access, so left-in, left-out, right-in, right-out.
And, again, we wanted to keep traffic separated just for the concerns that we are
hearing tonight. So, I think I have addressed the majority of the issues. If I have
missed any I would certainly stand for questions.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 34 of 44
Yearsley: So, a couple of them was -- is this going to be a HUD home -- dealing
with any HUD or urban -- a HUD project or is it not?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, these rents are going to be anywhere in that 975 to 1,000
plus. This is not a planned low-income subsidized housing. These are -- these
are high end units. You can't put these types of -- you can't afford to build these
type of units without getting the rent back and the intent is -- just as you heard
talk about tonight is to get the high rents and to keep qualified people into the
subdivision, so -- into the multi-family. And as it relates to the value of the single
family homes, you know, we definitely see those as being in the mid 250s to 300,
whereas that will actually help the comps for the residential neighborhood around
us. So, they will increase with value. I don't see any issue with anyone losing
value because of our subdivision.
Yearsley: I know you mentioned it earlier, but the parking spots, per code how
much is required and how much are you providing?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, two per unit, which would be 96. Parking -- I have a hard
time saying this in front of a Boise city person, although he's gone. In Boise city
we drop down to 1.24 or 1.5 and that's a problem. I mean I have had issues. But
we have also -- where we can keep it two units of parking, it's plenty adequate
and we are providing -- we have got 48 units. We are required to do 96. We are
providing 101.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the other one was talking about a transition from R-
4 to R-15. Can you kind of talk to that just a little bit? I think it was specifically to
the -- to the west of your property.
Arnold: I believe the R-4 is to the south of us. So, our lots -- the R-4 to the west
and R-4 to the south, we are putting the R-8, which we believe, you know,
between the R-4 and, then, the office north of us, is the natural planning
progression of densities as you get closer to the arterials. So, our R-4 -- or,
excuse me, our R-8 is in the back adjacent to the other residential densities and
we are putting the R-15, the higher density, up near Meridian Road and the
arterial. So, we are creating kind of a natural barrier with the existing homes and
the density adjacent to the arterial and, then, lessening the density as you come
closer to the existing single family homes.
Yearsley: Okay. And that's -- that's exactly what I wanted to make sure that we
understood. Any other questions?
Fitzgerald: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 35 of 44
Fitzgerald: Steve, the two eight-plexes are the ones to the north of the existing
home and, then, the ones like to the east of the existing -- of the other existing
home?
Arnold: That's correct. They are away from the -- those are -- I know that they
are going to be similar architectural styles. We have combined them. Instead of
doing two four-plexes to try to increase areas of parking that we were doing.
Originally we had four-plexes, but we were coming -- we figured it would make
for a nicer product type getting more different buildings in there to do a true
mixed use type of development.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you.
Arnold: And place those away from existing single family.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Could you speak to -- I know we had one person testify and I saw it in
the staff report, the concern on fire equipment and stuff getting into that loop and
the one access in there. Have you had comments from the fire department on
that?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner McCarvel, yes, we have had -- we had a
pre-application meeting with fire. Because this is a loop road it was adequate
and, then, also with our -- our access out onto Meridian Road. The alternative, if
it was a problem, we would have pushed a connection between the single family
and the multi-family, but that was not a concern by fire.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I have just one question on -- looking at the homes facing Meridian
Street, you have this upper, but are there also going to be fenced around those -
- each of those multiplex family or will that just be open?
Arnold: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Oliver, no, the -- most of the fencing -- we
do have some screening for the mechanical units and, then, there is a little bit of
fencing for the individual open space for them, but it's -- it's on their back patio,
essentially, is partially fenced off. But the idea is have it open to landscaping and
open along the -- there will be fencing on the perimeter of the subdivision,
though.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 36 of 44
Oliver: Thank you.
Yearsley: So, there was some -- some comment -- sorry, were you done?
Oliver: Yes.
Yearsley: There was some comment about adding -- basically putting a road in
between the two homes and go out to Meridian, but if you did that you would still
have to tie into the stub street off of Sedgewick, is that not correct?
Arnold: That is -- Mr. Chairman, that is very correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Arnold: When I worked at the highway district, we came up with that sign that,
you know, this road is going to be extended in the future regardless of -- you
know, I mean the whole idea of getting the stub is to have multiple in and outs
and it's too bad that we didn't get one from the west and, then, to the north -- I
guess there has been -- I didn't address that, but there was questions about why
we are not getting a road going north and one of the problems was -- if you -- you
have got the intersection of Ustick and Meridian Road. Even if we could, if there
wasn't a development north of us, the offset of that intersection doesn't meet
ACHD's requirements. So, you know, I would assume that's why, you know, we
are not doing a public street, we are doing a pedestrian pathway, is to have those
interconnected that way.
Yearsley: Okay.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Yes.
Oliver: So, in relation to the pathway going north, that pathway connects to what
outside of your property lines? Because there is a -- yeah, there is the church,
but there is also the retirement --
Beach: Mr. Chair, if you look at the -- the aerial for that, the assisted living facility
is here on the hard corner and, then, the church picks up this portion here. What
you can't see in this aerial photograph is the church has since expanded
significantly from this and they have added significant portion of additional
parking on the site, so, essentially, will connect to the church. There is not a
whole lot of additional open space to recreate in that area, but that could
potentially get folks closer to the intersection and up to the park.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 37 of 44
Oliver: So, basically, what it just does, it connects to the church where they have
a pavement and they can walk up to the park from there. Okay. Thank you.
Yearsley: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. With no more
questions, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearing on file number
H-2016-0075.
Fitzgerald: So moved, Mr. Chairman.
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: Commission Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: This one is hard for me. I -- and I'm a -- and you all know that I like a
mixed use -- mixed density projects. I think you do have a step up between
residential homes, multi-family, and, then, you have a community -- or I mean an
assisted living facility to the north. I think that's good. For some reason this just
feels odd to me, though. I don't know if it's the layout or something. I'm not sure
what it is, but something is not -- I don't know. I'm not -- I haven't totally made up
my mind about where I'm headed. This just feels like we may have packed too
much stuff into the -- onto the road or something is not -- I don't know.
Something is not sitting well or perfect with me. I'm not sure if it's the eight-
plexes or the stuff that's right up against Sedgewick to their south. If it would
have been just on Meridian Road I think I would have been fine, but I think -- I
don't know. It seems that we are maximizing the multi-family too much.
Yearsley: One thing, if you look at those four-plexes along the south, if you look
adjacent to that it's actually a common area --
Fitzgerald: Exactly. That's -- agreed.
Yearsley: So, it does not -- it does -- I think it only backs up to maybe one or --
Fitzgerald: One house right there.
Yearsley: Yeah. So --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 38 of 44
Fitzgerald: And that's actually what -- pulled up an aerial so I could see that,
but --
Yearsley: Yeah. Any other comments?
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I, too, have some mixed feelings about this development . I do know that
it's good to have mixed use and I know that any way we look at it that area is
going to be filled in with something and -- and I don't know which is the lesser of
two evils, to go one way or the other, but I think that if you look at this it does
have some mixed use, which makes it nice and it is good access. What I worry
about is putting anymore load on Meridian Road. But as far as the way it's set
out, going out on to Sedgewick, it looks like that's about the only alternative we
have and as far as the apartments, I think that's going to work out okay. So,
viewing everything and knowing that something is going to hap pen, I think I
would have to go with it.
Yearsley: Thank you.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I have the same kind of odd feeling about this as everybody
else. I think it -- it just -- it feels like it's got this little racetrack going around in
there, but I would be -- obviously, it's just going to be homeowners in there using
it, so, hopefully, you know, they pay attention and don't use it -- don't go around
the corners real fast. But, yeah, it just seems kind of oddly disconnected,
separated -- I'm not sure.
Yearsley: You know -- and I have a tendency to agree with you, but I like the
way that they did it, that they are -- because my -- one of my biggest fears -- if
you would have connected the two streets together is you would have had more
of the apartments trying to get out through Sedgewick. So, by doing that -- I like
the fact that they are trying to limit the amount of people exiting into another
subdivision. Unfortunately, they were kind of dealt a poor hand with development
to the north and not a stub street to the -- to the west. You know, barring having
to buy a couple of lots and adding an extra street, which, you know -- so, I kind of
like the fact that they did that. It helps to minimize traffic there. I like the fact that
they tried to put their commercial -- or their apartments to the front and tried to
minimize impact to the adjacent subdivisions to the south. So, is it the best
situation? It's probably not, but I do think it's a -- it's a good compromise I guess
is what it -- and I understand -- I'm sorry, we can't have comments. And I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 39 of 44
understand -- yeah. It is tough to have growth happening in your backyard. But
the developer does have -- you know, as long as he is meeting the development
-- an opportunity to develop it how he would like it, I think it works. I think it's
minimal invasive to the adjacent subdivisions. Like I said, he could probably
have done worse. It's hard to say.
Fitzgerald: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think -- and I agree with exactly what you just
said. I do think that the developer did a great job of trying to minimize traffic
going into Sedgewick and that, so I do -- I give them a lot of credit for that. And I
-- I mean it does help that the builder, developer is going to live there and I
appreciate them bringing R-8 up against their own house, which is interesting.
So, I mean at least they are putting themselves in the situation everybody else is
in as well. I think my only comment was -- I mean somebody is going to develop
there and it could be denser than it is right now overall. They could request that
under the current -- the future land use map, so I think it -- could it be improved?
Possibly. But I understand where you're going.
Yearsley: And I think the change, you know, between what they have seen and
-- and how it ended up being today, working with staff, making comments and
recommendations to try to help minimize those impacts, I think was a lot of the
reason for the change.
Fitzgerald: And, Josh, in the future could we -- if we have something similar to
this, can we see lot lines for the neighborhood around it, if the applicant doesn't
provide it, so we can see what this -- what an R-4 -- or what the multi-family is up
against, just so we can see it in the future. That would be helpful.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: Yeah. I mean my overall comment was just -- comment as far as on
the overall design. I think they did a -- I do think they did a great job of trying to
push most of the traffic from this directly out onto Meridian. Yeah. I t would have
been ideal to have some sort of road to the north, but, obviously, they didn't get
that and I think the density -- you know, your -- in the staff report we are actually
looking at a gross density of 4.2. Even though it's an R -8, it's spread out -- I
mean you have got the R-8 and the R-15, but the R-8 portion I think they said it's
a gross density of 4.2 over there, so it -- it is a good transition of what should be
expected there I think.
Yearsley: Yeah. I agree. The one comment -- and I apologize to the
homeowner -- the one shed that they are asking to keep, I don't know if I like that,
having a shed in front of their house adjacent to the street. I know that's against
city code and so I would recommend that it be removed.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 40 of 44
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I also agree, because I was just sitting here thinking about it, that if they
are in an HOA and the HOA say none of those allowed in the subdivision, that's
not very fair when you look at somebody else, just because they were there, you
get a variance to include that, so if you're going to be fair to everybody you have
to play by the rules and I think that shed needs to come down.
Yearsley: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I agree. I think if it was placed anywhere else,
but it's right out there in the front where everybody has got to look at it and -- I
agree it will probably have to go.
Oliver: Sorry about the boat.
Yearsley: So, with that, if there is no more discussion or comments I would
entertain a motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner Oliver.
Oliver: I haven't been here for a while.
Yearsley: I know.
Oliver: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2016-0075 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 1, 2016. Do I
need to put the modifications in the --
Yearsley: No. It's already in the staff report, so --
Oliver: Okay.
McCarvel: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to approve file number H-2016-0075.
All in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 41 of 44
Yearsley: If you guys wouldn't mind permitting me, I would like to take a quick
break if you would. So, we will stand for a quick recess.
(Recess: 8:11 p.m. to 8:17 p.m.)
D. Public Hearing for 2016 City of Meridian Comprehensive
Plan Map and Text Amendment (H-2016-0098) by City of
Meridian
1. Request: Amend the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
and Text of the City of Meridian Comprehensive
Plan as Follows:
1) Update the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) So
That it Represents the Built Environment
and Existing Land uses;
2) Update Various Text Through-Out the
Document and the Goals, Objectives and
Action Items
Yearsley: All right. We would like to get started again. Next item on the agenda
is the public hearing for H-2016-0098 for the Meridian Comprehensive Plan map
and text amendment and let's begin with staff.
McClure: Members of the Commission, thanks for having me here tonight. I'm
before you to discuss a number of proposed changes to the city's
Comprehensive Plan and to the future land use map. A little history. The
previous Comprehensive Plan was reformatted to be fresh and adopted on April
19th, 2011. Since that time staff has yearly reviews of the policy statements
within the Comprehensive Plan of the goals, objectives and action items and
several of those reviews have results in a number of text amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan. This is the first city-initiated map amendment since the
2012 south Meridian update. All of the map amendments since this time have
been entirely development driven. Broadly speaking, this Comp Plan application
includes three types of changes, all of which staff considers to mostly be clean
up. The first set of changes goes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Most of
these are minor updates, names, references, or to inform of current efforts. The
second half of the changes are to the policy statements in the Comprehensive
Plan, the goals, objectives, and action items. Aga in, they are considered to be
mostly clean up or status updates. Lastly, staff has proposed a number of future
land use map changes. Some of these are rather significant, at least in times of -
- at least in terms of the area of the map. All these, again , are still considered to
be cleanups. For example, a number of school and park sites have been
changed to a civil land use where previously -- currently they have a commercial
or a residential designation. The reason behind this is that all of the older school
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 42 of 44
and park sites have the specific land use, so this is a consistency change. One
of the reasons this is important is for land use analysis . I'm not planning to go
through all the changes. There is a lot. So, I will stand for questions at the end if
you have any specific ones. But I will go through a number of examples for each
of the three categories I just mentioned. This slide shows a few proposed
changes to the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Green underlined text
represents new text. Red strike through text represents deleted text. The first
here is just to show that the city has adopted a strategic plan since the
Comprehensive Plan was adopted and it's important, so we are going to add it to
the Comprehensive Plan. I should also note that the strategic plan has also been
added to Chapter 7, which is the section that deals with all the adopted by
reference documents. The second item here is just to show what a lot of these
revisions are and that's minor. In this case we are changing Meridian School
District and Joint Unified School District No. 2 to West Ada School District and
this occurs in a number of locations. This slide shows a few proposed changes
to the policy statements in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, the first item here is
just a name change. We adopted the architectural standards manual at last year
or early this year and the previous one was called the design manual. The
second related item is just to show how we modified an existing guideline to take
in what the original guidelines -- the design manual guidelines described. When
we were for Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council for the
adoption of the architectural standards manual, we told you about a number of
site changes that were going to have to be removed, because they weren't an
application and some of those will be making their way into the Comprehensive
Plan or into the UDC. I think this is the only example where we are actually
picking up from the old design manual and put it in the Comprehensive Plan.
The third item here is just another example of the cleanup. And the fourth is just
to show that in some cases it is not actually a change in the guidelines, it's just a
change that we are responsible for and in this case the city cultural -- arts and
cultural person is in the Finance Department and the baton is being passed from
the Mayor's office to Finance. This slide shows a few of the land use changes.
Red outlined areas are -- have been the Comprehensive Plan and in all areas
where this has occurred this is because the county has removed this from our
area of city impact or because of an adjacent area next to that has been removed
and it's not hard to service. Green highlighted areas again are kind of the same.
They are where the county has added to the area of city impact and where we
are at adding a land use that didn't previously have one. In these cases where
this has occurred we are just -- the adjacent land use is just being in this new
area, so there is nothing weird or significant going on. Where changes to the
existing future land use, again, this is kind of mostly where we had schools
before, there was a few other areas where we have had office that were
developed in a PUD and it had a residential designation, so -- and all of these
cases were just changing the land use to match what is built and what was
envisioned to remain there indefinitely. A number of other future elements have
changed, so we have the school sites and fire stations and t hings like that.
Those are currently identified with halos. Where those occur before and now,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 1, 2016
Page 43 of 44
anywhere in that square mile we could have a park site or potentially fire station,
something like that. The map has been updated to show that's no longer a
possibility, so we can't actually put a park there anymore or can't put a fire station
there anymore in a few locations where the parks and the fire department have
identified needs. We have also added a State Highway 16 . That's a future
addition to the map. We already have a number of other future roadways, so we
are just showing the future Highway 16 extension on there now as well. Tonight
city staff are requesting a recommendation of approval to Council for both the
text and the map amendments. Next is a public hearing before City Council for
approval and, lastly, next year we are planning to do again our annual review of
the policy statement and, then, we will als o be looking to update the existing
conditions report, which is an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan, which in
learning it is very out of date. With that I'm happy to answer any specific
questions you have, anything I have glossed over or didn't touch on, I will answer
you if I can.
Yearsley: Are there any questions? No? You look perplexed, Commissioner
Fitzgerald, so I wasn't sure if there is something -- okay. You know, I think it
looks very good. I think it cleans up a lot of stuff and I think the changes to the
map I think look really good. So, you did a great job, so -- I guess if there are no
questions, I would entertain a motion to recommend approval of these text and
map changes to the City Council.
McCarvel: Mr. Chairman?
Yearsley: Commissioner McCarvel.
McCarvel: After careful consideration of the testimony put before us, I
recommend approval of the change to the map.
Yearsley: And plan.
McCarvel: And plan.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Yearsley: I have a motion and a second to recommend approval of the changes
of the Comprehensive Plan and text -- a map and text amendment. All in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries:
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Yearsley: One last motion.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman?