2017 09-21C�E IDIAN MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.
Roll -call Attendance
_X_ Treg Bernt X Steven Yearsley
_X_ Gregory Wilson _X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Jessica Perreault _X_ Bill Cassanelli
X_ Rhonda McCarvel — Chairperson
2. Adoption of the Agenda Adopted
3. Consent Agenda Approved
A. Approve Minutes of September 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of AT&T —
Store -It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) by Justin Hadley, Smartlink,
LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
4. Action Items
A. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2017 for Heritage
Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E.
Idaho Avenue
Approved
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a
Drinking Establishment Use on the Property
B. Public Hearing for Madden Subdivision (H-2017-0121) by Kobe,
LLC located at the Northeast Corner of Locust Grove and E.
Franklin Road
Recommend Approval to City Council — Scheduled for October
24, 2017
Request: combined preliminary and final plat consisting of 3
commercial lots on 8.3 acres of land in the proposed I -L and
C -G zoning districts
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda —Thursday, September 21, 2017 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
C. Public Hearing for Pond Subdivision (H-2017-0115) by Schultz
Development located at 2980 N. Meridian Road
Recommend Approval to City Council — Scheduled for October
24, 2017
1. Request: preliminary plat consisting of 21 building lots and 5
common lots on 4.82 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district
D. Public Hearing for Rapid Creek Subdivision (H-2017-0117) by
WHPacific located near the Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Black Cat Road
Continued to October 5, 2017
1. Request: annexation and zoning of 23.02 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district
2. Request: for preliminary plat consisting of 93 building lots
and 11 common lots on 21.02 acres of land in a proposed R-
8 zoning district
E. Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments (H-2017-0124) by SCS
Brighton, LLC generally located South of W. Franklin Road and
East of S. Ten Mile Road
Recommend Approval to City Council — Scheduled for October
24, 2017
1. Request: amendment to the development agreement to
change the development plan for an 8.16 acre portion of the
site from commercial retail to multi -family residential
2. Request: amend Unified Development Code 11-4-3-278.3 to
change the minimum private usable open space for each
multi -family unit from 80 square feet to 60 square feet.
3. Request: conditional use permit for a multi -family
development consisting of 240 residential dwelling units on
8.16 acres of land in a C -G zoning district
F. Public Hearing for Aegean Estates (H-2017-0114) by Premier
Investments, LLC located East of N. McDermott Road and South
of W. McMillan Road
Recommend Approval to City Council — Scheduled for October
24, 2017
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 65.3 acres of land with
the R-4 (25.79 acres) and R-8 (3.76 acres) zoning districts;
and
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, September 21, 2017 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 215 single-family
residential building lots and 22 common lots on 62.7 acres of
land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts
G. Public Hearing for 2017 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
(H-2017-0113) by City of Meridian
Recommend Approval to City Council — Scheduled for October
24, 2017
1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for the
purpose of 1) updating the text and policy statements (Goals,
Objectives and Action Items) contained in the plan; 2) add text
that identifies the Southern Rim; and 3) update the current
version of the Existing Conditions Report (ECR)
Adjourned at 9:08pm
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — Thursday, September 21, 2017 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting September 21, 2017.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of September 21, 2017, was
called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Treg Bernt. Commissioner Bill Cassanelli, Commissioner Gregory Wilson,
Commissioner Ryan Fitzgerald and Commissioner Jessica Perreault.
Others Present: C.Jay Coles, Andrea Pogue, Caleb Hood, Sonya Allen Josh Beach and
Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll-call Attendance
__X___ Treg Bernt ___X___ Steven Yearsley
__X___ Gregory Wilson ___X___ Ryan Fitzgerald
__X___ Jessica Perreault ___X___ Bill Cassanelli
___X___ Rhonda McCarvel - Chairman
McCarvel: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. At this time I would like to call to order
the regularly scheduled meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on
September 21st. Let's begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda
McCarvel: Thank you. The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda . We
have one item this evening that has requested a continuance . It's Item H-2017-0117,
Rapid Creek Subdivision. They have requested a continuance to October 5th. So, it will
be opened solely for the purpose of continuing the item . So, if there is anybody here
tonight to testify on that particular application we will not be taking testimony today. And
could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as amended?
Bernt: So moved.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
A. Approve Minutes of September 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 2 of 59
Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of AT&T –
Store-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) by Justin Hadley,
Smartlink, LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
McCarvel: Next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda. We have two items on the
Consent Agenda this evening, approval of minutes from September 7th, 2017, Planning
and Zoning meeting and Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law for AT&T Stor-It Self
Storage. Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda as presented?
Perreault: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: At this time I would like to briefly explain the public hearing process for this
evening. We will open each item individually and, then, start with the staff report. The
staff will report their findings regarding how the item adheres to our Comprehensive Plan
and Uniform Development Code with the staff's recommendations. After the staff has
made their presentation the applicant will come forward to present their case for the
approval of their application and respond to any staff comments. The applicant will have
15 minutes to do so. After the applicant has finished we will open to public testimony and
there is a sign-up sheet in the back as you enter for anyone wishing to testify. Any person
testifying will come forward and be allowed three minutes. If they are speaking for a larger
group like an HOA and there is a show of hands to represent the group , they will be given
up to ten minutes and there is a timer on the screen at the mic, so you can keep track of
your time. After all testimony has been heard the applicant will be given another ten
minutes and have the opportunity to come back and respond if they desire . After that we
will close the public hearing and the Commissioners have the opportunity to discuss and
hopefully make a recommendation to City Council.
Item 4: Action Items
D. Public Hearing for Rapid Creek Subdivision (H-2017-0117) by
WH Pacific located near the Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Black Cat Road
1. Request: annexation and zoning of 23.02 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district
2. Request: for preliminary plat consisting of 93 building lots
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 3 of 59
and 11 common lots on 21.02 acres of land in a proposed R-
8 zoning district
McCarvel: So, at this time I would like to -- we will open H-2017-0017 to be continued to
October 5th.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I move we continue file number H-2017-0117 to October 5th of 2017.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to continue H-2017-0017 to October 5th.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
A. Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2017 for Heritage
Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E.
Idaho Avenue
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a
Drinking Establishment Use on the Property
McCarvel: All right. So, at this time we would like to open the public hearing for H-2017-
0100, Heritage Hop Haus and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. As you said, this is an
application for a conditional use permit for Heritage Hop Haus. The site consists of
approximately 0.05 of an acre of land. It is currently zoned RT -- or, excuse me, OT. It's
at the corner of Idaho Avenue and Main Street in downtown Meridian. The
Comprehensive Plan official land use map designation for this property is Old Town. The
applicant is requesting to -- the subject site is currently operating as a, quote, retail store,
wine and beer sales and serving business. The applicant is requesting operation of the
same business, but as a drinking establishment. The applicant has submitted a site plan
with the application. However, the site and building are not changing, only the use.
Therefore, no additional site improvements are explicitly required by the UDC. By way of
explanation, the -- the difference between a retail wine and beer sales and serving
business and a drinking establishment are the hours of operation that you're allowed to
be -- to be open. The drinking establishment use allows them to be opened until 2:00
a.m. So, the only change here will be -- I don't believe the -- the way they operate their
business will be changing at all, just -- just that they be able to be open a little bit later in
the evening. As I say, that -- nothing on the site beyond the hours of operation will be
changing. Did receive a written testimony from the Harvest Church, which is on the north
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 4 of 59
side of Idaho Avenue and south of Pine, just across the street, essentially, with some
concerns about how this may impact their -- the neighborhood with some additional folks
walking around in the evenings and what problems may arise from that . Staff is
recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? At this time would the applicant like to come forward.
Just come up. If you will just state your name and address for the record and, then, you
can tell me you --
Izett: Personal address or --
Bernt: Business is fine.
Izett: Okay. Evan Izett. 729 North Main Street, Meridian, Idaho. 83642.
McCarvel: Okay. And did you have anything to add to the staff report?
Izett: No. Just wanted to extend the hours to the proposed time and if there is anyone
who wants to, you know, dispute that, I'm just here to state my case.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Thank you. And you're Evan?
Izett: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. Okay. You can sit back down if you have nothing more to
say. And at this time we take public testimony if there is any. I don't have anyone signed
up on the sheet, but is there anyone here that wishes to testify? Okay. Could I get -- at
this time could I get a motion to close the public hearing for item H-2017-0100.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Wilson: I move to close the public hearing for H-2017-0100.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017-0100.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Any additional --
Fitzgerald: Madam Mayor?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 5 of 59
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- this is what we want in Old Town -- or in downtown Meridian. I think it will
bring more people down and have it be a place that they can walk and go to different
restaurants and establishments and so I -- I don't see any reason why this isn't a good
thing, so I will be supporting it.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: Yeah. I mean I agree. I mean it's a -- I -- maybe I should have disclosed, I
patronized Heritage Hop Haus. It's a good place and I think considering sort of the other
establishments in the area it would make sense to extend its hours and I will be supporting
it, too.
McCarvel: Absolutely. I agree. I think for Old Town I think this is a nice addition. Just
add the hours to a business that's been doing well. Anybody else? Can I get a motion?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve
file number H-2017-0100 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of
September 21st, 2017.
Cassanelli: Second.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file number H-2017-0100,
Heritage Hop Haus. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
B. Public Hearing for Madden Subdivision (H-2017-0121) by Kobe,
LLC located at the Northeast Corner of Locust Grove and E.
Franklin Road
1. Request: combined preliminary and final plat consisting of 3
commercial lots on 8.3 acres of land in the proposed I-L and
C-G zoning districts
McCarvel: At this time we will open the public hearing Item H-2017-0121, Madden
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 6 of 59
Subdivision.
Beach: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, this is an application for a combined
preliminary and final plat. The site consists of approximately 8.38 acres of land, which is
currently zoned C-G. I will note that the previous Planning and Zoning Commission --
there was a hearing to rezone this specific property, if you recall, to both C-G and I-L. So,
there is -- there is another project in the mix to change it, just so that we are all aware of
that. To the north is industrial use. To the east are single family residence, which is RUT
and industrial use, zoned I-L and commercial auto repair, which is recently constructed
zoned C-G. To the south are single family residential homes, zoned RUT and multi-family
residential, zoned 15. And to the west is vacant property zoned C-G and I-L. This
property was annexed into the city in 1996 as ordinance number 748. The
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation for the property is commercial. As
I said, a combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of three building lots
on 8.38 acres of land in the current C-G zoning district. As I mentioned, that is going
before the City Council to -- to modify the zoning. The UDC restricts access to arterial
streets when access is available from a local street. This property has frontage on both
Nola Road and Lanark Street and Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. There are two
existing access points to the site from both East Franklin and North Locust Grove, which
are both classified as arterial roadways. Since the property has access to both Nola and
Lanark, access to the arterial should be restricted. If approval for access is obtained from
the City Council and the highway district, city staff is of the opinion that a single access
point to each arterial be granted and that the accesses be shared. The applicant has
indicated they will also construct access points to North Nola Road and East Lanark,
which are both considered local commercial streets. A ten foot wide street landscape
buffer is required to be provided along East Lanark and North Nola Road, which, again,
are both public streets. The applicant has proposed a 20 foot landscape buffer along
East Lanark, even though only a ten foot landscape buffer is required along that street.
A 25 foot landscape buffer is required along both North Locust Grove and East Franklin
Road, which, again, are both considered arterial roadways. Landscaping within the street
buffer should be provided in accord with the standards in the UDC. Sidewalks are
required to be provided with development in accord with the standards in the UDC . A
seven foot wide attached sidewalk currently exists along North Locust Grove Road and
East Franklin Road. As mentioned, the UDC requires that sidewalks along arterial
roadways be detached, but the same section of code gives the director the ability to waive
that requirement in certain cases. The director sees no reason to remove and reconstruct
the sidewalk in this case and the applicant will be required to install attached sidewalk
along North Nola and East Lanark Streets per the previously stated standards. The
applicant will be required to come forward with a certificate of zoning compliance and
administrative design review application to develop the site. Did not receive any written
testimony on this. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. I will indicate that I
did receive a staff report from the highway district this afternoon, actually, to talk about --
it addressed some of the access points the applicant is requesting and the applicant can
discuss further what he is proposing with -- with you on that. I will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Josh, do you have a picture of the plat?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 7 of 59
Beach: I do. I apologize. So, as I said, this is both a preliminary and a final plat
application, so this is the preliminary plat here and this is the final plat. So, it's difficult to
see exactly on this where the access points are based on the rezone application that you
folks saw a few weeks ago. We are requesting that the applicant provide their one access
point to Locust Grove on the shared property line, so it can be used by both and the
second one on Franklin also be on the shared property line for Lots 2 and 3. Then they
can have as many access points onto Lanark and Nola as they would like to, but our
recommendation is one for each. They will have to get Council approval to do anything,
but that's staff's recommendation is just one.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Tamura: Madam Chair, my name is Doug Tamura. We are owners of the Madden Sub.
My address is 732 Santa Paula Place in Boise. We are here to support staff's
recommendations. We have got some discussions about those access points that we
are still kind of in negotiation with the highway district and he was saying it might be more
appropriate for me to expound on access at City Council versus Planning and Zoning,
unless you want to hear my -- my story. I will leave it up --
McCarvel I think we would like to.
Tamura: You want to hear it?
McCarvel: Yeah.
Tamura: We are fine with the single access on Franklin. When we -- when we dedicated
the right of way to Locust Grove part of the negotiations was trying to historically lock in
those access points, because we know the value of our property is dependent on access
to the highway. Yeah. And so the two access points on Locust Grove, if we are limited
to one, we would like to try to maintain the -- the northern access point, but it's only a
limited access to -- if it becomes prohibitive, the highway district wants to be able to close
that off. So, what I would like to do is go back to the highway district, renegotiate with
them where we could locate that access point that we could maintain a full access, so --
but at the same time we think that, you know, because the northern property is going to
be more of a distribution, you know, big truck deliveries and, then, we are assuming that
the corner potentially is a C store where we will have a lot of, you know, local vehicular
traffic, that it would be nice if we could keep -- maintain at least the two access points on
Locust Grove so we have a right-in, right-out and, then, a full access would be more for
their trucks and, you know, the disturbing part of our -- you know, the other thing about
our site is 8.3 acres and so we are technically only going to have five access points for
eight acres, so -- where I get six access points. So, that's my story. Any questions?
Bernt: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 8 of 59
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: So, what do you propose for Lot 3? What's going in there? So, that Lot 2 is going
to be a C store. What's Lot 3?
Tamura: We have another automotive use that's looking at that lot.
Bernt: A what? Excuse me.
Tamura: Automotive.
Bernt: Okay. Yeah.
Tamura: Then we have got a distribution on the north -- north lot.
Bernt: So, it would be like a car lot type of a place?
Tamura: No. It's more automotive -- similar to what's across.
Bernt: Yeah. That's being built.
Tamura: Yeah.
Bernt: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. At this time
we will take public testimony. I have Dale and Helen Sharp on my list, but haven't marked
if you would like to testify. Is there anyone here that would like to testify? Okay. I'm
guessing the applicant doesn't need to come forward again .
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I'd move we close the public hearing.
Cassanelli: Second.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moving and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017-0121,
Madden Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Comments?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Yes.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 9 of 59
Cassanelli: This -- a question kind of for staff. Right now it appears that all the sidewalks
on that intersection are -- are not detached. Is it -- could we -- can we condition that as
that gets approved at least in the intersection area we maybe look to detach those ? I
realize going all the way up Locust Grove and whatnot they are -- they are not detached,
but maybe if the -- is there a way to do that at the intersection itself? Strictly maybe from
a safety standpoint to bring them back.
Beach: I believe you have the ability to make that a condition of approval if you would
like to. I know there -- I read through the conditions from the highway district in their staff
report that I received this afternoon and they are pretty generic. They just require them
to either construct or repair any existing or substandard sidewalks , but there is no
condition from them that they have a -- have a detached sidewalk. But, again, if you -- if
you decide that's something you would like to see as a condition you can definitely do
that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, could I ask Commissioner Cassanelli why? Because it doesn't
fit with anything else in the area.
Cassanelli: Doesn't it?
Fitzgerald: No. There is literally nothing -- I mean it does in front of the -- over here in
front -- in front of --
Bernt: Further east.
Fitzgerald: Further east.
Cassanelli: I guess I was just -- I was thinking right now that entire intersection is -- is
undeveloped -- well, there is townhomes. Was anything done --
Bernt: That's the other corner. Across the street.
Cassanelli: Across the street.
Bernt: Right now it's undeveloped.
Cassanelli: Everything is?
Bernt: Everything is.
Beach: I want to show you an aerial from Google Earth here. Bear with me and I will
show you what the situation is with the sidewalks in case you are curious.
Cassanelli: I guess my -- in terms of that I was just -- I was looking at if -- as that entire
intersection gets developed if -- and I'm not -- you know, it's -- for a short distance. I'm
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 10 of 59
not thinking the entire length of that -- of the property and merely for -- for both safety and
esthetics.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members -- Members of the Commission, I would also point out
to Commissioner Cassanelli that there is also a bike lane along that segment of Locus
Grove, too. So, even though you have an attached seven foot wide sidewalk, you still
have a roughly two, three, four foot wide bike lane. So, it's not directly adjacent to the car
way -- or the travel lane of that roadway. So, there is some separation by virtue of that
bike lane. So, I did want to just bring that to your attention as well. Also ACHD has
different policies than the city. Typically, as Josh mentioned to you, we do require a
detached walk along arterial roadways, because we do want the safety for the
pedestrians. But in the case that it can't be accommodated or there is already existing
facilities, ACHD will require a seven foot sidewalk, so that you do, again, increase that
pedestrian safety. That's why you have that two additional feet. Rather than having a
five foot sidewalk, they require a seven foot attached sidewalk. So, again, you increase
-- have a wider sidewalk to increase pedestrian safety. But I thought I would just bring
that to your attention. Typically we don't have the developer -- and that's what Josh
mentioned -- we don't have the developer rip out perfectly good infrastructure to put in a
detached sidewalk. It's, for lack of a better word, a waste of taxpayer's dollars, because
we have already -- we have already paid to put that sidewalk in and why do we want to
have it ripped out and, then, redone again, so just a little more information on that for you.
Beach: As you can see here, just as an aside, as you can see here further -- further east
we go on Franklin that there -- there is a detached sidewalk. So, I'm not sure what the
time frame was for installing these sidewalks. I think typically ACHD does attached
sidewalks when they widen a road. So, again, I don't know what the time frame was when
those were constructed, but they have been there for a while.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I think I'm fine with all the conditions of this. I do actually have a tendency
to side with the applicant with having the two accesses on Locust Grove. The north -- or
the south one being a right-in, right-out. If you're going to have a truck delivery, you know,
place where you're having a lot of trucks that come in and out, it's probably not a bad way
to separate those two from the C store. So, I would be in support of -- of that, which I
don't think that's our purview, it's just the Council --
McCarvel: Right.
Yearsley: -- but I would make a recommendation to Council that they accept that one,
so --
McCarvel: Yeah. I was -- I was kind of thinking the same thing with this picture on Google
Earth, that it's a right-in, right-out that will probably make it a lot easier to get right onto
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 11 of 59
that property.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? I -- Gensco isn't a very big traffic center. It's big trucks coming
in and, you know, the contractors coming in in the morning and, then, leaving and so I
think it would be reasonable to have those two accesses as well.
McCarvel: Okay. Anybody want to make a motion?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I move to recommend
approval of file number H-2017-0121 as presented in a staff report for the hearing date of
September 21st, 2017, with the recommendation to Council that they consider adding --
or allowing that second access on Locust Grove in the south would be a right-in and right-
out.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0121, Madden
Subdivision with recommendations. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing for Pond Subdivision (H-2017-0115) by Schultz
Development located at 2980 N. Meridian Road
1. Request: preliminary plat consisting of 21 building lots and 5
common lots on 4.82 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district
McCarvel: At this time we will open the public hearing for item H-2017-0115, Schultz
Development and we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: Very good. Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is a project called
Pond Subdivision. It is a preliminary plat --
McCarvel: Oh. Sorry.
Beach: The site consists of approximately 4.82 acres of land. It is currently zoned R-8
and located at 2980 North Meridian Road. To the north is a residential care facility. To
the east is county residential properties zoned R-1. To the south is Silhouette Subdivision
and Highgate Subdivision, which are zoned R-8. To the west is North Meridian Road and
single family residential and multi-family residential property, zoned R-8 and R-15. A little
history. This land was previously annexed and zoned and granted a conditional use
permit in 2012 for what was Tomorrow's Hope. Comprehensive Plan future land use map
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 12 of 59
designation for this property is medium density residential. The proposed plat consists of
21 single family residential building lots and five common lots on, as I said, 4.82 acres of
land in the R-8 zoning district. Minimum lot size in the proposed development is 4,129
square feet. The minimum lot size in the R-8 district is 4,000 square feet. So, they have
met that standard. The proposed overall density for the development is 4.35 dwelling
units per acre, with a net density of 6.47 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with
the medium density residential designation . Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for
compliance with the dimensional standards listed in the UDC and with the exception of
Lots 3, 4 and 5 of Block 2, the plat was found to be in compliance with those standards.
So, staff has crafted a condition that the applicant revise the plat for Lots 3, 4 and 5, Block
2, so that they meet the standards. Access to this site is proposed on the plat from
existing access to North Meridian Road. The existing access shall be converted to a
public road and the commercial access for their residential care facility and the drive way
for the existing home will be reconfigured. A stub street is proposed to the east for future
extension and interconnectivity. The plat depicts 47 foot right of way sections and no
other access is available to this property. There is one common driveway proposed. The
applicant's proposing Lots 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of Block 1 to take access from the single
common driveway. So, these lots here or will take access from this proposed common
driveway. The open space and amenities are not -- are not required for this plat, because
it falls under the five acre threshold for the UDC. The applicant has, however, provided
an approximately 0.24 of an acre of open space for the development. Moving to the
landscape plan you can see kind of where those areas are. They are required to provide
a five foot landscape buffer along any lots that don't take access to the common driveway.
Common lot here. Landscape buffer along Meridian Road. And, then, there is a buffer
in front of an existing home that is stated to remain and become part of the proposed
subdivision. So, having said that, there is an existing home and associated outbuildings
on the site that are proposed to remain, to be located on Lot 1, Block 1. All existing
structures that are proposed to remain with subdivision of the property must comply with
the setbacks and standards of the R-8 zoning district or be removed prior to city
engineer's signature on the final plat. This lot, just so the applicant is aware of this, will
likely -- the address will not be off of Meridian Road anymore, so that address will change.
There is one existing outbuilding a Lot 1, Block 1, that will be located within the required
street yard with the subdivision of the property. The UDC restricts the detached
accessory dwellings from being located in that setback. Staff's condition is that they
remove that to meet the setback standards. The applicant is requesting that City Council
allow the accessory building to remain on the property in its current location . It would be
this outbuilding here. A five foot wide detached -- excuse me -- five foot wide attached
sidewalks are proposed along internal streets within the development. The Onweiller
Canal crosses the southern portion of the site. All ditches on the site are required to be
piped, unless waived by City Council. The applicant is requesting a waiver from Council
due to the large capacity of that lateral. The final flat should depict the easement for the
lateral on the face of the plat and label it as such. The proposed conceptual elevations
from the applicant appear to meet the standards of the city. If the Onweiller Canal cannot
be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity , the lateral is required to
be fenced with an open vision fence at least six feet in height and having 11 gauge two
inch mesh or other construction equivalent and ability to deter access to said lateral. I
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 13 of 59
did not receive any written testimony on this application. Staff is recommending approval
and I will stand for any questions. There is kind of a lot there, so let me know if you have
any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff?
Cassanelli: Can you go over the existing building -- outbuilding that's there again in the
-- and what it -- and the problem with that?
Beach: Yeah. So, if you see -- this is the footprint of the existing home. I don't entirely
know how this is going to be oriented -- the front door is where the front door is, so I
believe the front door is out to Meridian Road and if you look at the plain of the home,
proximately right here, the front of the home, we don't allow structures to be between the
front portion -- the furthest -- I guess I'm referencing the road. So, where ever the road
that the property takes access from -- we don't allow structures between the road and the
front of the home. So, that -- that outbuilding sticks out a ways past the front of the home
-- between the front of the home and the road. That's kind of a simple explanation for
that. Does that make sense?
Cassanelli: Yeah.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Schultz: Good evening, President, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile
in Meridian. Good to be here. I'm here on behalf of Berkeley Building Company, who is
going to purchase the four acres from the Ponds. The Ponds are going stay on in about
a .8 acre house. They currently run the adult care facility on the two acres north of it. So,
the whole seven acres was annexed and zoned R-8 with a conditional use permit for the
assisted living adult care facilities back in early 2013 and -- and they are running the
facility out of their house. They are going to keep the house and .8 acres and, then, sell
the rest to Berkeley Building Company who is going to, hopefully, help them build that the
next year. So, it is already zoned -- it's already zoned R-8. It's a good zone for the area.
There is existing R-8 to the south of us. There is an existing city pathway on the other
side of the canal. The other side of the canal is a ditch access road, which we are going
to fence off with a six foot wrought iron fence to prevent any access to it, which we have
done with some larger delivery canals. It's not really a natural drain, if you will, it's a
delivery. So, we are going to fence it off. Across the street we have got some R-15, I
think it's some apartments coming in. The whole intersection has been blown up here for
the last several months with ACHD widening it out. Josh, do you have that color rendering
that I submitted? If you would, please. Did you get that in the package? Maybe? Maybe
not? Anyways. A good -- it greatly widened it out and they are going to put in a median
in Meridian Road to limit the access to it to right-in, right-out, which isn't the greatest thing
in the world, but it's going to help us with conflicting uses coming out there at that
intersection. We are only 500 feet away from -- from Ustick, really close to Settlers Park,
which we are excited about. You know, it's -- it's -- it's an amazing park with some great
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 14 of 59
amenities in it and easy access for this site to get to. It's very close. We have got
detached homes. Berkeley Building Company is building the same thing right now down
on Easy Jet and Eagle south of the Ridenbaugh on a project that came through last year
called Bancroft Square. They are building those right now. Great homes. Single story.
1,300 square feet. The biggest will be about 2,200 and everything in between. A lot of
variety. Good architectural features. Nice inside stuff. Good, high prices. And we think
it's going to be good. So, we think it all fits. It's the right place and it's already zoned.
We meet the zone. We agree with staff's report. The one outbuilding -- it's 120 feet back
from the new road. It's way back there. It does -- it is 25 feet from the front plain of the
house. It's 20 feet behind the front plain of the house. It was there when it got annexed
and zoned. We are going to ask for a waiver from Council to have it grandfathered in. I
don't think it's hurt anybody being that far back. I could see on a new city lot, yeah, why
don't we put an accessory building out in front. But since this is three quarters of an acre
lot existing, 120 feet back, you know, we don't make new lots this big typically, but
because it is an existing house and everything else, the configuration works to keep it this
way. So, with that said I think this is a pretty straight forward subdivision in my opinion.
It fits and I will stand for any questions and ask for your recommendation of approval to
Council. Thanks.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Schultz: Thanks.
McCarvel: Thanks, Matt. At this time I will take public testimony. I have Ted Williams
signed up who would like to testify. And as you approach the mic, please, state your
name and address for the record.
Williams: Yeah. My name is Ted Williams. I live at 3080 North Meridian Road, just north
of this property.
McCarvel: Okay.
Williams: I think for the most part I don't have a lot of major concerns, but I do have a
couple comments and questions. If you could bring the plat back up.
McCarvel: Josh. There we go.
Cassanelli: Talk into the microphone.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Williams: Yeah. Is that better? Or is this one better? The one concern I have, you know,
as a citizen who lives in the area and part of your job is make -- making sure that we have
a good plan for the future for the people that live in this area -- is how -- how well will this
design work with future expansion. So, with an eye towards future expansion -- does my
mouse reach here?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 15 of 59
Beach: No.
Williams: Okay. So, I will just point, you know. Guess where I'm --
McCarvel: We will follow your words.
Williams: Okay. Where this -- the main drive of this subdivision and all the houses to the
south of it, all those lots I think are great and it's got a plan to go east , which will fit with
the -- a stub that has -- already comes out. So, if there is a future growth over there,
which there probably will be, that will work great. But this -- the piece here that has one,
two, three, four, five, six -- yeah. That section, while it seems like you're going to allow
that with one driveway and there is probably rules to say that that's okay, I just wondered
how well that fits with future expansion when that -- and I realize that maximizes the
developer's use for the lot -- for the property now, but later if the -- this piece that's R-1
goes to a subdivision, that land could have been used maybe for a road access to not
only the remaining properties to the north where -- if they ever wanted to be subdivided,
those end up kind of being islands right now with this plan and so I just -- I just have a
question about how well that works with future expansion and, then, the other question I
have is my water access goes along the west side of this and I didn't quite catch exactly
what the plan was with that and I just wanted to make sure that I -- I think it's going to
remain, is that what I heard? And, then, it's not going to be piped, it's going to be gated?
McCarvel: Yeah. I think he said they will just fence that off so people can't get down
there and --
Williams: Just to summarize, my overall -- I think it's fine. I do think the extra drive that
doesn't quite have, you know, the standard emergency width road into it is somewhat of
a compromise and I'm not sure how well that fits with future expansion and growth in the
area. And, then, my other concern is that I have water access still.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Now how do we shut it off? Hit the snooze. Okay. I don't
have anybody else on the list that would like -- that has signed up, but if there is anyone
else -- sir, if you would like to come forward. And state your name and address for the
record.
Farley: My name is John Farley and I live at Meridian and Ustick. All right. I appreciate
the opportunity to stand here and talk to you all for just a few minutes and I'd like to make
a couple points. Number one, I really like this town. I like it a lot. And I am really getting
more and more disturbed when I see more zero lot line properties moving in. It's not that
much difficult -- more difficult for the city or the county to say, look, we aren't going to take
any more zero lot line products for a while and just lay it out. Because we need some
more -- we need some more open area. This city was designed around farms as a rural
type atmosphere. That's what it was designed for. We are trying to put too much stuff in
a too small area. You know what I'm saying? We need to take a look at that and see if
there is a way we can maybe make the city stay as good as it is and not ruin it, because
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 16 of 59
it's really easy to do that. You got contractor after contractor after contractor going to go
ahead and do zero lot line product, two, three story high and it's sad. It will die. That stuff
is bad stuff. I looked at the drawing for the plan -- or for Ponds and it looks like there has
been some thought put into it. It looks like it's been around a little while, because there
is not a whole lot near it. But it does look pretty good. I am concerned as I am about a
lot of -- a lot of other little things around here and that's the -- he mentioned ingress. We
have -- one right now on the right-hand side -- it's on the right-hand side as you're going
up. The problem is, as I understand that Pond is going to have two egresses and ingress,
one on Ustick and one on Meridian. What's the deal? Why can't we just kind of use these
and right where that path is use it for the intersection. One go left. One go right. Thank
you very much for giving me an opportunity to see what I'm talking about. I would like to
be able to support anything and everything the c ity does, but, then, I wouldn't be doing
what my job is. My job is to try to find things that are wrong and try to bring it to your
attention. I think they are wrong. That's my opinion. Everybody has got one. Okay? Do
you all have any questions?
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to testify on this issue?
Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and address these questions.
Schultz: Yes. Thank you. I think it was Mr. Williams first. Excuse me. Sometimes we
are just given what we are given on these sites. Sometimes property lines make things,
you know, a little challenging in terms of doing a perfect plan for the ultimate future
development of everything. We think it's a good plan. Our driveway does meet fire
department code for width and turn around, links, and we do provide a stub street to the
east and it works, you know. I mean it meets all your code and it works. As far as how
we are going to get access later, if not off of Meridian Road, he has a very -- looks like
maybe less than a hundred feet wide. I'm not sure the property that he has up there. It's
going to be a little challenging, but certainly from the back there is an opportunity when
the future develops there in that R-1 and there is another house there and it's a separate
parcel -- I know they all at some point -- I'm already -- I am already getting inquiries as to,
hey, would you want to buy or sell -- I know it's going to develop, it's just when. Not if, but
when, you know, and how does that develop. It will certainly -- access to those properties
will be required in some form when the -- around the back develops. As far as irrigation,
I believe he might have been talking about -- there is a delivery lateral that runs north-
south off the canal, off of our east property line, and we are going to pipe that. We are
not going to impede it, like we do with all of our irrigation, the smaller ones we are
supposed to pipe them and not mess with them and that's what we are going to do and
not mess with it in terms of changing the point of delivery or -- constricting any flows. But
we do have to put it underground and so that's going to be done as far as the maintaining
his irrigation delivery on our west property line. I just want to for the record say these are
not zero lot lines, these are five and five for setbacks, just like R-4 is. It isn't R-8. These
are two story homes, five and five. It's -- it's just a little bit more efficient being R-8 than
R-4 is, but it's -- it's certainly across -- across the way in Silhouette, those are zero lot
lines, those are an attached individual townhome product with a zero lot line across the
way, which I think works, but we are not -- not that that's bad, it's just we are not that. So,
with that I just want to ask for your approval. Thanks.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 17 of 59
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time
could I get a motion to close the public hearing for Item H-2017-0115, Pond Subdivision.
Yearsley: So moved.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017-0115.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Anybody like to think out loud? I personally think it looks just fine. For the in-
fill project there it kind of conforms to what's around it and follows the lines of what's there
and I think for -- if the Council wants my two cents I think leaving that building there is
probably okay. It's set back far enough and has enough landscaping around it I don't
think it's going to bother anybody.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Can you go back to the plat? I -- I like the subdivision and I agree with -- with
Matt Schultz that, you know, you build with what you're dealt with and when I first looked
at the plat my first thought was access to the north -- you know, are we cutting off access
to the north and so I actually -- looking on my phone frantically trying to find where this
was and -- and how it fit in with the area and, you know, if he had the other property to
the -- to the east, you know, he maybe could configure that and actually make a loop road
of some sort. But they don't own that property and so they have to deal with what's in
their property boundaries. They -- as for us they are following the code. It fits within the
code. It's already -- it's not only zoned R-8, so we are not changing the zoning, and so
based on those we are kind of obligated to -- you know, where they meet the code it's --
they have the right and so, you know, I would recommend approval based on -- on those
items. There will be -- and as future development comes in there may be opportunities
to try to provide access to those properties to the north . It's a little kind of convoluted
back in there, so, you know, it could be a little challenging depending on how they want
to develop together or separately. So, that will be something to be determined. The only
other item that I don't know if it was addressed. He talked about two ingresses and
egresses and I think with this there is only one road in and out. It will be a right-in and
right-out only and so I think it's a good subdivision.
McCarvel: Anybody else? Can I get a motion, please?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 18 of 59
McCarvel: Mr. Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to recommend
approval of file number H-2017-0109 for the hearing -- as presented in the staff report for
the hearing date of September 21st, 2017.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Are you adding the recommendation to City Council on the
outparcel or not? Just asking.
Yearsley: That's not a -- I don't think it's a --
McCarvel: Yeah.
Yearsley: -- staff approval.
Fitzgerald: With your comment -- I was just making sure --
McCarvel: Yeah. It's in the public -- it will be on the record and it will be --
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: I think the item number was H-2017-0105.
Fitzgerald: What the chair said. Second.
McCarvel: I think it has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0115, Pond
Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
E. Public Hearing for TM Creek Apartments (H-2017-0124) by SCS
Brighton, LLC generally located South of W. Franklin Road and
East of S. Ten Mile Road
1. Request: amendment to the development agreement to
change the development plan for an 8.16 acre portion of the
site from commercial retail to multi-family residential
2. Request: amend Unified Development Code 11-4-3-27B.3 to
change the minimum private usable open space for each
multi-family unit from 80 square feet to 60 square feet.
3. Request: conditional use permit for a multi-family
development consisting of 240 residential dwelling units on
8.16 acres of land in a C-G zoning district
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 19 of 59
McCarvel: At this time we will open public hearing for Item H-2017-0124, TM Creek
Apartments, and we will begin with staff report.
Allen: Chairman and Commissioners, the next application before you is a request for a
zoning ordinance amendment and a conditional use permit. There is also a development
agreement modification that accompanies this application, but does not require
commission action. This site consists of 8.16 acres of land. It's zoned C-G and is
generally located south of West Franklin Road and east of South Ten Mile Road.
Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north and south is vacant, undeveloped land,
zoned C-G. To the east is vacant undeveloped land zoned R-40. And to the west is
commercial property in the development process zoned C-G. This property was annexed
in 2013 with a development agreement and a preliminary plat. The development
agreement was later modified in 2016. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is mixed use commercial and lifestyle center. The applicant is requesting to
modify the development agreement to change the development plan on the south side of
the Ten Mile Creek and the east side of phase one from commercial retail, as shown there
on the left exhibit, to multi-family residential shown on the right. Instead of the original
two large commercial buildings, the applicant now proposes to construct two multi-family
structures containing a total of 240 dwelling units with associated garages and a
clubhouse. Because multi-family residential uses are a desired use in the mixed
commercial and lifestyle center designated areas, staff is amenable to the proposed
modification. The proposed density of 29.4 units per acre is also consistent with that
desired in this area. An amendment is proposed to UDC 11-4-3-27-B3, which states a
minimum of 80 square feet of private usable open space shall be provided for each unit.
This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks and/or enclosed yards.
Landscaping entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement.
The applicant proposes to change the amount of private usable open space from 80 to
60 square feet. Because the multi-family developments that are in mixed use designated
areas are typically more of an urban style of design, as opposed to the typical garden
style apartments found in high density residential designated areas, staff believes that it
may be appropriate in certain circumstances to have a lesser private usable open space
requirement. For example, in this particular development the Ten Mile Creek corridor is
adjacent to this site and provides a nice open space area. Bicycle storage and barbecue
areas are proposed within the complex eliminating the need for those items to be located
within private areas, such as patios, balconies, and porches. A lessor private usable open
space area might, then, be appropriate in this case, just for an outdoor seating area, but
these factors should be considered when determining how much private space is
appropriate. Therefore, instead of amending the standard for every situation as
requested by the applicant, staff instead recommends an amendment to the UDC Table
11-5B-5, the alternative compliance section, that will allow requests for alternate
compliance to the staff. The alternative compliance process allows alternative means to
meet the intended purpose of certain regulations as deemed appropriate by the director.
And, finally, a conditional use permit is proposed for a multi-family development
containing a total of 240 dwelling units on 8.16 acres of land in a C-G zoning district. Two
four story structures are proposed. Access is proposed via future collector streets from
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 20 of 59
Ten Mile Road and West Franklin Road. Parking is proposed in accord with UDC
standards for the development, with an additional seven spaces above the required
amount. Common open space is proposed in accord with UDC standards. Further
revised open space exhibit as shown there, submitted by the applicant. A minimum of
1.38 acres is required and a total of 1.44 acres of land is proposed. Proposed site
amenities consist of a clubhouse, with a lounge and entertainment areas, public WiFi,
workstations, a fitness center, and TRX cross-fit studio, swimming pool, indoor bicycle
storage, and maintenance room. Outdoor fire pit, table tennis, and barbecue grills. Two
four story structures are proposed similar to that shown for the multi -family units. Fifty-
eight garages, carports, and a clubhouse are also proposed. Building materials for the
multi-family structures consist of three different colors of stucco, with brick veneer accents
and glazing. Two architectural character -- excuse me. The architectural character of the
structure is required to comply with the standards listed in the City of Meridian
architectural standards manual. Written testimony has been received from the applicant
Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation. He is in agreement with the staff report. Staff will
stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Madam Chair. How many of those -- how many garages are they proposing;
do you remember?
Allen: I don't remember off the top of my head, but it is in the staff report, if you have that
in front of you.
McCarvel: I have got it.
Allen: Commissioner Yearsley, it's 58 garages.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Wardle: Good evening, Commission. My name is Jon Wardle. My address is 12601
West Explorer Drive in Boise. I am not Mike Wardle. He was not able to be here tonight,
but I am also involved with this project, so I can speak to the project as a whole. Sonya,
do you have a couple of slides you can just roll through really quickly ? We are excited
about this project. The Ten Mile specific area plan has been a long time coming. We
have been before you recently on other projects there. We have a couple office buildings
that are going down at Ten Mile right now. One of those is fully occupied with 400 new
employees out at the Ameri-Ban building and we also have another five story building,
which will be finished next summer, where there will be more employees coming out to
the area. At the same time we have also been working on a number of retail uses that
will support not only those that work here, but those that potentially would live here as
well and that's why we are here before you tonight. So, the project that we have here --
it is in about the 40 acres just south of the corner of Ten Mile and Franklin Road. The site
is 8.13 acres and we are proposing 240 residential units. They will be one bedroom and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 21 of 59
two bedroom in two four story buildings with a clubhouse in between. What's unique
about this site is the -- the Ten Mile Creek area is just to the north of it. We have already
improved and will be finishing the landscaping this fall of the area coming from Franklin
Road down to the red boundary here and we will continue that on. It will include a ten
foot regional pathway, which ultimately would follow the entire Ten Mile Creek area and
we have also a number of other pathway connections that will not only connect to the Ten
Mile Creek, but north-south to the commercial uses down by Ten Mile -- down by the
freeway. Do I have control of this, Sonya, or can we go to the next one.
Allen: You can control it, but I can switch for you.
Wardle: Thank you. Just a little bit better illustration of the -- of the site. The purple or
kind of the tan purple colors on the outside, those are the small garages. The blue in the
-- two blue buildings are the apartment buildings and, then, the purple in the middle would
be the clubhouse, which would be where the fitness area would be, the pool, bike storage,
leasing, as well as some other entertainment areas there. We just received this today.
This would be on the interior of the project looking into it. The reason we wanted to show
that is how these patios and porch areas will relate. They are not enclosed on basically
two sides. They are opened not only to the inside, but the outside and the wall. There is
really only one wall that touches these patio areas. We felt like in this particular project
that it is more of an urban type development and as this all develops it will fit in very well
with it. The outdoor usable space isn't as critical in these type of units because of the
amenities that not only we will be building, but also the physical amenities of the
landscaping and the pathway system along Ten Mile Creek. Just a quick illustration of
the apartment clubhouse. This one came in sideways. I apologize for that. But just a --
that is the clubhouse there that's showing the different fitness, the entertainment area,
and the swimming pools. And, then, finally, just kind of a real life illustration of how some
of these urban patios do work in everyday application . We just thought that would be
helpful to show you tonight. But we are excited about this project. Brighton has a vested
interest in the Ten Mile area. We will develop these apartments. We will hold these
apartments. It will be part of the concept of being able to work and live and shop at one
place. There is some exciting things that are coming that will tie all these pieces together.
We are working right now on the north-south connection from Franklin all the way down
to the Ten Mile Crossing project. This project right here abuts Cobalt. We are designing
that right now with that roundabout and we will make the connection up to Franklin this
next year and we are working with the property owner in between us to make those
connect as well. So, there will be a lot of interconnectivity that 's happening, which will
help the infrastructure, but we also have a lot of users that are coming very soon as well
that will support not only this project, but support those that will work here and surrounding
area. I stand for any questions you might have tonight. Thank you.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Will the company that's doing the management of the commercial buildings
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 22 of 59
also be managing the apartments or will that be an independent management company?
Wardle: Commissioner Perreault, it will be independent. They are two different type of
management for those. So, we have -- a separate company would handle that on-site
management of the apartments.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, apartments have been the hot topic right now and parking becoming the
issue and one of the things that we are hearing is the covered garages end up becoming
storage units and not parking. So, we have got 58 units of garages here and seven
additional parking spaces. How do we want -- I guess how are -- how are you going to
address the part -- the group -- the additional parking being parking -- or storage units I
guess? Do you have a comment on that?
Wardle: I do, Commissioner Yearsley. Thank you. I can see where that is becoming an
issue. I would imagine that there will be individuals who see that parking garage as their
ability to store stuff, but parking on site -- those individuals will not be able to out park
what their live use is. So, from the management side we will have to monitor that and
make sure that we are not causing a parking deficit. We are finding, however, with these
type of projects that -- and we will just have to keep studying it over the years in the future,
but the parking ratios are changing. People's desire to have multiple cars for everybody
who lives in those homes changes. We are also hopeful that this particular project is
attractive to those that are going to be working nearby and that need for that au tomobile
may be minimized. But from a management perspective we will have to monitor that and
make sure that we are not overparking or causing parking to in other places.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Wardle: If I might just make one last comment.
McCarvel: Sure.
Wardle: We do agree with the staff report on the recommended conditions . We also
agree with staff's recommendation of making a modification to the alternative compliance.
We think that's a good solution, so that it can be reviewed on a case-by- case basis,
instead of maybe a blanket. So, we do agree with that recommendation as well.
McCarvel: Okay. Perfect.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 23 of 59
McCarvel: Oh. Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Jon, who gets a parking garage or -- I mean one of the garages versus not?
Do they qualify for one or do they have to purchase extra or how does that work?
Wardle: It's been -- Commissioner Fitzgerald, it's my understanding that the parking
garages will cost extra.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Wardle: And so it will go -- it will be a premium to have the parking garage.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Wardle: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: We did not have anybody signed up to testify on this issue, but is there anyone
here tonight that wishes to testify? With that could I get a motion to close the public
hearing for Item No. H-2017-0124, TM Creek Apartments?
Bernt: So moved.
Yearsley: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for H-2017-0124,
TM Creek Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley, go ahead.
Yearsley: You know, I -- I like this. You know, I like the shift. I like the change. You
know, I thought at one point that we had too many apartments in this -- in our town, but
talking to a lady in an apartment just recently she said that her rent was going up, so --
which means to me that there is a demand for apartments still. So, this is I think a great
area for apartments. It's kind of off the main road -- or the main arterials, back in and
around for live, work, play areas. So, I think this is actually a fit. I like the -- the style of
the apartments. I think they are -- they are different than what we are seeing and so it's
-- it's a little unique and so I am supportive of the project.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 24 of 59
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: You guys have something that I like to cheer for. No. I'm just joking. I love
that it's master planned. It's live, work, play all in one space and there is -- I always give
Jon, Mike, and the Brighton team huge kudos for really thinking through a project. They
are building that corridor out. Paylocity is already there. We have got multiple buildings
coming in and we have tried to do it in the past with like Citibank and other places in this
city. I think this project is going to really truly be a live-work-play area and so I think it's
perfect, it's unique, it's modern looking, I think it's great. So, I'm in full support.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I just add, yeah, those -- those apartments -- I mean those look like what I see in
a similarly designed urban area. So, it's pretty neat that we are seeing something that
kind of fits with that concept a little bit more and that's cutting e dge and I think that's really
cool and I like it.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: I'm also in full support. One of the things I really like about this -- this proposed
apartment complex is where it's located. You know, it's not near any residential areas.
The live-work-play is a -- this is a good addition. The look is fantastic. Brighton Corp
again comes through with another great development. I'm in full support. Thank you.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have a question for staff.
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault. Sure.
Perreault: If I -- if I remember the staff report, it's saying that there was not a minimum of
1.38 acres. Did that change between the report and now or did I misread that?
Allen: Commissioners. You did not misread that, that it was -- it was miscalculated. The
applicant has submitted a revised open space exhibit and they are above that, the
minimum requirements.
Perreault: I think this is a great location for this. Small hesitation I have is if it's not
managed well I can see this becoming something that's unsightly I guess, for lack of a
better word. So, that was why my question regarding who is -- who is going to be doing
the management, if it's just an independent small private management company, you
know, it's tough to manage that large of a development. If it's integrated in with the other
commercial buildings you might have more accountability there . So, that was my thought
on that. And as for the amendment to the UDC, I am in complete agreement with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 25 of 59
alternative compliance route.
McCarvel: Yeah. I was going to mention that as well. I think that's the way to go with
that, instead of modifying the whole concept there. Yeah. I -- we obvious -- as many of
these projects, high density apartments, you feel like they are going up everywhere, but
it's -- I don't mean to steal Caleb's thunder from later, but I was surprised to learn that the
percentage of apartments has actually gone down to the population over the last ten
years. So, just floored me. So, they are in need and I agree this is a perfect place for it
and the entire concept. So, with that could I get a motion?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: If I can find the motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0124 as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of 9/21/17.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept -- approve file number H-2017-
0124, TM Creek Apartments. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
F. Public Hearing for Aegean Estates (H-2017-0114) by Premier
Investments, LLC located East of N. McDermott Road and
South of W. McMillan Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 65.3 acres of land with
the R-4 (25.79 acres) and R-8 (3.76 acres) zoning districts;
2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 215 single-family
residential building lots and 22 common lots on 62.7 acres of
land in the R-4 and R-8 zoning districts
McCarvel: Moving on. We will open the public hearing for Item H-2017-0114, Aegean
Estates and we will begin with the staff report.
Allen: Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. The next applications are a request for
annexation and zoning and a preliminary plat. This site consists of 62.7 acres of land.
It's zoned RUT in Ada county and it's located on the east side of North McDermott Road,
approximately a quarter mile south of West McMillan Road. Adjacent land use and
zoning. To the north are single family residential properties in the Oak South Subdivision,
zoned R-4, and vacant undeveloped land zoned R-15. To the east is agricultural land,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 26 of 59
zoned RUT in Ada county and to the south are single rural residential properties in Apple
Valley Subdivision, also zoned RUT in Ada county. To the west is rural residential
agricultural properties, zoned RUT in Ada county. The Comprehensive Plan future land
use map designation for this property is medium density residential, which is three to eight
units per acre. The applicant is requesting annexation and zoning of 65.31 acres of land
with an R-4 zoning district, which consists of 28.81 acres and R-8 zoning, which consists
of 36.5 acres. The property is proposed to develop with 215 new single family residential
detached homes at a gross density of 3.43 units per acre, which is consistent with the
future land use map designation of medium density residential. A development
agreement is recommended as a provision of annexation to ensure the site develops as
proposed. A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 215 single family residential
building lots and 22 common lots on 62.7 acres of land in the proposed R-4 and R-8
zoning districts. The minimum property size is 5,603 square feet, with an average lot size
of 8,355 square feet, for a variety of lot sizes. The subdivision is proposed to develop in
five phases. The plat shown before you is what was submitted originally with the
application. Based on the conditions in the staff report the applicant did submit a revised
plan -- plat that shows larger lots here adjacent to this rural residential property and a
pathway to break up the long block face length over here. So, just wanted to let you know
that they are in compliance with the revisions to the plat that are required in the staff
report. One access is proposed to the development via North McDermott Road. Stub
streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future extension and interconnectivity . A
stub street that exists at the north boundary is proposed to be extended with a bridge
across the Five Mile Creek and that is this street right here that comes out of the Oaks
South development. Five Mile Creek runs off site along the north boundary of the
property, just to -- just up from this dotted line here. Five Mile Creek -- excuse me. A
portion of the site lies within the Meridian floodplain overlay district, which will require
floodplain permit application to be submitted for any development in that area . A 25 foot
wide landscaped street buffer is required along North McDermott Road. A 50 foot wide
buffer is proposed to accommodate a taller berm and additional landscaping to buffer the
future State Highway 16, which will eventually be extended to the west of McDermott
Road. A minimum of 6.27 acres of qualified open space is proposed in this development.
The applicant is proposing 7.06 acres in accord with this requirement. Site amenities are
proposed to consist of internal pedestrian pathways, a playground with children's play
equipment, and a picnic shelter and gazebo in accord with UDC standards. The applicant
has submitted eight photos of homes as shown that will be similar to those constructed
within this development, each of which depict at least two different building materials and
stucco, stone, brick veneer accents. Written testimony has been received from Jacob
Hassard from Valley Regional Transit and Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions. Staff is
recommending approval with conditions. Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Would the applicant like to come forward.
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Becky McKay with Engineering Solutions.
Business address 1029 North Rosario in Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this
property Premier Investments. As Sonya indicated, this property is on the east side of
McDermott Road, just south of McMillan. We have Five Mile Creek that runs along the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 27 of 59
northern boundary. To north -- to the north of us is Oak South, which is a project that I
designed for Coleman Homes. And, then, we do have the McFadden and drain that stubs
-- it starts on our property and, then, exits across McDermott Road. This kind of gives
you an aerial photo of the property. So, you can, obviously, see -- I don't know where the
little cursor goes. It's -- I don't know what the cursor is just doing. Where does it go,
Sonya? I'm on the pen.
Allen: There is a -- is there a next or --
McKay: No.
Allen: Do you want a cursor, Becky, or are you just flipping slides?
McKay: No. I'm trying to find the -- oh, there he is. Okay. There he is. It's hides from
me. Sorry about that. So, here is the Five Mile Creek. You can see it running here along
the north boundary. Your multi-use pathway is designated on the north side of Five Mile
Creek. So, that will be constructed with The Oaks property. On the south side of the
creek is Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District's gravel access maintenance road. So,
Nampa-Meridian -- I have met with Greg Curtis and he said, you know, we are not going
to have a multi-use pathway on both sides. The city has chosen the north side, so we will
maintain, obviously, our gravel pathway along the south side. You know, he didn't want
me to make any micropath connections to it. However, people will still walk it and bike it
and -- so it can still function as a more natural pathway. The McDermott drain is located
right here. Comes into the property, taking irrigation from Apple Valley Subdivision, some
drainage, and, then, there is kind of a stub drain here and, then, that McFadden drain
goes across to the west. What we are proposing is where it stubs right there we will go
ahead and pipe that portion and, then, leave the rest of the McFadden open for kind of a
natural riparian area. The property is kind of got a unique shape. There is an outparcel
that's owned by Mike Weaver, located down in the southwest corner. Obviously, I wanted
to take advantage of the Five Mile Creek corridor, because that's going to be a greenbelt,
it's an amenity, so we went -- in our design we bring in a collector roadway right here and
we drop it in, it terminates right at this intersection and , then, I kind of drop it down, we
create a median here, an intersector road so that we don't want some straight street
where people can gain excessive speeds and that's what the point of the media n and
dropping that street in. I did the same thing here, dropped this street in, so it T's into this
local street. The collector roadway Fawn Ridge goes up through. There is no front-on
housing through Oak South, goes directly up to McMillan Road. There will be a future
roundabout there. So, as far as the noncontinuous collector coming in from McDermott,
we will also have a continuous collector that comes in from Oaks South. The Oaks project
has already trust funded with the highway district for 50 percent of a bridge. My client will
be responsible for 50 percent of the bridge and design and installation. We will also loop
water through -- through that section. Then in the master street map they want this
collector roadway to come in and, then, extend to the east boundary and so I have no
front-on housing. I swooped that collector in, stub it into the Quenzer property and, then,
it will eventually go east and connect to Black Cat and go connect south and connect to
Ustick. So, you guys will end up with a continuous collector system that feeds all of this
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 28 of 59
single family residential out to these mid mile collectors and not putting as much pressure
on those arterials. Now, to the south of us is Apple Valley Subdivision. This is an Ada
county subdivision that was done years ago. They had an unopened, unimproved old
right of way easement that was shown on their plat. Ada County Highway District
determined that that was not an appropriate location for a public street , so what they
asked me to do is to made a second stub street connection to Mr. Quenzer and, then, to
stub south, which matched up with half of that right of way. When the Quenzer parcel
develops, then, the other half of that right of way would be located there and that -- that
roadway would go both east and south. We will also be stubbing sewer and water in the
event that those five acre lots ever redevelop. The staff has asked me to put in a
micropath, which I did in Block 8 at this location. We also provided another local street -
- stub street for possible redevelopment at some point in time in the future. Mr. Weaver's
property here -- his home is located kind of on the eastern portion. I did talk with him
about where he would prefer a stub street. I did do a design based on his comments as
far as that if he were to redevelop he would retain the eastern side and , then, he would
possibly do a cul-de-sac and you can kind of see it in light letter -- or light type in my
drawing here. The cul-de-sac would come in and, then, he could do a subdivision. So,
we will stub sewer and water to his property also. Along the McDermott corridor your
ordinance only requires 25 feet of landscaping. I did a 25 foot buffer and, then, I did a
second 25 foot buffer and I wanted a 50 foot buffer, because that is consistent with what
I did with The Oaks development, so that we can get some berming, some fencing, some
significant vegetation, because we know at some point in time Highway 16 extension, the
second phase, will be west of McDermott, so we will, obviously, create that natural buffer
-- sound buffer. We will have significant landscaping as we enter into the project. Sonya
has indicated that the Valley Transit said this may be a location that they may be
interested for say some parking or something. We do have an open area up there that
potentially we could do like a parking lot, so we could do a park and ride, if that -- if that's
what they want. If they don't want it, then, Sonya has put a condition that says, then, we
just get a letter from them that this is not an appropriate location . As we drop our traffic
into the site, obviously, we want the focus to be on our primary open space and you can
see our central open space is located there. We will have playground equipment, gazebo,
pathways going through it. Everything kind of leads to that area. The area is large enough
that if the applicant decides they want to do something like a swimming pool facility, it
could be accommodated within that area. We are proposing detached sidewalks
throughout the majority of this project, so will have eight foot landscape parkways with
trees and, then, detached walks. The only two areas we will have attached walks is we
have two loops and it was just kind of due to constraints of design right there -- however.
Right there towards McDermott. We have got a loop that is a 42 foot right of way with a
29 foot street section. We have parking restricted on one side it will be attached. And,
then, we have another kind of a little L-shaped area on the northeast corner that will be
attached walk with a 42 foot right of way and 29 foot section. The rest of the streets within
the project will be 50 foot right of way, eight foot landscape strips, five foot detached
walks. We have micropaths that cut across through these blocks, obviously, making it
convenient for people to go from one area to the next and I kind of designed it, since we
have only one entrance into the development , other than our connection to The Oaks
collector, that we kind of split that traffic and we don't end up with overburdening one --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 29 of 59
any particular area. As far as the lot sizes, we wanted diversity of lot sizes and that's,
obviously, what your Comprehensive Plan recommends. So, we have lots that the range
from 55 feet in width and a hundred, to 135 feet in depth and lots that range from 70 to
80 feet in width, from 120 feet in depth to 164 feet in depth . So, roughly, the mixture of
lot sizes is 51 percent and 49 percent. That was one of the reasons that we did the both
-- or requesting both the R-4 and the R-8. I like the mixed zoning. I did the mixed zoning
up in The Oaks for Coleman Homes where we had R-8, R-4, and R-15 and so here I have
got a mixture of both R-4 and R-8. In this particular project we are in agreement with Ada
County Highway District. We did a traffic study. We had Six Mile Engineers do an
extensive traffic study and traffic counts. They determined that a turn lane is required for
this project. At the 109th lot they will ask for an analysis of the McDermott -Ustick
intersection to look at what the level of service is at that intersect ion and if any
improvements are required and that's just kind of standard what they're doing on some of
these larger multi-phase projects that take a few years to develop. We think we have got
a really great project. It's medium density residential, which is three to eight dwelling units
per acre in your Comprehensive Plan. We have -- I think it is three point -- 3.43 dwelling
units per acre, so we are, obviously, on that lower end of the density. We have tried to
make transitioning from the existing more estate lots that are adjoining us and
accommodate for their potential future redevelopment in the -- in the future. As far as
infrastructure, there is a new city well that's located just north of the site across Five Mile
Creek. That is a lift station that we designed and built with The Oaks. It has additional
capacity. This particular project will have to purchase capacity in that lift station and, then,
they will extend a 36 inch sewer main line all -- to their south boundary in McDermott. We
are asking the Council that they consider some potential future reimbursement for that
oversize and overdepth, because, obviously, we don't need a 36 inch trunk for a project
that only has 218 lots. We need an eight inch. There is also a brand new site well that's
taken two years to bring online at The Oaks. We will be extending that 12 inch water
main south on McDermott and they will also be linking a 12 inch water main into The Oaks
and, then, for the Quenzer property that is to the east, we will have to extend a ten inch
sewer main and a 12 inch water to go over, so it will eventually connect to the east to the
Quenzers and, then, loop over and connect to your water lines -- your 12 inch water main
in McDermott. So, the projects -- you know, this particular area has been thought through
as far as development. It's been identified for, you know, latecomer fees in future
development. Pressurized irrigation. Nampa-Meridian recommends we put our pump
station at Five Mile Creek, which is a year round source. They want to own and maintain
that system. They already have a check structure in place and so we think that will be a
good location. It will be away from any of the lots and easily accessible via the Nampa-
Meridian access road for Five Mile Creek. Do you have any questions? Oh, I had 23
seconds to spare.
McCarvel: I was going to say, Becky, you are always very comprehensive.
McKay: And I did it all in one breath.
McCarvel: Yeah. Any questions for the applicant?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 30 of 59
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: Very detailed presentation.
McKay: Thank you, sir.
Bernt: Very well done. You didn't leave any rock unturned. So, my question is there any
possible way that -- I'm looking at this -- this proposed development and it just seems a
hair too dense. Is there any possible way that we could take out some lots , specifically
in the northeast corner where there are two lots surrounded on the west side with common
space and then -- and, then, another lot -- it looks like maybe Lot 7 -- one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven.
McKay: In the northeast -- in the northeast corner?
Bernt: I could be wrong. I mean it's just -- it's up in the corner where it sort of -- where
there is -- where there is open space and there is -- it's like an island where there is two
lots with open space.
McKay: Oh, the two lots there where there is open space.
Bernt: Yeah.
McKay: Right there. Could those lots be say relocated somewhere else and have that
open?
Bernt: Just open.
McKay: Obviously, that's a possibility.
Bernt: And then -- and, then, there is a lot that's number seven just right by the Weaver
property directly -- it looks like west of some common lot, just make that maybe a little bit
bigger. I know that you have the minimum and I appreciate that. However, for some
reason I'm looking at this and it just -- it seems too dense and I was wondering what your
thoughts were on maybe possibly increasing the amount of open space.
McKay: The ordinance requires ten percent open space. This particular project is 11.26
percent open space. So, we exceed the -- the required open space under the ordinance.
As far as this property is concerned, we did have to kind of balance the number of lots
considering the cost to extend services. If you notice in the Public Works conditions of
approval we have significant latecomer fees that are based per lot. We have the burden
of extending a 36 inch sewer main line along our frontage clear to the southern boundary.
And we also have to buy into the lift station, I believe, at a cost of -- in excess of 250,000
dollars. So, there are significant burdens upon this project that I have never had on any
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 31 of 59
other project, to be honest with you, and that's due to the fact that the City Council
changed the reimbursement agreement language in the ordinance and said if -- if a facility
is shown on our master sewer plan, then, you shall build it and you will not be reimbursed
for any oversize and over depth, which in the past we were only responsible for what was
necessary to serve our property. So, if an eight inch sewer main and a 12 inch water
main was what was needed to serve our property and that's what -- the case here, then,
anything beyond that we were eligible for latecomer fees. That is no longer the case in
your reimbursement agreement. Now, Public Works has admitted that under certain
circumstances, this being one of them, no developer has ever been required to extend a
36 inch trunk sewer at 30 feet deep. It has always been a City of Meridian project because
of the excessive cost to do so and so they are contemplating trying to come up with a
more equitable language in those -- in that reimbursement agreement, latecomer type fee
ordinance that makes it a little bit more fair. However, at this juncture all I have to work
with is what is in effect at this time and so there will be excessive costs off site for this
particular project and if we start whittling down, when I'm only at -- I'm not even at four
dwelling units per acre, then, pretty soon the project is not going to be cost effective , nor
will it pencil. The density within The Oaks project that I did was four dwelling units per
acre. This one is not at four dwellings units per acre. We have already eliminated some
lots next to Mr. Weaver to -- we took three lots out of the northern portion to widen those
out, make those lots about 9,300, 9,400 square feet and to try to be as compatible as
possible. We always have difficulty when we have lots that are say five or seven acres
trying to get that compatibility. Now, what we find is eventually over time those properties
will redevelop and if you look, this is what is south of us. So, you can see -- this is Mr. --
will this work better? I don't know. There we are. There is Mr. Weaver's property. This
is his house. His home will be 301 feet from my easterly rear lot line -- or my westerly
rear lot line. Two hundred and forty-three feet from my northerly lot line. If you look at
the homes along Becky Drive, you can see the dimensions -- they are 445 feet to my
south boundary, 531 feet, 550 feet. So, we have significant separation. It's not like, you
know, we are up against say acre lots and that what I am doing is going to somehow
negatively impair them. We have taken into consideration that we do have larger lots.
We have put our lowest density -- our deepest lots, our whitest lots next to them. We
have stubbed utilities, so that they do have opportunity in the future to possibly redevelop.
But if you start dwindling and knocking down the density, this thing will not pencil. We
have ran -- I ran numbers on what those off site costs are. I have done preliminary
construction cost estimates and -- and it's going to be expensive.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perrault.
Perreault: Ms. McKay, do you know -- are those going to be custom homes that are built
there? Do you know who is going to be building that out? Or haven't decided?
McKay: There has been some interest in buying the project by Toll Brothers. There has
been interest from other entities. Mario is my client and what he has asked me to do was
to design it, obviously, to meet the needs of say like what Toll Brothers likes in their
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 32 of 59
mixture of lots, their depths, their size -- widths. Now, whether -- whether that materializes
or say another large builder comes in and purchases it, I can't answer your question
specifically. If nobody buys it, then, maybe Mario will develop it and start, you know,
selling pods to different builders for possible spec or custom homes. You know, right now
we are seeing a significant demand for lots and the prices continue to escalate . It just
seems like we cannot meet that demand quick enough.
Perreault: Thank you.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, can you go back to your -- your other -- right there. So, you're going to
start building off of McDermott and go in is what the plan is; is that correct?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Yearsley: But aren't you pulling sewer from the far end and having to pull up -- is that --
or where is your sewer coming in?
McKay: Sewer and water will be coming from the north in McDermott Road.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: And the lift station and the well are just on the north side of Five Mile Creek, so
our utilities will have to come across. We will bore under Five Mile Creek and, then, bring
them in our collector.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: So, utilities are -- are consistent with our first phase.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: We are not having to go to the far east, no.
Yearsley: Okay. That makes more sense. All right.
Perreault: Madam Chair, I have one -- another question.
McCarvel: Commissioner Perrault.
Perreault: The staff report said that the applicant would like the phasing plan to be
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 33 of 59
flexible. Can you give us an idea of what that means?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Perreault, yes. We show five phases and
anytime we phase a project we are basing that on best guess as far as market conditions.
So, we anticipate -- you know, the average phase is anywhere from 40 to 50 lots . So,
you have 215 lots, you will end up with four to five phases if you build say a phase per
year. Now, in good times we are seeing that some of our clients are building two phases
a year, between 40 and 50 lots. Now, obviously, if in 2018 we see interest rates rise, we
see material costs go up -- obviously, with the hurricanes the builders are very concerned
about material costs and what that's going to do to them and home values. Then you see
the phases shrink down, they are not as bold and we go from a 50 lot phase to maybe a
30 lot phase and, then, the number of phases increases from just say six phases or five
phases to seven or eight phases and that's what we saw during the recession. The phase
sizes got smaller and the number of phases got extended. So, that's why we always ask
for flexibility, because there were some jurisdictions, like Middleton, for example, that
wanted to basically hold your feet to the fire. If you said this was phase two then -- and it
was 50 lots, that was phase two and 50 lots. So, we kind of got burned a few times.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Becky -- so, phase one has the entrance off of McMillan -- or off of McDermott.
McKay: McDermott. Yes.
Fitzgerald: Excuse me. So, when -- The Oaks is being built out now. You have -- your
only other access potentially that I can see that isn't undeveloped is that access to The
Oaks. Is that -- when do you plan to build that bridge across Five Mile?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Fitzgerald, we are allowed under the
International Fire Code to have a maximum of 30 lots on one point of ingress and egress.
So, when we hit 30 lots we either have to have some temporary emergency vehicle
access out to McDermott Road, which is typically a 20 foot wide gravel -- can handle
70,000 GVW or design this so that phase two builds the bridge. I have it phased -- if you
notice phase two takes in the bridge.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McKay: So, that I make that connection. Oh, it's not just the vehicular connection, but
we also will loop the water, the 12 inch water, and so for fire flow, anytime we have a
dead end water line, there is a maximum number of homes we can place on that and
meet fire flow and in our conditions of approval from Public Works they said as the phases
come in they will model it and let us know at what -- at such point do we need to make
that second 12 inch connection. So, I have that in phase two.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 34 of 59
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Quick question. The project to the north, The Oaks -- or how far are they
along? You know, the aerial show different -- but where are they at in their development?
McKay: Madam Chairman, Commissioner Yearsley, that is phase six of The Oaks. It
has construction plan approval and they are -- my understanding is they are under
construction. They have already trust funded for their 50 percent of the bridge with the
district. The district says we have the trust fund money. So, it is in place. So, they are -
- I anticipate -- yeah, they will -- they are probably trying to pave before the, you know,
weather gets them this year. If weather gets them it would be spring of '18. Obviously,
our project would not -- would be spring -- you know, we wouldn't get rolling until spring
of '18.
Yearsley: Oh, absolutely. So, do they only have one more phase beyond this one?
McKay: I believe they have like a phase seven and, then, the multi-family area that is to
the west that adjoins McDermott, they are looking to bring in where we -- where I had
multi-family, single family.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: So, I saw a design come across my desk the other day on that.
Yearsley: So, there is potentially two more phases then?
McKay: Correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, Becky.
McKay: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, while Becky is leaving, I just want to ask Sonya. Can you tell
me where -- where the right of way is for Highway 16? I know it's been identified. Can
you just point it out so I can understand it.
Allen: Yes. Just one moment. Let me switch presentations here. So, you can see on
this vicinity map it's this -- these lines right here where my cursor is at.
Fitzgerald: Just to make sure. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we will take public testimony. I have Mike Weaver signed
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 35 of 59
up to testify.
Weaver: Hello. Thank you. I have two things I'd like to talk with --
McCarvel: I'm sorry. Please state your name and address for the record.
Weaver: Okay. My name is Michael Weaver. I live at 4000 North McDermott. I border
the proposed subdivision on two parts -- on two sides. I'd like to -- I hope I can do this in
three minutes. I'd like to talk about two different things here on this. Could I have that
subdivide -- it was -- there. Thank you. The first thing I'd like to talk about is -- when we
first had this -- a community meeting that we talked about and the neighborhood was
there, and talked about the impact of bringing a subdivision in against the agricultural
zone and these -- and these larger lots and the -- our concern -- our neighborhood
concern was to have two story houses looking down into our property that we have always
looked across the open fields. My property probably is the -- you know, it's quite a bit
closer and at that time we were -- we were told that that was going to be -- something that
they were going to work towards. We didn't find out until just a couple days ago that we
didn't -- that didn't happen. So, we are -- we -- we would like to see single story homes
along our borders if we could and I'd like to read a couple things from the -- from the staff
report. It is to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use
development from adjacent parcels and that's -- and, then, also on another page it says
-- from the staff report it says that if two story are constructed on lots such and such, they
will be highly visible from McDermott Road and, you know, it's just -- it's just -- the impact
would be large for those two story homes and we are on an agricul tural zone on three
sides of this development, east, south and west and so that's a -- that's a concern. I'm
not against the development, I just want its -- I think its impact should be minimized. Okay.
So, now I will go to another point, which is Five Mile Creek. You know, I think -- and this
is a wider perspective, though, but, you know, I think that Meridian should protect Five
Mile Creek. I don't -- I think you should be real careful about that. You know, development
only has the 30 feet from the irrigation district on this side. All these lots all along the --
all along the Five Mile Creek are all there being -- are going to be sold as -- as kind of like
river lots and -- and while on the other side of the street we are providing a hundred foot
easement for the public and for -- for common areas, for wildlife. This morning on this
piece of property --
McCarvel: Keep going. Finish your thoughts.
Weaver: There was like 50 shotgun shots shot right along -- because of all the wildlife
that were -- people were hunting there. I know they won't be able to once this --
Bernt: Aren't they a little bit early?
Weaver: No. It's dove season.
McCarvel: They are around my house, too.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 36 of 59
Weaver: Yeah. And it's just -- it's just -- that's the only spot for wildlife is -- is Five Mile
Creek when all this gets developed and I think that this subdivision should also have to
have a hundred foot easement along there and they could reconfigure their common
areas, but that's -- you know, we could do greenbelts, we could do rapids, take-in places
-- put-in places for rafters and take-out places and -- and it isn't just this piece of property,
it's all up and down Five Mile Creek. So, I think that they should redo their common area
maps here and -- and put a hundred feet like it is the other side of the street -- road there,
too. The other side of the creek is, too.
McCarvel: Okay.
Weaver: Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question?
McCarvel: Sure. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Do you have a single or a two story home?
Weaver: Single.
Yearsley: Are most of the homes on the south end the single story as well?
Weaver: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay. Thank you.
Weaver: I think all of them are.
McCarvel: Would the applicant like to come forward? Oh, I'm sorry. Let me check. Do
we have anybody else in the room? Sure.
Christensen: I'm Janice Christensen. 2079 West Tumble Creek Drive. My property is
where it says Rut on that one that you just -- go back to. And we are building a single
story home and, like he said, all of them are single story. So, one thing that I would also
like to see is the one story homes backed up against our property. We are considering
-- we are trying to figure out what we are going to do to barrier the four homes that are
going to be next to our property, so they are not seeing everything that we are doing. I
mean we bought out there to get away from the subdivision and the people and I know
everything needs developed, but that's one thing that we would like to see. And, then,
maybe bigger lots. I agree that it -- it's a lot of homes in that little area, so maybe -- and
I understand the cost to bring stuff in, but I don't think that we should be the ones to have
to pay for having more homes because of the cost and maybe this just isn't an appropriate
time to do this development. Maybe wait until the city or other things come in before they
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 37 of 59
develop this property.
McCarvel: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify? Would the applicant like to
respond?
McKay: Thank you, Madam Chairman. Becky McKay. As I indicated before, as far as
the distance between these existing dwellings and our proposed dwellings is significant.
I mean it's -- like I said, the closest point is 245 feet and it ranges up to 550 feet. In the
ordinance it says we may build single or two story homes up to a maximum of 35 feet . I
have had projects in the past where we try to limit certain lots to single story and it was a
disaster. It was at Thousand Springs and we had even put notes on the plat and the
building department somehow didn't look at the plat and two story home building permits
were issued and the homes were framed and, then, we had a very big mess on our hands
and since some of those incidents took place, it has been the policy of the city to say, you
know, you're entitled to single story or two story to a maximum of 35 feet. Just like they
are. The rights are the same for those lots as they are these new lots. If these particular
homes were near, then, I could see concern, but where we have such significant
separation of 245 to 500 and some feet, I mean I really just don't see that a two story
home would make that much difference and the fact that we have widened all these lots
to be our larger lots, they can very easily accommodate single story homes . So, you're
going to have a mixture of single story and two story. Mr. Weaver has indicated the
Comprehensive Plan talks about protecting existing properties from incompatible uses.
Residential is not incompatible with residential. When it talks about incompatible, you
know, it's looking at uses that are far more intensive, say commercial uses, industrial
uses, those are uses from a planning perspective that are considered incompatible. I -- I
was at a hearing once and I heard a planning director say, you know, just because it's not
identical does not mean it is incompatible and I have always, you know, been a proponent
of that. As far as Five Mile Creek, we are protecting Five Mile Creek. We are following
all the guidelines of the flood plain, the floodway. The easement that's documented that
was established by the Bureau of Reclamation in the early 1900s is 130 feet wide. One
hundred feet lies with on -- within The Oaks project, only 30 feet lies within this project.
So, it's not like we are short changing Five Mile Creek. We are abiding by the easement
that is of record and that's been there for probably a hundred years. We will be working
closely with the city, the Army Corps of Engineers, and our landscape architects, to try to
make that corridor as beautiful as possible . We have got to have access for Nampa-
Meridian, but that doesn't mean that we can't go in and put in red fescue and things like
that to maintain that riparian look and , then, transition to the manicured look next to our
collector as it enters. Fencing. We will be doing perimeter fencing. Sight obscuring
fencing on this project. And as far as density is concerned -- I mean what our guiding
document is is your Comprehensive Plan land use map and it talks about three to eight
dwelling units per acre. I am at 3.43 dwelling units per acre. I'm not pressing up in the
upper ranges, I'm in the lowest range I can. Typically when you guys have JUB Engineers
design your sewer main lines, they are designing them -- this what they have told me --
to accommodate approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre as an average as far as that
sewer capacity. We start dropping below those averages and, then, we end up with sewer
lines that are being maintained and that are under capacity and that adds cost -- cost to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 38 of 59
the rate payers. So, from planning perspectives and projections for sewer planning , we
have to keep that perspective, you know, in focus. We have a really good project here.
We have worked hard to make a transition to have a variety of lots. We have our smaller
lots next to McDermott, because we know that there is going to be some sound coming
from that future Highway 16 and, then, as we move east and south the lots get bigger,
the density gets smaller. This is a good project. It was kind of a challenging piece of
property. It had an unusual shape and I think we have -- we have worked pretty hard to
make a project that is going to be a very nice community in addition to the City of Meridian,
mesh in with The Oaks and I think it's going to be a good neighbor. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, you actually have a couple -- a few homes in the floodplain; is that correct?
McKay: Up in the northeast portion. It's just nicking the rear of those lots.
Yearsley: Okay. So, it's not -- it won't have --
McKay: Floodplain, not floodway.
Yearsley: Right. But it will affect the homes, so you have to do -- what are you doing to
protect the homes in that area?
McKay: It would be the same thing that we did at The Oaks where we did a floodplain,
floodway permit. We had an analysis done by Carl Gebhardt of the creek and, then, we
did a grading plan and, then, we have -- we raised the elevation and, then, the finished
floor elevation has to be a minimum -- I think in Meridian it is one foot above base flood
elevation. Some cities it's two feet above the base flood elevation. Then they do a Bomar
and it takes them out of the floodplain, so they do not need flood insurance.
Yearsley: Do they have to do a no rise certificate as well?
McKay: Only if we are working in the floodway. We did have to do one for The Oaks,
because we were running pressure sewer in the floodway and we had to make some
improvements with the Settlers Canal where it dumped into Five Mile Creek. So, yes, we
did do a no rise there.
Yearsley: Okay. So -- so, you're going to fill the floodplain is what you are proposing, is
that what I understand?
McKay: Correct. We have to have the finish -- if it's required to get our finished floors.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 39 of 59
Yearsley: Right.
McKay: Now, it may not be required. They may just be able to do taller foundations and
the finish floor is one foot above base flood elevation and they don't need anything.
Yearsley: So, do they have to do a study to make sure we are not adversely affecting
any upstream users with your taking --
McKay: Yes. That's what the floodplain and floodway permit is for. It goes to David Miles
and he evaluates any construction plans and he's filling any construction work that will be
done within the floodway or floodplain and determines that. Yes, sir.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: And that is a condition of approval.
Yearsley: Okay. I just want to make sure that -- you know, we have had the flooding
come through and want to make sure we take provisions to prevent any future homes
from potentially flooding.
McKay: Yes. Now that floodway does bubble there at McDermott, because of the culvert,
and that's where we have open space.
Yearsley: Right.
McKay: And that's kind of where I set that collector is off and back -- you know, beyond
that floodway.
Yearsley: And that's because the culvert is too small; is that not correct?
McKay: Pardon?
Yearsley: That's because the culvert across McDermott is too small.
McKay: Too small. Too small. So, you get -- there's a bubble that goes into The Oaks
and into this property. So, I -- I, obviously, shifted my roadway south.
Yearsley: Okay.
McKay: And that's why we have all that open space there.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
McKay: Thank you.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 40 of 59
McCarvel: Thank you. At this time can I get a motion to close the public hearing for H-
2017-0114, Aegean Estates.
Bernt: So moved.
Perreault: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing for item H-2017-
0114. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: After all those questions and answers --
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I am in agreement with Commissioner Bernt regarding the open space. I can't
put my finger on what to do about it, except that it's -- there is just not enough on the east
side in my opinion and because this development is a pretty good distance from other
Meridian parks and whatnot, I just -- I feel like the amenities are a smidge light as well.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: Something --
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I just want to weigh in and let others kind of follow -- follow up. You know, I just
recall -- I just recall other instances where we kind of looked at developments that kind of
seemed to have leaped frog or maybe shoot ahead of other developments of a similar
size and I -- I don't know -- that's kind of what I see here a little bit in some ways. I mean
some of the problems we are posing -- and a lot of it has to do with that fact, that there is
a little bit of a leap happening here. I'd like to hear what others have to say.
Cassanelli: I'm in agreement on a number of these points. I think I have expressed
opinions in the past about blending one subdivision into another. I think we need to be
-- and I have said before, too, we have got one chance to do this right, as fast as Meridian
is growing we got to be careful. I'm not against -- I'm not against growth, I just -- I want
to see it done right. This is -- to me this being kind of on the outskirts of the county and
the outskirts of the -- of Meridian and the core, I would envision more -- we are losing a
lot of green and I would envision more out -- as we get out away from the core, if you will.
So, I would like to see more open space. I would like to see better transition from the
existing subdivision. We have got to respect people that we are -- were in there before
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 41 of 59
as well. I think that's important that we respect the -- the people that have been -- that
are living and contributing to the area are my thoughts.
McCarvel: I guess -- okay. I guess how do we balance that with what the Comprehensive
Plan already says as being zoned R-4 to 8 and already being at the low end of that
density.
Yearsley: And I agree, because, you know, it's hard to transition from a five acre parcel
to an R-4. I mean do you do one acre lots? I mean that's -- that's your transition really
and, you know, that becomes really hard and -- and I'm not trying to make fun of your --
your situation, because I love five acre lots and I wished I had one and so I understand
your plight. I grew up on acreage and I like the land and stuff and -- and, unfortunately,
the city is catching up with you and -- and it -- sometimes it really sucks, I will just -- you
know. So -- but I agree, it's -- how do you balance a five acre parcel to an R-4. That's
tough. And I don't have a good answer for it, to be honest with you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I -- I'm kind of in the middle of it all, too, because I think we have -- we
have talked about -- we have seen a couple of projects come in for Ten Mile -- I mean on
McDermott that I was -- we were not ready for -- mostly because I don't think we knew
where the highway was going to go. We know where the highway is going to go. I do
think the two lots that are in an island there are completely goofy. I would -- I mean my
suggestion if we are going to start trying to balance things is we turn that out into a
common area and I'm not sure if we would need to ask Becky what she thinks about that.
I think it's -- I mean Coleman Homes is building right next to it. It's not -- we aren't too far
away from the city getting there. So, I think we are -- this is where it's going land. I mean
we are growing that way. And so I -- I am kind of straddling the middle of both views. I
do -- that island parcel is -- from the time I saw it in a staff report when I was reading
yesterday was -- I just thought it was strange. I know you try to hide it and try it -- with
the street on the back of it, it just doesn't make sense to me. But -- so I want to make
sure if we are going to go this direction, you know, this landscape plan as -- it looks like
it's going to get sold to somebody that -- we have the renderings and all the trees and
landscaping that they are proposing gets put into the DA to make sure that stays. I'm still
concerned about a single access for 215 homes. I know that they can't do that because
of fire code, but I -- there is a lot of to be's -- to be builts before this can get fully flushed
out, so I'm not totally sold. I don't like the island, that's my one concern on the common
area, that I would like to see that either turn into a park or something. But I -- I don't think
we are too far away from this being -- this is not the center of town, but it -- we are right
there, so --
Yearsley: Madam Chair. You know, I have a tendency to agree. When I first saw this
I'm like we are already out to McDermott and, then, I thought, oh -- oh, wait a minute, we
have already approved some others out that far. So -- you know. And it is -- I have to
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 42 of 59
admit it -- that is tough, because it is kind of a leap frog. I mean it's kind of a long arm
jutting out that far and I have had some philosophical discussions with some of -- some
individuals about it becomes isolated, because there is no sidewalk to access anything
and what do you do with -- with that. And -- and so it's -- it's a tough situation when you
have these islands kind of out there.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair? Just to -- I mean talking about 30 to 50 lots a year. So, you're
talking about a five year build out probably in this happening. So, a lot can happen in five
years. It could be a great economy and we keep expanding all around it or it could be
sitting there for a while. So, I mean I think that's something we got to take into account.
McCarvel: Okay.
Wilson: I think regarding that island, I think -- I mean I'm amenable to making that
recommendation and, then, letting City Council -- I mean I didn't have a vote on that
change, so I'm not going to weigh in on that. What I am going to do is sort of apply -- I
think we should apply our judgment as a commission in terms of how this should look and
what we have been doing for other developments and I think that that would have us
leaning towards, you know, more open space in that -- in that corner.
Yearsley: So, I guess I have a question, though, is -- is we can take out those lots and
my guess is Becky can put those lots somewhere else . Do we -- do we get rid of those
lots or do we allow her the opportunity to find some other place for those lots.
Fitzgerald: I'm amenable to having her put it somewhere else. The island concept of
those two lots doesn't make any sense to me designwise. They were -- you're going to
kind of see the backs of their houses and then -- I mean you can cover it in landscaping
as much you like, but you're still going to see back of houses on the back of this road.
So, I'm amenable to -- or I would be amenable to having them to redesign -- redesign it,
but I just think that the way it looks right now is just strange .
Wilson: So, how would you make that -- I agree. How would you make that motion I
guess?
Yearsley: I think what you do is you basically identify that island to be a common -- or an
open space and allow -- and, basically, allow them to reconfigure the lots to add them
elsewhere or something like that or to maintain the current number of lots.
Wilson: Maintain the current number of lots, but --
Yearsley: Yeah.
Wilson: -- just designate that.
Yearsley: And I think we want to actually recommend to Council that that be included in
the development agreement, so it can be configured at a later date.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 43 of 59
McCarvel: I honestly don't think we can ask her to go lower density. She's already at the
absolute lowest density. Almost.
Cassanelli: Question on that for staff. If the whole project were to be R-4 there is -- I
mean the gross density is still the 3.43, that would still -- with open space would that still
fit into that designation? Does that make sense what I'm asking?
Allen: Chairman, Commissioner Cassanelli, what -- what the applicant is proposing is
consistent with our Comprehensive Plan right now. However, it is within your purview to
require a lesser density within the development if that's what you feel is appropriate. This
is an annexation. It is associated with a development agreement. So, it is entirely up to
you. Did I answer your question, Mr. Cassanelli?
Fitzgerald: She's below with R-4 already.
Cassanelli: Yeah. And that's what I'm -- that's what I'm wondering. With a gross density
of 3.43, if you calculate that with the open space can that gross density of 3.43 still be
accomplished if the whole project were R-4? Does that make sense?
Allen: Yes. Let me clarify something. We had a code change fairly recently and it
changed the maximum density. There is no longer a maximum density in our zoning
districts. The density is governed by the future land use map and the land use designation
for the property. In this case it's a range of three to eight units per acre. The R-4 and the
R-8 -- the only difference now is the dimensional standards for the lot sizes and the street
frontages. If that helps or if it muddies it further. I'm not sure, but --
McCarvel: Yes. And I guess I'm not sure how you -- we are already -- I guess it's --
Allen: I'm sorry. Excuse me. If you would like to only allow an R-4 zoning instead, that
does require larger lot sizes. It goes -- it jumps from a 4,000 square foot minimum with
R-8 zoning to an 8,000 square foot minimum with R-4 zoning and 60 foot frontage versus
40 foot on the R-8. So, that in itself would reduce the overall density of the development,
if that's where you're heading.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I -- I mean I am sensitive to the fact that they aren't --
latecomers is not available to -- I mean at least under code right now and that has always
been something they have had in the past or was until they changed the reimbursement
structure and you make this too dense -- or, you know, too big and all of a sudden you
can't pencil this out and so I'm very sensitive to that fact, because latecomers was always
the way we got back into, you know, going to bigger lot sizes and so I understand that
Public Works is looking at this as a -- as there is a potential for this to be worked out, but
that's not hard and fast right now. So, I am sensitive to that.
McCarvel: And it is already over the required minimum space, so --
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 44 of 59
Perreault: Madam Chair, I think it -- it would be a bit of an overkill to require it to be
completely R-4 and I'm in complete agreement with Commissioner Fitzgerald regarding
those two lots and allowing the applicant to move those -- fit those in somewhere else, so
that they keep the same density.
McCarvel: Would someone like to make a motion?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Or more discussion?
Wilson: Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I like to be recognized. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony,
I move to recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2017-0114, for the hearing
date of September 21st, 2017, with the following modification: That we designate that
northwest corner an area of open space, while retaining the same number of lots and that
we include that in the development agreement. I think I got it.
Fitzgerald: Northeast corner?
Wilson: Yeah. Northeast corner. Excuse me.
McCarvel: Second anyone? Yes? No?
Perreault: I will second it.
McCarvel: Okay. All right. It has been moved and seconded to approve Item No. H-
2017-0114 with modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed?
Cassanelli: Nay.
McCarvel: Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE NAY.
McCarvel: Can I ask a quick question, Caleb? About how long is your presentation?
Hood: About as long as Becky's.
McCarvel: Does anybody require a restroom break? All right. We will be back in five
minutes.
(Recess: 8:17 p.m. to 8:25 p.m.)
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 45 of 59
G. Public Hearing for 2017 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
(H-2017-0113) by City of Meridian
1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for the
purpose of 1) updating the text and policy statements
(Goals, Objectives and Action Items) contained in the plan;
2) add text that identifies the Southern Rim; and 3) update
the current version of the Existing Conditions Report (ECR)
McCarvel: Okay. At this time we would like to open public hearing for Item No. H-2017-
0113 and we will begin with Caleb's report.
Hood: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. Caleb Hood with the
Community Development Department. I am going to be presenting to you some changes
to the city's Comprehensive Plan. Before I get into the meat of that just kind of a step
back, just so you can refresh or orient yourself . So, the current Comprehensive Plan is
-- in its general state was adopted in 2011 -- April of 2011. So, annually we have a
reminder that comes up -- Brian McClure, I should point him out right now, because he
did most of the work that I'm going to be talking to you about this evening. But there is a
reminder that pops up in his Outlook calendar in April of every year that says, hey, happy
anniversary of the comp plan. Part of that is to, then, ask our various departments at City
Hall and on-off site to say, hey, you have a role in this document. What's changed in the
past 12 months? Let us know what initiatives are complete or updated or higher priority
or less of a priority and we take all those comments and put them together and that's the
application. So, that's one piece of what we do is to provide yearly updates to policies,
as well as the text within the comp plan. So, really, the Comprehensive Plan is,
essentially, two documents combined into one. We did that at the same time. We,
basically, took the who are we type of policy statements and we put that into what we call
the existing conditions report. So, that has demographic information, it has education
information, it has how many acres of land are in the city, at what zones. So, this -- this
document is a summary of some of the information . It's chalk full of information and cool
diagrams and pictures that talk about who we are today. So, hopefully, you had a chance
to look at that in your pocket. The last time we did that it was 2014. So, a lot of the
information was from 2013 and even in three or four years -- and it was mentioned in the
hearing a lot has changed and so Brian's done a lot of work to update that information
from the census, from COMPASS, to really, again, paint that -- that snap shot. I will come
back to that here in just a minute. But that's kind of one piece of the comp plan is the
existing condition report. The one we use most often is the text and the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan. That's what you generally rely on. The future land use map.
Talking about, you know, three to eight dwelling units per acre. A lot of text and the
polices that are cited in staff's report saying, you know, the goal is to have
interconnectivity, those types of things. So, some of the changes we are proposing
tonight are really kind of more administrative. They are changing -- we rebranded our
wastewater treatment plant a couple years ago. We don't call it that anymore. It's the
wastewater recovery facility. So, that sounds a little bit better. So, changes in the
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 46 of 59
document now reflect that. So, those are the types of changes generally that we are
talking about here. We have some other changes where one department to another, it
made sense at one time and we will talk about this a little bit more, too. Made sense for
somebody in Public Works to take on an initiative. Well, now maybe it makes sense for
somebody in another department. So, there is some horse trading that goes on along
departments and so there is some changes like that though -- in this document, too. And,
then, we do have some more substantive changes that we are proposing with this round
and it has to do with the north and the south rim. I will get into that here in just a second
as well. So, again, this is kind of what I just said. The administrative type changes to the
document, revisions and additions that are important to the policies, but a lot of them are,
again, more kind of -- we hope that it reads better, they are easier to use, those types of
changes, not really a change in policy. But we did have some pretty substantial changes
that I want to walk you through in two areas and, really, it's the south rim area. So, let me
first start by just defining the south rim area. If you look in the right-hand exhibit there,
there is a ridge that runs along the south of -- the southern part of town from roughly Ten
Mile at Overland to the end of our area of impact near Cloverdale and Columbia. What
we have got designated here is a quarter mile on either side of the top of that rim, which
is what we are calling the South Rim. I think probably all of you have heard the -- the
Southern Rim Coalition come and speak. There has been some projects in this area and
so they have been meeting with us over the past several months and we said, hey, we
have got a comp plan amendment in process, they wanted us to include some of their --
their mutually agreed to policies in the plan. But we are recognizing the South Rim in this
update. So, again, that's a pretty -- they are not administration -- that's not an
administrative type of a change, that's a policy shift. And so let's get into the text that we
are actually proposing tonight. And I will also say just real quick before I read this to you
-- let you read it while I continue to talk for just a minute. I think this is the start. The city
just last week I was at Council and asked them, similar to the existing conditions report
that had 2013 and 2014 type of data -- our com plan, as I mentioned, was -- 2010, 2011
was when it was adopted, but most of that information was gathered from our community
in 2009, 2010. We are a different community than we were even seven, eight, nine years
ago. So, the City Council last week said we need to do a new -- develop a new
Comprehensive Plan. So, I'm going to plant the seed with you all. You are going to be
instrumental in that process. One other thing that I don't know if you are aware of, but I
think you are. If not I will share the news now. My boss, the director of community
development, is no longer with the city. So, part of that is waiting until after the first of the
year when we can hopefully back fill and have some leadership in community
development, have a new director, as well as wait for the Council elections to get done,
that way we can have that body of City Council members for at least two years that walk
through that process and, then, adopt that document and not have a change in leadership
sometime in the middle, because that can happen and you got, no, that's not my plan, I
wasn't involved and you got to start back over or step way back anyway. So, anyway, so
the -- these South Rim ones -- South Rim policies and provisions we think are appropriate
now, but we think that's going to grow through the Comprehensive Plan. We need to do
some more land planning in that southern rim area, not just along the rim, but generally
adjacent to the rim. So, we will look at that a little bit more through the upcoming
Comprehensive Plan. But here is what we have proposed for this update . And I don't
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 47 of 59
know if you had a chance to read it, but, essentially, it's some of the things that you deal
with a lot. What we are saying is within the north and south rims you can't step up. If
you're shown as low you can't ask for medium, you have to be low and to follow that up
even, if you're low within the north and south rims -- that density range we have talked
about historically low is zero to three or up to three dwelling units per acre. In the rim
areas it's not up to three anymore, it's up to one. That's the cap when you're shown as
low density residential on the future land use map. So, it wouldn't affect a property that's
medium or high or mixed use, but if you're low you can't ask for that -- that step up in -- in
density through the Comprehensive Plan. So, it's really taking some of that -- I used the
analogy earlier, I mean we -- we refer to our future land use map as a guide a lot of times
and it is. Here we are narrowing that guide to more of a blueprint. We say your lots are
going to be half acre, maybe up to an acre. So, not a lot of flexibility in that. So, I don't
know if there any questions on that slide or not . I'm going to move to the next one. So,
here are the policies that you will see going forward then in staff reports. These are the
ones that will be cited when they are in that overlay area that I showed on the first slide.
So, preserve view sheds -- preserve and protect the view sheds. So, how do you do that?
You make strategic use of large lots, terraces, community trails and open spaces and,
then, siting and orienting your -- your buildings to provide those view sheds to optimize
those public view sheds. Using open vision fencing. Another way that you can create
that sense of openness and allow view sheds to be preserved. So, these are the policies
that we are proposing to go along kind with the background information that was on the
previous slide. Explains why preservation of the South Rim is important. So, here is kind
of what that looks like in practice or how we will effectively use it in the Planning
Department. You can see the -- the southern rim area designation and overlaid on the
future land use map. So, you can see the properties that are -- that are affected by that.
So, that's kind of the -- the main change to the -- the text of the Comprehensive Plan.
Again there is -- the rim changes and, then, the administrative type of changes that have
to do with, you know, priority change, lead -- lead support changes in the -- the document
itself. So, I'm going to go back to the existing conditions report for -- and I'm almost done.
So, this is really cool. And, again, I already mentioned Brian, but he put this together and
he did the existing conditions report with some help from others. I won't read this to you.
I think it's pretty self- explanatory, but there are some -- these are the ones that we thought
were just interesting and will continue to track vacancy rates. I understand earlier that
you guys already talked about the housing types, but total dwelling units we are at about
35,000 dwelling units right now in Meridian. The one that -- that I was actually talking with
Mrs. McKay about before she left -- in the bottom right on the side of the handout in the
bottom right housing expenditure and how -- what's the percentage of the population
that's spending 30 percent or more of their income on just housing. So, again, renters
are spending almost -- 50 percent of renters are spending 30 percent or more of their
income on housing. Ownership isn't much better, but that's about, you know, 25 to 30
percent spending 30 percent of their income on housing . So, that's concerning. I mean
we see the house values going up, which is good, but the wages don't seem to be keeping
pace with that. So, that's definitely a concern and a trend we are going to continue to
track. So, again, I'm not going to read all those to you. If you have any questions on
them I would be happy to -- to run through that with you and, then, the back side of it.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 48 of 59
Yearsley: I find it interesting, if you look at the demographics, that we are starting to see
a spike in between the 50 and 64 range in that. We are getting older.
Wilson: Yeah. The silver tsunami. That's what they say in Idaho. The silver tsunami.
Hood: So, just real quick on that. One of the things I mentioned this is -- this is all the
departments participating in this. Parks found that very interesting, too, because their rec
programs -- they want to know what are the sports or what programs do we need to offer
for the people that are moving to Meridian. So, they are looking at historically they have
been offering --
Fitzgerald: Pickleball.
Hood: -- tot play time and things like that and it's moving more towards --
Fitzgerald: Pickleball.
Hood: Exactly. So, that demographic is changing or senior softball instead of just, you
know, 40 and under softball, it's -- so, they are very interested in these trends and where
-- where are we going, what do we need to offer our residents, our citizens, what are
going to be -- so, they know where to direct those resources to . So, anyway, just as an
example of how we are using this to -- so, yeah, these demographics are -- are either
increasing or decreasing or staying the same, so -- and the backside. Again, I'm going to
plug it one more time. It's a very, very cool document. Read it. Share with your friends.
I think -- you don't necessarily have to read it, just skim it and look for the -- for the graphs
and the pictures. There is a lot of good information there.
Yearsley: So, do we get to have a party when we hit 100,000?
Hood: We should have probably had that party about three or four months ago.
Unofficially -- I mean this -- the number that you see on the front side of 98 -- it's at 98,300
was at January 1 of this year. So, we are nine months into that year. We are averaging
about 1,400 dwelling units per year, so if we are at a thousand with roughly three people,
we are -- we are over that.
Yearsley: So, we are going to get cake next week; right? Or next time?
Hood: Well, Bill, are we getting cake next meeting? So, I think that's probably enough
on that, so -- but, again, it's just updating all that information from roughly three, four, five
years ago. And, again, here are some of the trends we will continue to keep an eye on.
We just talked about most all of those.
Cassanelli: Caleb?
Hood: Uh-huh.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 49 of 59
Cassanelli: Since 2015 we have added -- so, in two years we have added 21,500 dwelling
units? Is that what that says on that first page, top right?
Hood: So -- yeah. So -- correct.
Bernt: Caleb, what is the population predicted to be like in five years? Do we know that?
I mean like roughly.
Hood: So, we have been having some discussions about that as well. We are -- so,
COMPASS -- we rely on COMPASS largely for that information, but we provide a lot of
the information that they -- they regurgitate back to us. The 2040 number -- we did a
control population -- I don't need to go into all of this, but I think they have a -- for our
valley how big we are going to be and it's a little over a million in 2040. And, then, they
break that up and they divvy that up and Garden City gets this many and Boise gets that
many, we get this many. We are out pacing that control total that they gave us. However,
we think it's going to dip back down and they have it -- us picking back up. So, at the end
of the day, at the end of 2040, we are actually within a thousand -- do you remember?
We are really close. It's around 130,000 people for Meridian in 2040. And we are -- I
think some of our -- we are somewhere around -- you know, we were estimating as staff,
just kind of working with Public Works on the number of new hookups they are doing
annually and those types of things and looking at trend lines and what we can sustain ,
about 900 units a year is what we think is kind of sustainable. Now, there is other things
that go on in the country and the world, but that's kind of what we have -- we think we are
looking at another 1,400 units or so for the next two or three years and, then, a dip to
about 900 or so, because that's what we have been averaging for about the past 15 years
is about 900 units a year. So, since 2,000 roughly a thousand units per year, so --
Fitzgerald: Caleb, do you -- Madam Chair. Excuse me.
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Is there -- do you know in regards to housing vacancies what the surrounding
cities are in comparison with that 2.5 percent?
Hood: I didn't look at that. I don't know if Brian has some of that information or not. I do
know that that is in the existing conditions report, though. I don't know what that is and
Brian looks like he's looking it up in the ECR right now, so I will follow up with you on what
that is.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
Hood: And so just so you know in the ECR we do compare ourselves to neighboring
cities. We use Boise, Nampa for most comparisons. Sometimes we will compare us, you
know, to the nation as well. Mainly look at the county, how are doing with the county, with
the state, and use those numbers to just -- you know. And we try to stay consistent in
those communities we are comparing ourselves to as well. Sometimes it's regional we
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 50 of 59
will look at ourselves compared to like a Reno and a Spokane and go, okay, well, what
are those numbers for -- so, on page 2-9 -- this is Chapter 2, Table 2N, we have Meridian
at vacancy rate -- actually in here it says 3.8 percent. Boise is at 4.4. Nampa is 6.7. Ada
county as a whole 4.3. Canyon county as a whole 9.1. Idaho 11 percent and nationwide
average is nine for vacancy. So, we are below all of them. Boise is comparable. And,
then, Nampa is about double ours and still not -- not terrible, but -- so, again, that's Table
2N if you want to look at that for yourself. And, again, if anyone wants a hard -- a hard
copy after it's adopted by Council we certainly can pull the address stamp off and give
you a hard copy, but the electronic copy is great, too. So, I see a couple hands. Maybe
we will just go ahead and burn copies for you.
McCarvel: I think the hard copy would be great.
Hood: Okay.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Hood: So, I actually, mentioned this kind of my opening remarks. We had a couple of
changes since we submitted the application -- so the application was submitted about six
weeks ago. Had a couple of additional changes we would ask you to consider and move
forward with your recommendation to City Council. The wastewater treatment plant. So,
we changed part of it -- in the text of the plan we changed it, but we didn't get it change
in the tables. So, we need to change that in the tables as well.
Yearsley: Do we need to make a motion when we make our motion to make those
changes?
Hood: It would be appreciated. Or including staff's comments works --
Yearsley: Okay.
Hood: -- and we can -- we can make those changes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Hood: I'm going to assume that no one, you know, says that that's not a good idea, to
not do that, but if the public does and you want to go with that, then, please, clarify, but
-- and, then, on Table 4D of the existing conditions report we just updated some acreage
for parks and parks would appreciate it if we would use that new -- that new information.
There was one other thing that just came up this afternoon and I don't know how you want
to approach this, but Andrea actually brought it to my attention. So, if you want to make
the change I'm fine with it, too. There is a -- in Chapter 5 there is a policy about recycling
and working with Republic Services. Public Works is the lead on that right now. They
propose to drop it in priority in their world and we were thinking that maybe it makes sense
to leave it as a medium level priority. It's something that I guess if I had to make a
recommendation right now I would say let's leave it alone and that gives us time as staff
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 51 of 59
to work that out before Council and, then, Council can make the final change. I don't think
this is earth shattering type of a policy, but it probably isn't good policy to say recycling is
becoming less important in our community, so -- so, I would just put that out there. Again,
I don't think that -- Commissioner Yearsley's previous question I don't think it requires an
action or change, but I just wanted to let you know we will be playing with that one --
probably tweaking that one before during the Council meetings. So, that's why I didn't
write it down. Five -- it's in Chapter 5-3 -- do you remember, Andrea, what the policy
was? 5-03-A? One?
Pogue: Sounds kind of -- sounds close.
Hood: Somewhere in there.
Pogue: Caleb, it's 5.05.03-A.
Hood: Thank you. So, if you want to look at the changes there and if you're comfortable
with it -- we talked about, again, changing that responsibility from even becoming --
coming away from Public Works makes some sense to use -- to maybe even have MUBS
or Finance be that, because they deal with utility building, Parks, SWAC, so -- and, then,
at least adding SWAC as a support in the support column. So, that's 5.05.03-A, partner
with city's waste contractor to investigate conservation options, including composting,
recycling, green waste, et cetera. There was some changes to that text and they propose
to drop that in priority and I tend to agree that it probably should stay at least as a medium
priority, but continue to explore, so --
Yearsley: I will be curious to see how Boise's new policy works with their composting.
Hood: So, Madam Chair, with that that is my presentation.
McCarvel: Anymore questions?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Caleb, so if a developer is bringing in a development on -- in one of those rim
areas they are just going to have to comply with the zoning changes just in that quarter
mile section on each side. So, if their development is partially in that area and partially
outside of that area, then, it's just going to comply within that section.
Hood: Correct. We will ask for separate analysis for the lots that are within --
Perreault: Okay.
Hood: -- a quarter mile of the -- of the top of the rim. We haven't talked too much about
if they can ask for a step up on the areas outside of that, but, really, the idea is to preserve
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 52 of 59
that. So, they could -- almost like your last project, they could make that up to some
degree down below the rim --
Perreault: Okay.
Hood: -- and increase in density. If it makes sense. I mean there is a lot of factors to be
considered there. Are there acre lots next to those? Well, let's not put 3,000 square foot
lots there either to make up your density, so -- but in theory, yes, you could do that. But
in that area those are where the larger lots will be going.
Yearsley: Well -- and I have a little bit of heartburn with that, because I mean if you look
at Lake Hazel, that's designated to be five cars -- seven -- seven lanes and, you know,
where we are butting up and even on Meridian Road, you know, are there going to be --
want the bigger lots right up against Meridian Road and how do we -- how do we -- you
know, because I'm sure there are certain areas that, you know, it's a rim area, but it -- it
doesn't actually -- it's conducive to larger lots. Does that makes sense? How do we --
how do we rectify or justify those?
Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, I think it's going to be kind of a case-by-
case, because I think they can with terracing and some of those things, that can be
conducive to larger lots. You know, it really is going be a project-by-project analysis to
look at that and work with developers. I guess the other part that I would say is even
these policies wouldn't preclude somebody from asking to do a com p plan map
amendment either. So, you know, the policies aren't set in stone. Yes, we think they are
solid and we want them to be good policies and should last us a long time, but it may not
make sense on a certain piece of property. So, you know, the highway is a good example
where we actually hear both ways. I mean we see apartments that go up next to a
highway and, then, you see large lots, because you get the complaints of, well, those are
my lesser valuable lots, so do not want to put as many there. So, you know, they don't
typically go for as much as the ones that are off of the highway, but lot size doesn't really
seem to matter too much on busier roadways when you include the topography in that
equation, you know, it doesn't make sense to do terracing for a few lots.
Yearsley: No. And I agree with that and I'm not trying to say -- it's just -- I don't know.
I'm -- I'm not quite sure how to phrase this, but I'm -- yes, I'm not as impassioned about
the -- the rim lots, but I understand wanting to preserve view corridors as well.
Hood: Madam Chair, I would be remiss if I didn't mention -- and thank you, Commissioner,
for bringing it back up. I did receive comments from the Southern Rim Coalition and I
have their letter right here and it's got highlighter on it and I almost forgot to -- to call that
to your attention. So, it came in just today. So, it should be in -- in the record, but I do
want to wave it at you and thank them for providing a support letter and if you would
oblige, I would just -- I'm not going to read the whole thing to you, but just in part, so I can
tell them that I shared their -- their letter with you all. So, the Meridian Southern Rim
Coalition is comprised of neighborhood representatives and HOA liaisons representing
hundreds of residents from the general vicinity of the southern rim near Locust Grove,
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 53 of 59
Eagle, Lake Hazel, Amity and Victory Roads. Since its inception in April 2017 the coalition
has advocated special amendments, such as those presented for your approval this
evening, which would enhance and protect the identity of the southern rim, mirroring in
many ways the amendments that the city has approved for the north rim in and around
Spurwing. We wish to express our gratitude for staff's recognition of the southern rim in
its proposed amendments. We believe these amendments support the city's stated
objectives as defined in its Comprehensive Plan and summarized by the Mayor in her
recent letter regarding the 2017 community survey. It goes on to say the southern rim is
a geological feature that not only provides stunning views of the Boise range and Owyhee
mountains, it is firmly established and cherished by its residents as a semi-rural sector of
the city where open spaces and trails are valued and considered integral to its quality of
life. The coalition believes the aesthetic qualities of Meridian's southern rim are a valuable
asset to the city and its residents thanks to its natural beauty, proximity to the interstate,
Meridian and Boise city centers and hospital and medical services. To ensure the
southern rim's enduring identity and lasting value, the coalition supports stringent review
of each and every development application was adherence to the FLUM and attention to
the desires of every stakeholder in our community. Therefore, the Southern Rim -- the
Meridian Southern Rim Coalition is pleased to support staff's proposed amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan. So, I do appreciate that letter and them working with us and
you listening to their letter through me, so --
McCarvel: And, Caleb, it's just the green areas; right? The areas that are --
Caleb: Yes and no. I mean the whole areas are defined in that area . So, again, if you
look at the third bullet here, for properties designated low density residential within the
north and south rim areas, lot sizes should range from one -- so, the ones that are mainly
affected are those low density designated properties. The ones that are already in that
lower range of the scale. It just doesn't give them the ability to ask for one to three
dwelling units per acre. You're asking for zero to one is your lot size there. But if you
look in the first bullet, you can ask for a step in any of that. So, if you're medium you
couldn't ask to go to high either in that designated rim area . Quarter mile each side or a
half mile wide in total.
McCarvel: Okay. Any other questions for staff?
Perreault: I know it's getting late, but could you just share a little bit as to where this came
from or what spurred this on to make the change.
Hood: Sure. So, Madam Chair, Commissioner Perreault, again, the Southern Rim
Coalition -- I don't know when they came on, six months ago or so is about when they
started making contact with us and you have seen some of his projects down there. In
fact, you will see one coming back to you that the Council remanded back and that's
coming soon, so I'm not going to talk about -- but that really is when they started to show
interest in forming this collation and reaching out to staff and while we were having those
conversations we brought this up, saying, hey, the way this works is we -- the
Comprehensive Plan is what's allowing developers to build like the applications you're
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 54 of 59
seeing. They said, well, we want to change that and let's change it to something more
rural in character and preserve this. I said okay -- I will be honest, this is a compromise.
What they had was a little more than what we were willing as staff to propose. This is our
application. This isn't their application. We said you want to submit an application you
can and we will process it, but this was a compromise to say some of the things -- we
have seen some recent action on some projects that this seems to be consistent with and
that seems to be the general direction of the Council and the Commission. Some of the
things you're asking for, like 65 foot wide landscape buffers on roadways, we are not
comfortable yet with that. So, let's go -- let's have a bigger process and include the
general public and developers and say, hey, developers, what do you think about 65 for
wide buffers. So, that's kind of how it happened is we just were having conversations
with them and we said we can assist you to some degree, we aren't getting all the way to
where I think where you want to be, but we are comfortable and we think this fits and this
is appropriate for our community. But there may be more to come. I don't know if it's a
placeholder, but it sort of is.
Yearsley: So, have we reached out to potential developers with -- regarding to this --
these changes and that? With the rim.
Hood: So, Madam Chair, we haven't done a full blown outreach to identify the property
owners that are affected by this.
Yearsley: I was thinking more developers, because, you know, there is developers who
are going to want to develop that -- and is that even something that they would even want
to consider developing?
Hood: So, Madam Chair. Just to follow up, Commissioner Yearsley, we have reached
out to some, but we haven't gone to our normal list of developers to say what do you think
of these changes. Again, we think these are pretty -- pretty appropriate, if you will, without
getting some of that feedback. But we have put some of our larger, more frequently
developers on notice that there is -- the rim -- the Southern Rim Coalition is, essentially,
proposing these changes and we were comfortable carrying the torch for them at this --
at this level. Again, that's why at the beginning -- you know, these are largely
administrative changes when we do this annually. They are not meant to be wholesale
policy shift changes, so -- but, again, that -- this is some of the direction I'm even getting
from the Mayor and City Council, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Hood: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: So, Caleb, in regards to areas of impact, like in the north and the south, as
the area of impact grows do you expect that this is going to just continue to grow with it?
For example, the north rim is very small, but it's -- we have got area of impact past 16 --
or we would likely go that direction. Is that going to continue on past that?
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 55 of 59
Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, I do believe that if we expand our area
of city impact we would probably expand the rim area as well. We aren't -- we most likely
aren't going to expand. If you look where it says Ten Mile Creek there on the lower right-
hand side, that's where Boise Ranch golf course is.
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
Hood: So, we largely aren't going to probably expand and if you have golfed out there -
- I have the homes out there, I mean that -- it's a pretty substantial drop. So, getting --
pumping sewer back up to get it up over that and be serviced by Meridian probably isn't
very likely for us to extend it further down, that --
Fitzgerald: I was actually more on the north side.
Hood: Yeah.
Fitzgerald: Past 16 and we are already past 16 on the area of impact, but that -- along
the Phyllis Canal that's going to kind of --
Hood: So, just a quick story on that. On the north side of the Phyllis, then, we have had
conversations with both Star and -- the property owner's name is Orem. Right now they
are not interested. But, again, if we change our area of impact and it goes to 16 or past
16, I could see us continuing to follow that as -- again, it's the same concept. If we are
saying I don't know why we wouldn't say it's -- it's -- it's an amenity or something to be
preserved and protected in one area, but not somewhere else, so I certainly --
Fitzgerald: Would expect that.
Hood: -- would envision, but we would go through that -- a similar process to expand it,
so --
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay.
Hood: All right.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Hood: Thank you.
McCarvel: There was no one signed up to testify for public testimony on this, but is there
someone -- okay. Come forward.
LeFever: Hi. My name is Denise LeFever. I'm at 6706 North Salvia Way, Spurwing. And
I'll say -- start off by saying I have talked to Caleb, Bill and Joshua over in Planning and
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 56 of 59
Zoning and they are fantastic people. So, you know, they are just really wonderful people.
I'm concerned with some of this. Is -- there was the South Coalition was notified, but I
know there is a lot of people over on the north rim that if you're making changes to the
language that there is going to be some issues with that given what's going on there. You
know, I know they advertise in the paper, but it would be nice if we are going to make
changes to the comp plan, which is a guiding document for the city, that if it was out in
the city e-mail, which I know Tammy has a lot of stuff that goes out in the city e-mail.
NextDoor, you know, the city website, the homeowners association -- some of the
language that may be proposed may be perceived not very well , just given the fact that
there is a lot of people that are very concerned in that area about the Costco going in and
some of the other development going on, that they didn't get a chance to come back and
comment on the changes that specifically cross out Spurwing a quarter of a mile -- I just
think it would be advisable to step back and at least give the people in that area a chance
to make comments on it. Otherwise, we are going to end up with another thing like what
happened with M3 where they don't feel that they got proper notification. You know, that's
my biggest concern is I know there is a lot of people that are very concerned about what's
going on and there has been a lot of review on the comp plan. So, to go back and change
it -- and I know there is a lot of things going on with the city as far as wanting some
changes, but the changes that are proposed currently may be perceived as a way to work
around to get the Costcos without notifying the people in the area. So, this may be some
backlash on -- on some of this stuff. I just think you should do a better job notifying the
north rim personally.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, just for on the record, can we -- Caleb or Brian or Bill if you
want to -- did we notify the north rim folks on this discussion?
Hood: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, Commissioners, again, we didn't do --
we do our standard noticing -- I mean it is a public hearing that's noticed, you know, public
service announcements, those types of things. But, no, we didn't send mailers or anything
like that. Just a couple of things to maybe just clarify, if you don't mind me following up
kind of on that train of thought. We aren't changing any -- any land use designations.
There aren't any -- there aren't any changes to the color of the map. You don't -- this --
you don't see I don't have -- in the northern part or the southern part that we aren't
changing any -- proposing to change any underlying future land use map designations.
Regarding the northern rim and even -- even in the southern rim, I mentioned -- alluded
to a project that will be coming back to you that you had previously reviewed . They are
grandfathered in with what they -- what was on the books at the time they submitted.
Same with up on the northern rim. That is all under a master concept plan. They are not
subject to these changes. So, largely the properties that are up on the northern rim have
already developed or are in the process of developing phases. So, this is not retroactively
effective onto those properties. So, again, Tree Farm, Spurwing, those are entitled
projects that this wouldn't affect. So, there are a couple right along the highway, but --
and I don't have a full future land use map, but the properties near the highway are largely
commercial and not residential. So, this rim designation for them doesn't have a lot of
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 57 of 59
impact, because there is not a lot of residential right near the future -- you know, that an
existing part of the freeway. And that northern rim already exists on the books. So, what
we are really doing is piggy backing some of the policies that we had on the northern rim,
Phyllis Canal area, and adding this to say, hey, the northern rim has its amenities, there
is one of those in the south, too. We tweaked it slightly, but that -- but that -- again, if you
look at what we have added and changed here, it's -- the northern rim was already --
these policies were already largely there in the northern rim and, again, you have either
they are built out or through -- through the process of developing out. There is really not
a lot of properties that haven't been through our process right along -- along that area in
the north, so there is confusion there, but it doesn't have anything to do with commercial
properties or any changes to the future land use map.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? At this time, then, I'd like to get a motion to
close the public hearing for H-2017-0113, Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment.
Yearsley: So moved.
Cassanelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-0113.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Discussion? I happen to like the text changes on the north and south rim. I
think it does protect a valuable asset and larger lot size -- you know, to just protect what's
already there I think is a good idea.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I would tend to agree. I don't -- I mean -- I really -- the only reason I asked a
question of Caleb was to make sure we were on the record. This has nothing to do with
any commercial development that's going on on Chinden or anywhere else, so I don't see
any reasons that it's a problem.
Bernt: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Bernt.
Bernt: You know, in the past there has been many who have voiced concern about
protecting open space, you know, and -- and making, you know -- or I had concern about
density and -- in certain areas of our city. So, I think that this is a great way in which to
protect and preserve, you know, a natural resource or an area where, you know, a little
bit more open space would be benefitted. So, I think it's -- I think it's a great idea.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 58 of 59
McCarvel: Any other discussion or is -- are we ready for a motion?
Cassanelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassanelli.
Cassanelli: I will. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony I moved to
recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-0113 as presented in the
staff report on the hearing date of September 21st, 2017, with the following modifications
-- are we going to look -- do we need to add the one for the -- for the recycling by the --
McCarvel: I think just -- yeah.
Cassanelli: Okay. And that was -- what's the chapter?
McCarvel: Chapter 5 for the recycling to maintain their meeting priority.
Cassanelli: Okay. That was five -- 5.05.03A to maintain the priority of meeting for the
recycling.
Fitzgerald: Sorry. There are two additional ones that the --
McCarvel: You could say include staff --
Cassanelli: Including other staff recommendations.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2017-0113, Comprehensive
Plan Text Amendment. All those in -- with modifications. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Who would like to do the honors?
Yearsley: Madam Chair, I move we adjourn.
Bernt: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn tonight's meeting. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Page 59 of 59
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:08 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RH DA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST;
C.LJAY CO. ES - CITY CLERK
Go4 O;jS,MAUC(:gr,1s
City of
ERjD1AN*-
r
IDAHO
y Sr p ra,Y w
�
Ihez6F�y���
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3A
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Approve Minutes of September 7, 2017 Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
September 7, 2017
Page 49 of 49
McCarvel: I have a second on that one. It has been moved and seconded to adjourn the
meeting. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. TWO ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:19 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
R ONDA McCARVEL - C14AIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
/i
C. SAY C6LES - CITY CLERK
�$GU¢S��ATGbr1UG��lrfq
�p City of
F IMANt--_
e A r a
rF�Q`!kP �t ���`•
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
September 21, 2017
Item #4A: Heritage Hop Haus -
Item #4B: Madden Subdivision -
Preliminary
Plat
Final
Plat
Landscape Plan
Item #4C: Pond Subdivision -
Preliminary
Plat
Landscape Plan
Conceptual Elevations
Item #4E: TM Creek Apartments -
Original & Proposed Conceptual Development Plans
Original Concept Plan (dated: 1/14/2014) Proposed Concept Plan
Site Plan
Landscape Plan
Open Space Exhibit
Conceptual Building Elevations
Item #4F: Aegean Estates
Vicinity/Zoning Map
Preliminary
Plat
Revised Plat
Landscape Plan (Revised)
Conceptual Elevations (Photos)
Item #4G: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment -
Changes to Agenda:
Item #4D: Rapid Creek Subdivision – AZ, PP (H-2017-0117) – Request for continuance to October 5th due to staff
working with the applicant on several remaining concerns.
Item #4A: Heritage Hop Haus (H-2017-0100)
Application(s):
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.05 of an acre of land, zoned O-T, located at 77 E. Idaho
Avenue.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
1. North: Commercial business; zoned O-T
2. East: Commercial business; zoned O-T
3. South: Commercial business; zoned O-T
4. West: Parking lot; City Hall; zoned O-T
History: •
This property is platted as par #0260 N'LY por lots 17-18, Block 2 of the Meridian Townsite Amended.
In 2008 , the property received Conditional Use Permit approval for a drinking establishment (CUP-08-006). This approval has
subsequently expired.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Old Town
Summary of Request: Per UDC 11-2D-2, a “drinking establishment” requires conditional use permit approval in the O-T zone. The
subject site is currently operating as a “retail store, wine and beer sales and servings” business. The applicant is requesting to continue
operation of the same business, but as a “drinking establishment.” The applicant has submitted a site/landscape plan with this
application; however the site and building are not changing, only the use. Therefore, no additional site improvements are explicitly
required by the UDC.
Access: Access to the site is provided from Main Street and E. Idaho Street.
Parking: Because this site is located in Old Town, and because the existing building encompasses almost all of the property, off-street
parking is not feasible on this site and is not provided. Furthermore, UDC 11-2D-4E (Old Town District) has no requirements for off
street parking. However, full compliance with the UDC parking requirements is required if/when a site is proposed for new development
or modifications are proposed for the facade of an existing building. The applicant believes there is sufficient on-street parking along
Main Street and Idaho Avenue. The Commission should determine if the existing parking plan is adequate.
Hours of Operation: The hours of operation for the proposed use as stated in the application are daily from 11:00 am-2:00 am. Staff
is supportive of the hours of operation for the site and is proposing that this be a restriction of the business.
Written Testimony: Harvest Church – Concerns on potential loitering, drunkenness, vandalism, etc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2017-0100, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of September 21, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2017-0100, as presented during the
hearing on September 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0100 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4B: Madden Subdivision – PFP (H-2017-0121)
Application(s):
Combined Preliminary and Final Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.38 acres of land, zoned C-G, located at the northeast corner
of N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road, in the SW ¼ of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. (Parcel No.:
S1108336020)
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Industrial use; Parks Maintenance, zoned I-L
East: Single-family residential, zoned RUT; Industrial Use, zoned I-L; Commercial Auto Repair, zoned C-G
South: Single-family residential, zoned RUT; Multi-family residential, zoned R-15
West: Vacant property, zoned C-G and I-L
History: This property was annexed in 1996 as ordinance #748.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Commercial
Summary of Request: A combined preliminary and final plat is proposed consisting of 3 building lots on 8.38 acres of land in the C-G
zoning district for Madden Subdivision
Access: The UDC (11-3A-3) restricts access to arterial streets when access is available from a local street. This property has frontage
on Nola Road, Lanark Street, Franklin Road and Locust Grove Road. There are two existing access points to the site from both E.
Franklin Road and N. Locust Grove, both classified arterial roadways. Since this property has access to Nola and Lanark, acce ss to the
arterials should be restricted. If approval for access is obtained from the City Council and ACHD, City Staff is of the opinion that a
single access point to each arterial be granted, and that the access(es) shared. The applicant has indicated that they will also construct
access points to N. Nola Road and E. Lanark Street, both local commercial streets.
Landscaping: A 10-foot wide street buffer is required to be provided along E. Lanark Street and N. Nola Road, both public streets, as
set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and UDC Table 11-2C-3. The applicant has proposed a 20-foot landscape buffer along E. Lanark even
though only a 10-foot landscape buffer is required along local streets. A 25-foot landscape buffer is required along both N. Locust
Grove Road and E. Franklin Road, both arterial roadways, as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3 and UDC 11-2C-3. Landscaping within the
street buffer should be provided in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. The landscaping shown on the landscape plan
complies with these standards (see Exhibit A.4). Any interior parking lot landscaping will be required with development of the property
(i.e. – building).
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-17. A 7-foot
wide attached sidewalk exists along N. Locust Grove Road and E. Franklin Road. As mentioned, UDC 11-3A-17 requires that
sidewalks along arterial roadways be detached; but that same section of code gives the director the ability to waive that req uirement in
that case. The director sees no reason to remove and reconstruct a sidewalk in this case. The applicant will be required to install
attached sidewalk along N. Nola Road and E. Lanark Street per the previously stated standards.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance application prior
to construction to ensure all construction and site improvements comply with the conditions in this report and the provisions of the
UDC, per UDC 11-5B-1.
Design Review: The applicant is required to submit an application for Design Review concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8. The site layout and design of all structures on the site is required to be consistent
with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2017-0121, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed
modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2017-0121, as presented
during the hearing on September 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0121 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4C: Pond Subdivision - PP (H-2017-0109)
Application(s):
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 4.82 acres of land, zoned R-8, and is located at 2980 N.
Meridian Road
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: Single-family residential property, zoned R-4
East: County residential properties, zoned R1
South: Silhouette Subdivision and Highgate Subdivision, zoned R-8
West: Single family residential and multi-family residential property, zoned R-8 and R-15.
History: This land was previously annexed and zoned and granted conditional use permit approval in 2012 (AZ-12-014; CUP-12-020)
for Tomorrow’s Hope.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR
Summary of Request: The proposed plat consists of 21 single-family residential building lots and 5 common area lots on 4.82 acres of
land in an R-8 zoning district. The minimum lot size in the proposed development is 4,129 square feet; the minimum lot size in the R-8
district is 4,000 square feet.
The proposed overall density of this development is 4.35 dwelling units (d.u.) per acre; with a net density of 6.47 d.u./acre which is
consistent with the MDR designation.
Dimensional Standards: Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-
2A-6 for the R-8 district and with the exception of lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 2, the plat was found to be in compliance with those
standards. Lots 3, 4, and 5 of Block 2 shall be revised to meet the above named standards.
Access: Access to this site is proposed on the plat from an existing access to N. Meridian Road. The existing access shall be
converted to a public road and the commercial access for the residential care facility and the driveway for the existing home will be
reconfigured. A stub street is proposed to the east for future extension and interconnectivity. The plat depicts 47-foot wide right-of-way
sections. No other access is available to this property.
Common Driveways: There is one common driveway proposed. The applicant is proposing Lots 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Block 1, to take
access from a common driveway.
Landscaping, Open Space & Site Amenities: Open space and amenities are not a requirement for this plat because the plat is under
5 acres in size. The applicant has however provided 0.24 of an acre of open space for the development which includes the landscape
buffer along N. Meridian Road and several common lots.
Existing Structures: There is an existing home and associated outbuildings on the site that are proposed to remain on Lot 1, Block 1.
All existing structures that are proposed to remain with subdivision of the property must comply with the setback standards of the R-8
district per UDC Table 11-2A-6; or be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the final plat. Additionally, the development of this
property will likely require the address for the existing home to change. The applicant will have to coordinate with the City’s
Addressing Specialist and obtain a new street addresses from the adjacent local street.
Note: There is an existing outbuilding on Lot 1, Block 1 that will be located within the required street yard with the
subdividing of the property. The UDC restricts detached accessory dwellings from being located in this setback (UDC 11-2A-
3D). The applicant is requesting that the City Council allow the accessory building 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 City Council.
Sidewalks: Five-foot wide attached sidewalks are proposed along internal streets within the development.
Waterways: The Onweiler Canal crosses the southern portion of the site. All ditches on the site are required to be piped unless waived
by City Council in accord with UDC 11-3A-6A. The applicant is requesting a waiver from City Council due to the large capacity of the
lateral.
The final plat should depict the easement for the lateral on the face of the plat and label it as such.
Building Elevations: The applicant has submitted conceptual building elevations for the future homes in this development.
Fencing: A 6-foot tall vinyl fence is proposed along the perimeter boundary of the subdivision as depicted on the landscape plan.
If the Osweiler Canal will not be improved as part of the development to be a water amenity (as defined in 11-1A-1), the lateral is
required to be fenced with an open vision fence at least 6-feet in height and having an 11-guage, 2-inch mesh or other construction,
equivalent in ability to deter access to the lateral.
All fencing should comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7.
Written Testimony: None
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File Number H-2017-0115, as
presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed
modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File Number H-2017-0115, as presented
during the hearing on September 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0115 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4E: TM Creek Apartments - (H-2017-0124)
Application(s):
Development Agreement Modification (does not require Commission action)
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 8.16 acres of land, zoned C-G, generally located south of W.
Franklin Rd. and east of S. Ten Mile Rd..
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North & South: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned C-G
East: Vacant/undeveloped land, zoned R-40
West: Commercial property in the development process, zoned C-G
History: This property was annexed in 2013 with a development agreement and a preliminary plat. The DA was later modified in 2016.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Mixed Use-Commercial & Lifestyle Center
Summary of Request: The applicant proposes to modify the DA to change the development plan on the south side of the Tenmile
Creek and the east side of Phase 1 from commercial retail to multi-family residential. Instead of the original 2 large commercial
buildings, the applicant now proposes to construct 2 multi-family structures containing a total of 240 dwelling units with associated
garages and a clubhouse. Because MFR uses are a desired use in MU-C & LC designated areas, staff is amenable to the proposed
modification. The proposed density of 29.4 units per acre is also consistent with that desired in this area.
An amendment is proposed to UDC 11-4-3-27B.3 which states, “A minimum of eighty (80) square feet of private, usable open space shall
be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway
and other accessways shall not count toward this requirement.” The applicant proposes to change the amount of private usable open space
from 80 to 60 square feet.
Because multi-family developments that are in mixed use designated areas are typically more of an urban style of design as opposed
to the typical garden style apartments found in HDR designated areas, Staff believes it may be appropriate in certain circumstances to
have a lesser private usable open space requirement. For example, in this particular development, the Tenmile Creek corridor is
adjacent to this site and provides a nice open space area; bicycle storage and BBQ areas are proposed within the complex eliminating
the need for those items to be located within private areas (e.g. patios, balconies or porches). A lesser private usable open space area
might then be appropriate in this case just for an outdoor seating area but these factors should be cons idered when determining how
much private space is appropriate.
Therefore, instead of amending the standard for every situation, staff instead recommends an amendment to the UDC (Table 11-5B-5,
Alternative Compliance) that will allow requests for alternative compliance to the standard. The alternative compliance process allows
alternative means to meet the intended purpose of certain regulations, as deemed appropriate by the Director.
A CUP is proposed for a multi-family development containing a total of 240 dwelling units on 8.16 acres of land in a C-G zoning district.
Two 4-story structures are proposed to house the units. The proposed density is
Access is proposed via future collector streets from S. Ten Mile Road & W. Franklin Rd.
Parking is proposed in accord with UDC standards for the development with an additional 7 spaces above the required amount.
Common open space is proposed in accord with UDC standards per the revised open space exhibit submitted by the applicant; a
minimum of 1.38 acres is required & a total of 1.44 acres is proposed. Proposed site amenities consist of a clubhouse with a lounge
and entertainment areas, public Wi-Fi, work stations, a fitness center and TRX/Crossfit studio; swimming pool, indoor bicycle storage
and maintenance room, outdoor fire pit, table tennis, and BBQ grills.
Two (2) 4-story structures are proposed for the multi-family units as shown. Eight (8) garages, carports and a clubhouse are also
proposed. Building materials for the multi-family structures consist of 3 different colors of stucco with brick veneer accents and glazing.
The architectural character of the structures is required to comply with the standards listed in the City of Meridian Architectural
Standards Manual.
Written Testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation (Applicant) – In agreement with staff report
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0124, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of 9/21/17, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed
modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0124, as presented during the hearing on 9/21/17, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0124 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4F: Aegean Estates - (H-2017-0114)
Application(s):
Annexation & Zoning
Preliminary Plat
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 62.7 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County, located on the
east side of N. McDermott Rd., ¼ mile south of W. McMillan Rd.
Adjacent Land Use & Zoning:
North: SFR properties in The Oaks South Subdivision, zoned R-4; and vacant/undeveloped land, zoned R-15
East: Agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County
South: SF rural residential properties in Apple Valley Subdivision, zoned RUT in Ada County
West: Rural residential/agricultural property, zoned RUT in Ada County
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (3 to 8 units/acre)
Summary of Request: The applicant requests annexation & zoning of 65.31 acres of land with R-4 (28.81 Acres) and R-8 (36.5 acres)
zoning districts. The property is proposed to develop with 215 new SFR detached homes at a gross density of 3.43 units/acre, consist
with the FLUM designation of MDR. A DA is recommended as a provision of annexation to ensure the site develops as proposed.
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 215 SFR building lots & 22 common lots on 62.7 acres of land in the proposed R-4 & R-8
districts. The minimum property size is 5,603 s.f. with an average lots size of 8,355 s.f. for a variety of lot sizes. The subdivision is
proposed to develop in 5 phases.
One access is proposed to the development via N. McDermott Road. Stub streets are proposed to adjacent properties for future
extension and interconnectivity. A stub street that exists at the north boundary is proposed to be extended with a bridge across the
Fivemile Creek. The Fivemile Creek runs off-site along the north boundary of the property. A small portion of the site lies within the
Meridian Floodplain Overlay District which will require a floodplain permit application to be submitted for any development i n that area.
A 25’ wide landscaped street buffer is required along N. McDermott Road; a 50’ wide buffer is proposed to accommodate a taller berm
& additional landscaping to buffer the future SH16 which will eventually be extended west of McDermott Rd.
A minimum of 6.27 acres of qualified open space is required to be provided within this development; the applicant proposes 7.06 acres
in accord with this requirement. Site amenities are proposed to consist of internal pedestrian pathways, a playground with children’s
play equipment, and a picnic shelter and a gazebo in accord with UDC standards.
The applicant submitted 8 photos of homes that will be similar to those constructed within this development each of which depict at
least 2 different building materials & stucco/stone/brick veneer accents.
Written Testimony: Jacob Hassard, Valley Regional Transit; and Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions (Applicant)
Staff Recommendation: Approval w/conditions
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0114, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0114, as presented during the hearing on September 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0114 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #4G: 2017 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment – CPAT (H-2017-0113)
Application(s): CPAT
Summary of Request: The City of Meridian Planning Division has submitted an application for a Comprehensive Plan (the Plan) Text
Amendment (CPAT). Specifically, this amendment propose updates to policy statements (Goals, Objectives, and Action Items) within
the Plan, several new policy statements, general text changes including both updates and new text, and two new maps.
As part of the Planning Divisions annual review of the Plan, staff checks-in with other City Departments and provides them the
opportunity to update action items, either to indicate completion, revise descriptions, change priority, assign to others, or when
appropriate remove. Several Departments and partner agencies also provided updates to general areas of text within the Plan.
Planning staff consider all of these requested changes to be updates or cleanup, and support the involvement and recommendations
by participating departments and partners to ensure the Plans relevancy, active use, and implementation.
The area of notable change for this update is to acknowledge and provide awareness for the South Rim. The Comprehensive Plan
already makes mention of the North Rim. This amendment provides topographic exhibit maps, located in the appendices, which
demarcate the specific boundaries for both of these areas. The proposed text also changes how the residential “density bump” rule
may work in these areas (which is to say that it is disallowed), and to provide four new policy statements (one objective and three
action items) to address high-level design goals for development in these areas. These changes are proposed as a result of public
involvement at several recent public hearings, and by comments by the Mayor and City Council at these meetings.
Planning staff worked with several individuals representing a larger coalition of south Meridian residents and believe that these
changes strike a balance between requested revisions and limitations of scope, timing, and suitability for this yearly amendment. While
these changes are notable and provide stronger direction for development within the South Rim, impacts are limited without additional
revisions to both the Future Land Use Map and the City’s Unified Development Code, both of which are contemplated in the future as
part of wider public and stakeholder involvement.
Planning staff view these changes as an important first step in representing community sentiment and comment in South Meridia n.
Existing Conditions Report: The ECR is an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan, but integral in addressing Section 67-6508 of
Idaho Code (the Local Land Use Planning Act). The Existing Conditions Report 2017 is an updated document to the adopted 2014
version. While the overall format and topics are substantially similar, extensive updates to the text, descriptions, charts, and maps
occur across the entire document. This updated information better represents a rapidly growing City to make the document more
relevant and useful to City staff, residents, business owners, and others interested in Meridian.
Staff believes that the proposed text amendments help to accurately reflect the City’s planning efforts and portrays the City staff’s
commitment to monitoring the plan.
Written Testimony: Susan Karnes, a representative from the Meridian Southern Rim Coalition
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of File Number H-
2017-0113, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 21, 2017, with the following modifications: (Add any
proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City Council of File Number H-2017-
0113, as presented during the hearing on September 21, 2017, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for
denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0113 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 3B
PROJECT NUMBER:
ITEM TITLE:
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law for Denial of AT&T -
Store -It Self Storage (H-2017-01 12) by Justin Hadley, Smartlink,
LLC located at 1776 N. Avest Lane
MEETING NOTES
Dw"' APPROVED
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0112
Page 1
CITY OF MERIDIAN
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND
DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of the Request for Conditional Use Permit to operate a 100-foot wireless
communication facility in a C-G zoning district, Located at 1776N. Avest Lane, by Justin Hadley,
Smartlink.
Case No(s). H-2017-0112
For the Planning & Zoning Commission Hearing Date of: September 7, 2017 (Findings on
September 21, 2017)
A. Findings of Fact
1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 7, 2017, incorporated
by reference)
2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 7, 2017, incorporated
by reference)
3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of September 7,
2017, incorporated by reference)
4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing
date of September 7, 2017, incorporated by reference)
B. Conclusions of Law
1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the “Local Land Use
Planning Act of 1975,” codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503).
2. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission takes judicial notice of its Unified Development
Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of
Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan
of the City of Meridian, which was adopted April 19, 2011, Resolution No. 11-784 and Maps.
3. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental
subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction.
4. That the City has granted an order of denial in accordance with this decision, which shall be
signed by the Chairman of the Commission and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk
upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected
party requesting notice.
5. That this denial is subject to the Legal Description in Exhibit A.
C. Decision and Order
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0112
Page 2
Pursuant to the Planning & Zoning Commission’s authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-
5A and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby
ordered that:
1. The applicant’s request for conditional use permit is hereby denied.
D. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis
1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a conditional
use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in
writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the
final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will
toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review may be filed.
2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian.
When applicable and pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521, any affected person being a person
who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the final action of the
governing board may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order
seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code.
action of the Planning & Zoning Commission at its regular meeting held on the day of
2017.
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED VeCt
COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY
COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON
COMMISSIONER TREG BERNT
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT
Rh da McCarvel, Chairman
Attest: Go�o"TUT AUCs},,
�E
City of
IDIA N
C.J Coles, ty Clerk
3
'Ft tt EAL
. y�
d �Pv
VOTED
VOTED._ to
VOTED
VOTED 1/rte
VOTED_T
VOTED
Copy served upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By:(hAuDated: 9-699 -961-7
City Clerk's Office
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2017-0112
Page 3
Exhibit A
Stor-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: September 7, 2017
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: AT&T - Stor-it Self Storage (H-2017-0112)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Justin Hadley, has applied for conditional use permit (CUP) approval to operate a 100-
foot wireless communication facility in a C-G zoning district. See Section IX Analysis for more
information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP with the conditions listed in Exhibit B, based on the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C.
The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard this item on September 7, 2017. At the
public hearing, the Commission moved to deny the subject conditional use permit request.
a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor:
ii. In opposition: None
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: None
v. Staff presenting application:
vi. Other staff commenting on application: None
b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission:
i. None
c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation:
i. None
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval of File
Number H-2017-0112, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of September 7, 2017, with
the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial of File
Number H-2017-0112, as presented during the hearing on September 7, 2017, for the following
reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0112 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Exhibit A
Stor-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) PAGE 2
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
1776 N. Avest Lane
Located in the southwest ¼ of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 1 East
B. Owner(s):
Stor-It Self Storage
1776 N. Avest Lane
Meridian, ID 83642
C. Applicant/Representative:
Justin Hadley, Smartlink
110 E. 1750 N.
Orem, UT 84057
D. Applicant's Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission on this matter, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: September 18, 2017
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 1,000 feet on: August 10, 2017
D. Applicant posted notice on site by: August 25, 2017
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: The site where the wireless communication facility is proposed
is currently zoned C-G and is developed with a self-storage facility.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
North: Mirage Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-4
West: N. Locust Grove Road, single-family residential homes, zoned RUT and commercial
offices, zoned L-O.
South: Fred Meyer, zoned C-G
East: Dove Meadows Subdivision, zoned R-8
C. History of Previous Actions:
In 1995, a final plat was approved for the site as Avest Plaza Subdivision.
In 1996, the existing Stor-It facility was constructed.
There are two existing cell towers on the subject property (CZC-01-044, CZC-05-133)
(Exhibit A.3)
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: No utilities required
Exhibit A
Stor-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) PAGE 3
b. Location of water: No utilities required
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: None
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: This property is not within the floodplain.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject property is designated “Commercial” on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
Per the Comprehensive Plan (page 105), commercial designated areas, “will provide a full range of
commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors. Uses may include retail, wholesale, service
and office uses, multi-family residential, as well as appropriate public uses such as government
offices. Within this land use category, specific zones may be created to focus commercial activities
unique to their locations. These zones may include neighborhood commercial uses focusing on
specialized service for residential areas adjacent to that zone.”
Staff finds that the proposed development is consistent with desi red land use in the Commercial land
use designated area, and should contribute to the variety of uses and dwelling unit options for seniors
in the area.
Policies: Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this application
and apply to the proposed use of this property (staff analysis in italics):
Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels (Chapter 3, pg. 52).
The subject property is bordered by residential subdivisions on the north and east. The proposed
facility will be located near the corner of E. Loop Lane and N. Locust Grove Road,
approximately 400 feet away from the closest residential property line. The other residences in
the area have a greater setback from the facility. Because the proposed facility is located near the
southwest corner of the subject property and is setback a large distance from the adjacent
residences, staff is of the opinion said facility is compatible with the adjacent land uses.
Additionally, the proposed wireless facility is not changing the primary use of the property and
will not generate excessive levels of noise, odors or traffic.
Provide facilities and services that keep up with growth (Chapter 3,
pg. 45).
The addition of the proposed wireless communication facility will allow A T &T to provide better
service coverage in this area and replace an existing facility that will be coming offline because
the lease is not being renewed. This facility is located less than a mile southwest of the proposed
facility. The proposed tower will also allow for collocation for two (2) other service providers in
the area thereby reducing the potential for expansion of other cellular facilities in the area.
After considering all of these factors staff believes that the proposed use is generally consistent with
comprehensive plan.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE
A. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-2 lists the permitted,
accessory, conditional, and prohibited uses in the R-4 zoning district. The proposed wireless
Exhibit A
Stor-It Self Storage (H-2017-0112) PAGE 4
communication facility is listed as a conditional use in the R-4 district. There are specific use
standards for wireless communication facilities listed in UDC 11-4-3-43.
B. Dimensional Standards: The dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-3 for the R-4
zoning district apply to this site. (Note: The maximum height limitations do not apply to wireless
communication facilities per UDC 11-2B-3A.3b.)
IX. ANALYSIS
A. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
The applicant requests conditional use permit (CUP) approval of a wireless communication
facility in an R-4 zoning district on the Stor-It storage facility.
The applicant proposes to place the communication equipment at the top of a new 100 foot pole
and construction of an equipment shelter that will house all of the electronic equipment.
Specific Use Standards (UDC 11-4-3-43): The UDC contains specific use standards for wireless
communication facilities. The applicant’s narrative provides justification for the new facility.
However, the required engineering documentation has not been provided with the subject
application. Per the specific use standards, any wireless provider that locates within the lease area
must provide documentation from a licensed engineer in accord with UDC 11-4-3-43D.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to submit an application for
Certificate of Zoning Compliance for the proposed use prior to establishment of the new use in
accord with UDC 11-5B-1. Each service provider will be required to obtain CZC approval prior
to commencement of the use and comply with all wireless communication specific use standards
outlined in the UDC.
Design Review: The applicant is also required to submit an application for Design Review
concurrent with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application in accord with UDC 11-5B-8.
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request subject to the conditions of approval listed
in Exhibit B.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings
1. Vicinity Map
2. Site Plan (dated: 06/15/17)
3. Location of Existing Cell Towers
4. Elevations (dated: 06/07/12)
B. Conditions of Approval
1. Planning Department
2. Public Works Department
3. Fire Department
4. Police Department
5. Sanitary Service Company
6. Ada County Highway District
7. Parks Department
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Exhibit A
Exhibit A Page | 1
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity Map
Exhibit A
Exhibit A Page | 2
Exhibit A.2: Site Plan (dated: 06/15/17)
Exhibit A
Exhibit A Page | 3
Exhibit A.3: Location of Existing Cell Towers
Location of
proposed facility
Location of
existing facility
Location of
existing facility
Exhibit A
Exhibit B Page | 1
Exhibit A.4: Elevations (dated: 06/07/12)
Exhibit A
Exhibit B Page | 1
B. Conditions of Approval
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
1.1 The site plan prepared by Centerline Solutions (dated: June 15, 2017) contained in Exhibit A is
approved as shown.
1.2 The applicant shall comply with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-43 for wireless
communication facilities.
1.3 Prior to the issuance of a CZC, the applicant must submit the required engineering documentation
in accord with UDC 11-4-3-43D.
1.4 The applicant shall submit an application for certificate of zoning compliance and administrative
design review for each wireless communication provider prior to the establishment of the new
use.
1.5 The applicant shall have a maximum of two (2) years to commence the use as permitted in accord
with the conditions of approval listed above. If the use has not begun within two (2) of approval,
a time extension may be requested in accord with UDC 11-5B-6F prior to expiration. If a time
extension is not requested or granted and the CUP expires, a new conditional use permit must be
obtained.
1.6 Staff’s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved conditional use does
not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Public Works has no issues or concerns with this application.
3. FIRE DEPARTMENT
3.1 The Fire Department has no comments related to this application.
4. POLICE DEPARTMENT
4.1 The Police Department did not submit comments on this application.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Republic Services has no comments related to this application.
6. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
6.1 ACHD will not be taking any action on this application.
7. PARKS DEPARTMENT
7.1 The Parks Department has no comments related to this application.
Exhibit A
Exhibit C Page | 1
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Conditional Use Permit (UDC 11-5B-6E)
The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon
the following:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the subject property is large enough to
accommodate the proposed use and dimensional and development regulations of the C-G
district. The maximum height limitations do not apply to wireless communication facility (see
Analysis Section IX for more information).
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds that the proposed use is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan future land use map designation of Civic for this site. Further, the
Planning and Zoning Commission finds the proposed use of the site is not consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
The Commission finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of
the wireless communications facility use will not be compatible with existing residential uses
in the vicinity and with the existing and intended character of the area based on testimony
provided a the public hearing.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
The Planning and Zoning Commission finds approval of the proposed project will adversely
affect other properties in the vicinity based on testimony provided at the public hearing from
nearby residents.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection,
drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Staff finds that the proposed use will be served adequately by all of the public facilities and
services listed above.
f. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and
services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
If approved, the applicant will be financing any improvements required for the proposed use.
Staff finds there will not be excessive additional requirements at public cost and that the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the community’s economic welfare.
Exhibit A
Exhibit C P a g e | 2
g. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and
conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors.
Staff finds the proposed use will not involve any of the above listed activities or processes
that would be detrimental to persons, property, or the general welfare.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a
natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural,
scenic or historic feature.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4A
PROJECT NUMBER: Am .21)11 -z)b,
ITEM TITLE: Heritage Hop Haus
Public Hearing Continued from September 7, 2017 for Heritage
Hop Haus (H-2017-0100) by Prefunk Meridian Located 77 E.
Idaho Avenue
1. Request: Conditional Use Permit Approval to Establish a
Drinking Establishment Use on the Property
MEETING NOTES
D44 APPROVED
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
I/
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item # 4A
Project Number:
H-2017-0100
Project Name: Heritage Hop Haus
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
J
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4B
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0121
ITEM TITLE: Madden Subdivision
Public Hearing for Madden Subdivision (H-2017-0121) by Kobe,
LLC located at the Northeast Corner of Locust Grove and E.
Franklin Road
1. Request: combined preliminary and final plat consisting of 3
commercial lots on 8.3 acres of land in the proposed I -L and
C -G zoning districts
tY�4i�GVAI,
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0121
Madden
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (YIN)
G t �t
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017
ITEM TITLE: Pond Subdivision
ITEM NUMBER: 4C
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0115
Public Hearing for Pond Subdivision (H-2017-0115) by Schultz
Development located at 2980 N. Meridian Road
1. Request: preliminary plat consisting of 21 building lots and 5
common lots on 4.82 acres of land in an R-8 zoning district
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
,�
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
H-2017-0115
4C
Pond Subdivision
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
_ V
74 �J;(�t�
ce �Y 00
P
-0
r� f�
�/ t �.
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4D
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0117
ITEM TITLE: Rapid Creek Subdivision
Public Hearing for Rapid Creek Subdivision (H-2017-0117) by
WHPacific located near the Southwest Corner of W. McMillan
Road and N. Black Cat Road
1. Request: annexation and zoning of 23.02 acres of land with
an R-8 zoning district
2. Request: for preliminary plat consisting of 93 building lots
and 1 1 common lots on 21.02 acres of land in a proposed R-
8 zoning district
U � �
MEETING NOTES
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item #
Project Number:
H-2017-0117
,9
Project Name: Rapid Creek Subdivision
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017
ITEM NUMBER: 4E
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0124
ITEM TITLE: TM Creek Apartments
llublic Hearing for I M Creekpar men s - - y
Brighton, LLC generally located South of W. Franklin Road and
East of S. Ten Mile Road
1. Request: amendment to the development agreement to
change the development plan for an 8.16 acre portion of the
site from commercial retail to multi -family residential
2. Request: amend Unified Development Code 1 1-4-3-278.3 to
change the minimum private usable open space for each
mi ilti-fnmily i snit from Rn cni inrP fPPt to An ern inrP fPPt
MEETING NOTES
56 RPPflOdE"
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0124
Project Name:
4E
TM Creek Apartments
Please print your name For Against Neutral Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
1
2
TM Creek Apartments
3
4
TM CREEK APARTMENTS CLUBHOUSE
5
TM CREEK APARTMENTS
CLUBHOUSE COMPLEX
6
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4F
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0114
ITEM TITLE: Aegean Estates
FUID11C Hearing Tor Aegean Btates - - y Fremier
Investments, LLC located East of N. McDermott Road and South
of W. McMillan Road
1. Request: Annexation and Zoning of 65.3 acres of land with
the R-4 (25.79 acres) and R-8 (3.76 acres) zoning districts;
and
2. Request: Preliminary plat consisting of 215 single-family
residential building lots and 22 common lots on 62.7 acres of
Innrl in the R-4 nnrl R -R 7nninn rlietrirk
MEETING NOTES
e,g U,0) I b�,
Ij
x1f I G 66 ep
\ APPROVED
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
&MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item # 4F
Project Number:
H-2017-0114
Project Name: Aegean Estates
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
0
AEGEAN ESTATES SUBDIVISION
SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Public Hearing
Aegean Estates Subdivision – Vicinity Map
AEGEAN ESTATES – Aerial View
Aegean Estates Preliminary Plat
Aegean Estates – Landscape Plan
AEGEAN ESTATES – AMENITIES
A total of 7.06 acres (11.26 percent) of
qualified open space
Central common area and linear open
space
Playground
Picnic gazebo
Detached sidewalks with eight-foot-wide
residential landscape buffers
Interconnecting pedestrian pathways
Aegean Estates – Landscape Plan
Aegean Estates Subdivision – Adjacent Homes
Meridian Planning Zoning Commission Meeting
DATE: September 21, 2017 ITEM NUMBER: 4G
PROJECT NUMBER: H-2017-0113
ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
Public Hearing for 2017 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
H-2017-0113) by City of Meridian
1. Request: Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment for the
purpose of 1) updating the text and policy statements (Goals,
Objectives and Action Items) contained in the plan; 2) add text
that identifies the Southern Rim; and 3) update the current
version of the Existing Conditions Report (ECR)
MEETING NOTES
\ ow
CLERKS OFFICE FINAL ACTION
DATE:
E-MAILED TO
STAFF
SENT TO
AGENCY
SENT TO
APPLICANT
NOTES
INITIALS
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: September 21, 2017 Item #
Project Number: H-2017-0113
4G
Project Name: Comp Plan Text Amendment
Pleaseour rint name For Against Neutral Do you wish
p Y g
to testify (Y/N)
For more information, see the City of Meridian Existing Conditions Report at: www.meridiancity.org/compplan
Population Increases
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Before
1960
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 January
2017
Population Increase from previous Census
#
o
f
P
e
o
p
l
e
2,
0
8
1
53
5
4,
0
4
2
2,
9
3
8
25
,
3
2
3
40
,
1
7
3
23
,
2
0
8
Population
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2017
2,0812,081 2,6162,616 6,6586,658 9,5969,596
34,91934,919
75,09275,092
98,30098,300
Total Population Growth
#
o
f
P
e
o
p
l
e
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Under 5 5 to 9 10 to 19 20 to 29 30 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 64 65+
1990 2000 2010 2015
Change in Age Groups
%
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
34.6
Median Age
Up from: 29.8 in 1990; 30.1
in 2000; and 32.5 in 2010.
3,249
Average Yearly
Population Increase
Between 2010 and 2017
Single Family Multi-Family
1990 2000
87%87%85%85%65%65%
13%13%15%15%35%35%
2015
13%13%
Housing Types by % of Total
1990 ( # of DU’s) 2000 (New DU’s)2015 (New DU’s)
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
3,880 8,384 21,429 33,693
Total Dwelling Units (DU)
Total DU
2.4%Meridian 2015
Down from
3.8% in 2000
12.3%National 2015
Up from
9.0% in 2000
Housing Vacancy Housing Expenditure
Own
Rent 49%
27%
% of Population with housing expenditures
that exceeds 30% of Household Income
0%100%50%
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT 2017POPULATION, G ROWTH, A GE, AND H OUSING IN MERIDIAN
For more information, see the City of Meridian Existing Conditions Report at: www.meridiancity.org/compplan
22 MilesPathways
9 miles maintained by the City
2 Regional, 4 Community,
6 Neighborhood,
3 Mini Parks, 2 Special Use
17 Parks
66%
34%
132 Acres
(Future)
255 Acres
(Today)
Developed Undeveloped
City Parks
34%
2.6 Acres
Serving 98,300 (Today)
Per 1,000 People
Level of Service
3.0 Acres
Serving 129,000 (Future)
Per 1,000 People
Civilian Occupations
Arts & Entertainment
Construction & Manufacturing
Education
Natural Resources
Other
Professional Services
Public Administration
Trade
Transportation
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%
Idaho US Meridian
% of Total Workers
Educational Attainment
% of Population Completed
Highschool
Only
Highschool
Only
Bachelor’s
or Higher
Bachelor’s
or Higher
33%95%
15
.
5
%
15
.
5
%
19
.
4
%
12
.
3
%
23
.
6
%
14
.
3
%
9.
2
%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Meridian Boise Nampa Ada Canyon Idaho US
%
o
f
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s
L
i
v
i
n
g
in
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
Persons living in Poverty
2015 Poverty
High School Diploma Only
Of those
living in
poverty12.9%Bachelors or Higher
Of those
living in
poverty3.2%
Average Household Income
2000 Income 2015 Change
$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000
$18,278$58,505 $76,783$76,783
Jobs in Meridian
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000
11,92432,180
2007 Jobs 2017 Change
44,104 Jobs44,104 Jobs
EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORTEDUCATION, J OBS, P AY , AND PLAY IN MERIDIAN 2017
Comprehensive Plan Text Update
& 2017 Existing Conditions
Report
Planning & Zoning Commission
September 21, 2017
Comprehensive Plan Text Amendments
1.Yearly review and updates to
policy statements
2.Text and policy statements
related to North and South
Rims
3.Update to the Existing
Conditions Report for
2016/2017
Yearly Review
•Changes to Department Text
–These are all administrative and reflect actual operations
–Too many for this presentation, but please ask questions if any in the
application caught your attention
•Revisions and Additions to Policy Statements
–Revisions generally cleanup or change in Responsible Lead
–The new ones generally reflect what we’re already doing
–Again, too many to go through one-by-one, but please ask questions
if you have any questions from your reading
–Except…
North & South Rims
Text Changes to North & South Rim
Chapter 3, Page 21
•In residential areas, other residential densities will be considered without requiring a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment. However, the density can only be changed one “step”
(i.e., from low to medium, not low to high, etc.). This provision does not apply to 1) the area
bounded by Can-Ada, Chinden, McDermott, and Ustick Roads or 2) within the Ten Mile
Interchange Specific Area Plan, or 3) within the North and South Rims as depicted in Appendix
E where no “step up” is allowed.
•Residential lots, streets and open spaces within the North Rim and South Rim Areas (See
Appendix E) should be oriented and designed to maximize view sheds.
•For properties designated Low Density Residential, uses within the North and South Rim areas,
north of Chinden Boulevard and within ¼ mile or less from the rim should have lot sizes should
rangeing from one-half to one acre, ensuring compatibility with SpurWing Country Club to the
east. Use of transitional lot sizes and clustering of smaller lots adjacent to the non-residential
and rim property are encouraged.
Green and underlined text is new, Red and strike-through text is removed
North & South Rim Policy Statements
I.D. Goals / Objectives / Action Items Priority Responsible
Lead Support 1 Support 2
3.01.03 Preserve view sheds of the Treasure Valley along the North Rim,
South Rim, and at other notable vistas. On-going Community
Development
City
Council
New objective
statement paired with
the following three
action items, and new
text in Chapter 3,
page 21
3.01.03A
New residential subdivisions should make strategic use of large
lots, terraced grades, community trails and open space, and
siting and orientation of new building pads to optimize public
view sheds. The topography and view sheds of adjacent
properties should be considered when terracing.
On-going Community
Development
City
Council
New action item
paired with new
objective 3.01.03, and
with new text in
Chapter 3, page 21
3.01.03B
Residential building lots on properties within designated view
shed areas should integrate regular breaks between dwellings,
such as pocket parks, trails and trail access points, or incorporate
large side yard setbacks, especially in estate, and low density
neighborhoods.
On-going Community
Development
City
Council
New action item
paired with new
objective 3.01.03, and
with new text in
Chapter 3, page 21
3.01.03C
Residential building lots should make use of open vision fencing
types, such as wrought iron and split-rail, especially when closed
vision fencing would otherwise obscure view sheds from public
spaces.
On-going Community
Development
City
Council
New action item
paired with new
objective 3.01.03, and
with new text in
Chapter 3, page 21
Trends to Watch (from the ECR)
•Poverty levels in Meridian are lower than local, state, and national rates.
–However, and according to the same source, poverty rates have increased faster in
Meridian over the last several years than elsewhere
•Meridian is aging. Median age continues to increase, and the older percent
of the population is increasingly a larger portion of the whole
–Young millennials appear to be leaving, with the 20-29 population age group
decreasing as a percent of the whole since 1990. This is an educated and attractive
workforce for major employers
•Housing is increasingly a larger portion a households total
income.
–Almost 50% of households renting are spending more than 30% of their income on
housing.
–More on housing means less on restaurants, shops, activities, and other local
expenditures
Other Changes
Since the original staff application, several additional changes are
requested:
•Staff would like to change all occurrences of Waste Water Treatment
Plant to Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility in the policy
statements (GOA) of the Comprehensive Plan.
–This new name is shown as a proposed change in the text of the
Comprehensive Plan, but was not changed in the GOA tables.
•On Table 4D of the ECR (page 4-18), some Park acreage information
was updated using new information after the application was submitted.
QUESTIONS
Low Density Residential in AOCI
Non-annexed, Low Density
Residential Information:
•1,490 parcels (approximately)
in County type sub divisions.
•Total acreage is 2,454
•The average size is 1.64 acres
•The majority of these are
under Low Density Residential
Future Land uses
Low Density Residential in AOCI
Non-annexed, Low Density
Residential Information:
•1,490 parcels (approximately)
in County type sub divisions.
•Total acreage is 2,454
•The average size is 1.64 acres
•The majority of these are
under Low Density Residential
Future Land uses