2018-03-01
!"#$
"%"
"%&%'(&)*+((
&+,"
-
!
" #
'+"./0"
"."
+0"
..$"1 ..$/2 &3%'(&) 0"0
0
..$"!1 2 "0/2 "/
#/ 4 .
56,'(&),(((&7 $. %
"
/ $"/
$"1
4+
1 60/
8956,'(&:,(&347
61
8%
":'&
$%&'(() * +,%-- +( +
. "/* 0
"..$,""/. %'(&)
!1 60/!.56,'(&),((( 7;
$.%
"#/
""<2 8"
$%&'(
12 +/3,!
"2
0.
1 (## )2
$/%4-(5)"3,
* 0
/%&'(
2
+$6!
"2
6 22 $/%4-(5)"3,
* 0
"..$,""/. %'(&)
1 60/
."56,'(&),(((47!2 ,"
$%
"!0$
"
#/60#'(,'*5"!$"17"
"
$%&'((22 1!#
2#
10
2789%66( ++ 2 !20
:;$%96(< !)1" 22:$;%4,
(< !)1"
%
/%&'(() * +89%66( +.
"$4:6-%,$<(<="3,:;%4,(<=":6/%96(<
* 0%
6%(
2
+$
=$6
22
$> + 0 + "
+". 6;%/( + # "3,"
* 0%
3%(? 10 $$"6"3= 7@.(##
0
(
. (
./(?
./,"/;
"..$,""/. %'(&)
1 '(&)=9"56,'(&),((&&7!/"
0$
$%&'(A)(22
+ 10
1(
.A7
$$"/("/B
+
7
B0
#+1
B
(
.!
"2
>#
#
75
7
+ (
2#
(@0! +
7
@2
(
. @.
( #
A
9= #/=1+ 2
@2(@27
22(##
"
+ (#
6=/,$9
(C $,'$3!
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting March 1,
2018.
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of March 1, 2018, was called
to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairman Rhonda McCarvel.
Members Present: Chairman Rhonda McCarvel, Commissioner Steven Yearsley,
Commissioner Bill Cassinelli, Commissioner Gregory Wilson and Commissioner Ryan
Fitzgerald, Commissioner Jessica Perreault and Commissioner Lisa Holland.
Others Present: Chris Johnson, Andrea Pogue, Jeff Brown, Bill Parsons, Sonya Allen
Josh Beach and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -call Attendance
_X Lisa Holland
_x Gregory Wilson
X Jessica Perreault
X
X Steven Yearsley
X Ryan Fitzgerald
X Bill Cassinelli
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
March 1 st, 2018, and we will begin with roll call.
Item 2: Adoption of Agenda
McCarvel: The first item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda. We have no
changes to the agenda this evening, so could I get a motion to adopt the agenda as
presented?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to adopt the agenda.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 4 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 2 of 72
A. Approve Minutes of the February 15, 2018 Planning and
Zoning Commission Meeting
B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Pine 43
Apartments (H-2018-0001) by Pine Development Partners, LLC
Located North of East Pine Avenue and East of North Locust
Grove Road.
McCarvel: Next on the -- next item on the agenda is the Consent Agenda and we have
two items on the Consent Agenda. We have the approval of minutes for the February
15th Planning and Zoning Meeting and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for
Pine 43 Apartments, H-2018-0001. Can I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda
as presented?
Holland: So moved.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to -- to adopt the Consent Agenda. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: So, 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 on 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. There is a sign-up sheet in the back as you entered 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 show that
the -- to represent that group, they will be given up to ten minutes. After all testimony
has been heard, the applicant will be given another ten minutes to have the opportunity
to come back and respond if they desire. After that we will close the public hearing and
the commissioners will have the opportunity to discuss and, hopefully, be able to make
a recommendation to City Council. And at this time I would like to let the record show
that Commissioner Yearsley is present.
Yearsley: Sorry for being late.
Item 4: Action Items
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 5 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 3 of 72
A. Public Hearing for Lasken Annexation (H-2017-0154) by
Thomas H. Lasken, Located at 721 E Pine
Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 0.99 of an Acres of
Land with an R-2 Zoning District
McCarvel: Trouble finding a parking spot? Okay. So, at this time I would like to open
the public hearing for Item H-2017-0154, Lasken Annexation, and we will begin with the
staff report.
Beach: Good evening, Madam Chair, Members of the Commission. This is an
application for annexation. This site consists of approximately 0.99 of an acre of land,
which is currently zoned RUT, located at 721 East Pine Avenue. The adjacent land use
and zoning -- to the north, as I said, is East Pine Avenue and single family homes in the
Danbury Fair Subdivision, zoned R-8. To the east are single family residential property,
which is zoned RUT in Ada county and that is the case for the south and for the west
boundary as well. There is no current history on this property, because they are asking
for annexation into the city this evening. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation is mixed use community. The -- as I said, the Comprehensive Plan future
land use map designation for the property is mixed use community. The applicant is
requesting annexation to hook up the existing home and outbuildings to city water and
sewer services and the site is -- as I said, is comprised of 0.99 acres of land. They
have asked for R-2 zoning. As I said, this is part of an overall Comprehensive Plan
designated area as mixed use community. We do anticipate that this property will be
further developed in the future, along with the other parcels around it. The staff is
comfortable giving this property the R-2 zoning designation at this time. Staff is
recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you have on this particular
application.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward?
Is there an applicant? There he is. And please state -- oh. Right here to the podium.
Oh.
Lasken: Sorry, I don't know what to do.
McCarvel: Yeah. Just state your name and address for the record and tell us what
you're -- why you're bringing this in. Why you want to bring this in.
Lasken: My name is Tom Lasken. 721 East Pine Avenue. And the area I live in is
unincorporated Ada county and my septic tank is breaking down and cannot be
renewed and I am looking to acquire sewer service when East Pine is completed.
McCarvel: Okay.
Lasken: That requirement for sewer service means I have to be annexed.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 6 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 4 of 72
McCarvel: Okay.
Lasken: That's why I'm here.
McCarvel: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I just -- are you in agreement with the staff report?
Lasken: Yes.
Yearsley: Thank you. That's all I had.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. At this time I'm guessing there is nobody -- we will wait
for Christopher to find the sign-up sheet, but I'm guessing there is nobody here that's
wanting to testify on this application --
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Thank you.
Fitzgerald: I would move we close --
McCarvel: Mr. Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: -- the public hearing on H-2017-0154.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2017-
0154. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: Any comments, concerns?
Cassinelli: We have an agreement with the staff report.
Yearsley: It makes sense if it's going to get reconstructed to do it now.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 7 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 5 of 72
Yearsley: And I wondered if -- with staff if that's something that we may want to send a
letter to the other applicants -- individuals that live there, if they want service at this time
while that's to be constructed, so -- as a thought. Just --
Beach: I'm not sure if Public Works does that, but we can -- I can definitely run that past
them. I know that -- that sometimes they ask folks if they want to stub --
Yearsley: Right.
Beach: -- when they are constructing it. I'm not sure if that is the case this evening, but
--so--
Yearsley:
-so--
Yearsley: Absolutely. All right.
McCarvel: Okay.
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, just -- I can interject on that real
quick. Yes. So, whenever there is a road widening project there is public outreach and
those -- those neighbors are afforded that opportunity and they -- they actually pay for
that to happen as part of that project.
Yearsley: Awesome.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: I'm going to make a motion. After considering all staff, applicant, and public
testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City Council of file number H-2017-
0154, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018.
Wilson: Second.
Cassinelli: With no modification.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to accept H-2017-0154, Lasken
Annexation. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Congratulations.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 8 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 6 of 72
B. Public Hearing for Baraya Apartments (H-2018-0003) by
Schultz Development, Located at the Southwest Corner of South
Ten Mile Road and West Franklin Road
Request: A Conditional Use Permit Consisting of 240 Multi -
Family Dwelling Units on Approximately 12.59 Acres in an
Existing R-40 Zoning District
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Multi -Family
Building Lots and 3 Common Lots on 12.59 Acres in an
Existing R-40 Zoning District
McCarvel: So, at this time we will open the public hearing for H-2018-0003 -- okay.
Help me out on this -- Baraya? Baraya Apartments? Baraya. Okay. Thank you.
Apartments. And we will begin with the staff report.
Beach: This is an application for a conditional use permit and for a preliminary plat.
This approximate site here -- it's not this entire parcel kind of outlined here. This long
funny shape here -- the -- essentially, the R-40 zoned area is the portion this evening
being asked for, a conditional use permit and a preliminary plat. So, that site consists of
approximately 12.59 acres of land. As I said, is zoned R-40. It's located on the south
side of West Franklin Road near the southwest corner of West Franklin and South Ten
Mile Roads. To the north is West Franklin and the Ten Mile Christian Church, zoned C-
N. To the east is undeveloped property zoned RUT within Ada county. To the south is
undeveloped commercial property, zoned C -C and to the west is undeveloped
residential property, zoned R-15. This property was annexed and granted preliminary
plat in 2006 as -- as Baraya Subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan future land use map
designation for the parcel is high density residential. A conditional use permit, as I said,
is requested for this property for multi -family within the R-40 zoning district. The multi-
family development consists of 240 dwelling units and 13 structures on, as I said, 12.59
acres of land in R-40. They consist of one, two, and three bedroom units. There are
specific use standards in the Unified Development Code, 11-4-3-27 that the applicant is
required to comply with. A couple items that they will need to address with the
certificate of zoning compliance, those being a directory map, a maintenance area, an
office and a parcel mail area that was not addressed in the -- the application. So, as far
as amenities are concerned, the applicant is proposing a swimming pool, a clubhouse
with an exercise room, a 50 by 100 open grassy area and a tot lot as amenities that
comply with the UDC standards. Each fall within the quality of life open space and
recreation categories as required. Parking for the developments -- off-street parking is
required to comply with the standards in the UDC, which requires two parking spaces
per dwelling unit, with at least one of those in a covered carport or garage. Based on
the 240 units of one, two, and three bedroom units, a minimum of 456 parking spaces
are required, of which 240 should be covered. The applicant's site plan depicts that
exact number of 456 spaces with 240 covered, with a total of nine additional ADA stalls.
For nonresidential uses, such as the clubhouse, a minimum of one space is required to
be provided for every 500 square feet. The applicant submitted floor plans for the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 9 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 7 of 72
clubhouse, which is approximately 5,400 square feet, which would require 11 spaces.
So, require the applicant to ensure that they have provided adequate parking for the
clubhouse as well. A minimum of one bicycle parking stall is required for every 25
proposed vehicle stalls, for a total of 19 required. They have also proposed 19. Parking
lot landscaping is required and they are also required to provide a 25 foot landscape
buffer to be installed adjacent to the commercial on the south. They are also required to
install a 25 foot landscape buffer along Franklin and a 20 foot landscape buffer, which is
to go along their North Umbria Hills Avenue, which is a designated collector roadway.
This is the plat here and there are 13 lots and a better landscape plan, so you can see
there are amenities in their landscaping provided. The applicant has also submitted
some -- four building types as proposed for the future family -- future multi -family
structures. Elevations submitted with the certificate of zoning compliance application
should demonstrate compliance with the standards in the UDC, as well as with the
architectural standards manual. It will be required to go through a certificate of zoning
compliance and design review. As I said, a condition to the conditional use permit they
are proposing a preliminary plat for the 13 residential building lots and three common
lots on that approximately 12.59 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The lots do
comply with the R-40 standards. Access to the subdivision is proposed via Franklin
Road. This portion of the road -- approximately this location -- has already been
constructed with an adjacent subdivision. The applicant will be restricted to 200 units in
this development until there is a secondary access provided for the -- for the fire
department. There is -- there was not a traffic study required for this project per ACHD.
As I said, they are required to provide ten percent open space as well, because this is a
subdivision, so the applicant does comply with both the specific use standards
requirement for open space and with the -- which is 3-G-3, which is our subdivision
code. They are providing 2.97 acres or 24 percent of the site to be an open space and
that consists of the clubhouse, swimming pool, and tot lot areas, as well as a portion of
the collector landscape buffer and a portion of the arterial landscape buffer against
Franklin Road. Staff is recommending approval and I will stand for any questions you
have on this particular application.
McCarvel: Any questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward.
Schultz: Good evening, Commissioners. Matt Schultz. 8421 South Ten Mile, here on
behalf of Challenger Development and Schultz Development. This is a piece of
property I have been working on for 12 years now. We originally submitted the original
Baraya Subdivision of 94 acres back in 2006. We went through a very comprehensive
and time intensive planning effort, called the Ten Mile interchange specific area plan.
That's why we meet that exactly, because we were involved in that and we designated
how we could put the collector through, where the R-40 wanted to go, and there is even
an elementary school site over off of Black Cat on 14 acres of the -- of the 94. We have
-- single family residential has been ongoing since 2016. Finally. We have been doing
time extensions forever -- to get going, because of the downturn from when we first got
it approved, but we -- we have stayed current the whole way. We are just dusting this
one off, but it's been on the books for R-40 for right around this density is just kind of
how it came out. When we first ran it through we knew what density we would get
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 10 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 8 of 72
generally and there was a traffic study done at that time for -- for the whole master plan.
That's why ACHD didn't require one with this primary plat. It adds some lotting and gets
into the specifics of the open space, the buffers, the building styles and all those things.
We made your code. We exceed your code. We do agree with the staff report. We did
submit a revised architectural site plan designating the mailing area and the -- and the
signage area and all that earlier today. It's in Josh's e-mail I'm sure. We have just been
busy. So, we exceed the parking required. I know everybody wants to talk about that.
You know, like seven. I know it may not be enough, but we do exceed it and after every
tenth stall will be a landscape island, after trash enclosures, after what turns out to be
about 20 percent open space required when you do the 250 square feet of private, plus
some R zoning, part of the additional ten percent, so you get -- you get the double,
which is fine. We meet it. But there is -- there is just not any room left over that we can
see to -- if we could we would put a few more, because its landscaping versus parking --
it doesn't -- it doesn't matter to us. We will put it in if we can squeeze it in. But we go
through a very intensive laborious multi -consultant process that takes several months to
finally get to this point and we exceed it, we are like, all right, we are good. And to do
anything at this point we would have to chop stories off of buildings to gain spaces in a
reverse kind of a way. So, at this point we feel like we meet your code, we exceed your
code, we have got a great site plan, grade amenities, good size clubhouse, good
connectivity. There is going to be a signal on Franklin Road, which just got widened to
five lanes. So, we are on an arterial, on a collector. We are within about a quarter mile
over to Ten Mile and Franklin intersection and a half mile down. So, we are within
three-quarters of a mile to the Ten Mile interchange, so we are -- we are in the right
spot. You know, I think you want to put your multi -family -- not always, but if you can it
would be nice if you can put it a mile from the freeway ideally to reduce your trips. So,
we are meeting all those things and we hope you will pass this on to -- with a vote of
approval tonight and I'm here to answer any questions.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for the applicant?
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Hey, Matt. So, staff is -- from the size of your clubhouse --
Schultz: Uh-huh.
Fitzgerald: -- you're saying that you exceed our code. Staff is saying that you need two
more. I'm confused.
Schultz: I don't know what staff is looking at, but I know what I'm looking at.
Fitzgerald: Okay. Can you give us the discrepancy.
Schultz: And I don't know where they came up with that. But, essentially, for the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 11 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 9 of 72
apartments we need 456 spaces. Let me put my glasses on here.
Fitzgerald: But you have a clubhouse that needs a little more.
Schultz: The clubhouse needs more. Eleven. Which puts us at the 467 --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: -- required and we have 474. So, we are exceeding it with the clubhouse
requirements --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: -- and we have, like I said, thoroughly went through and make sure we hit or
exceeded all of your code requirements.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, can I have a follow up? With this map -- those -- one, two,
three, four, five buildings on the -- it would be the west side, where is the trash
enclosure for those five buildings? So, on the curve coming down off Umbria Hills there
is the -- the monument sign and those five buildings right behind it. On the west side.
don't see a trash enclosure for any of those buildings. So, if you're making those people
walk to the other side of the project, that's going to be a problem I would guess for
Republic Service and for us trying to explain to the people who live there why that didn't
make sense.
Schultz: I believe this is --
Beach: North is to the west.
Fitzgerald: I know. I'm talking about to the west. Those five buildings.
Beach: Here?
Fitzgerald: No. Down at the bottom. On Umbria Hills there is not a trash enclosure that
I can see that's depicted on there anywhere on that --
Schultz: They are there. They are just not on this color artistic rendering. They are
covered up by a tree.
Fitzgerald: Okay. So, you got --
Schultz: There is definitely trash enclosures --
Fitzgerald: And there are ones at the top where there -- there is none for those five
buildings on the bottom that I can see and you got them depicted on the -- on the
rendering, so --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 12 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 10 of 72
Schultz: There is one right here and -- this is so small I can't read the rest of them, but
know they have worked with Republic --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: -- and gotten feedback from Republic and what we have is what they have
approved or with slight little tweaks. So, we were -- we are in touch with Republic.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: But I can't exactly see on this reduced site plan --
Fitzgerald: Josh, can you go back to the -- the rendering? So, I'm just pick -- pulling --
policing them out. On the east side you got one, two, three in the corner, one to the
southwest and there is one to the north -- okay. All the way up to the north, but there is
nothing on the west side that I can see.
Schultz: I think they -- this was a month before we got the comments from Republic --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: -- drawing and we have added some in --
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Schultz: -- so, I -- but we have to pass their approval.
Fitzgerald: Got it. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thanks, Matt. Okay. On the
sign-up sheet there is nobody that's indicated they would like to speak, but is there
anyone in the room that would like to give testimony on this application this evening?
Okay. We will move on. Any -- any reason for the applicant to come back up?
Anybody change their mind on anymore questions? All right.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to close the public hearing on H-2018-0003.
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing on H-2018-
0003. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 13 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 11 of 72
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: You know, I think this hits a lot of great points. I mean it's on the arterial,
they have got the collector, I know they have still got to do their round -- their turnaround
down there for now and they do just pass our parking requirements, all the -- with the
collector. There is no overflow parking, so -- the pool looks great.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Did I understand staff to say that until that turnaround is put in it's -- they are
limited to 200 units? Is that what --
Fitzgerald: Yeah.
McCarvel: Yes.
Beach: So, Madam Chair, to answer that question, the turnaround is not going to
impact the number. They have another way of --
McCarvel: The other exit.
Beach: -- entering the property. Right now the only way in and out is Franklin and fire
code requires a certain amount of separation between access points and so they don't
have that right now. There is a -- a cap at 200 until they can provide that.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I -- yeah. I think this is a good location. I mean Ten Mile interchange and
that business park area is going to continue to expand. This provides a -- a pretty
dense product that got a great open space, good layout. I think it looks good. I know
we have to meet code, so my trash enclosure issue can be dealt with on that side of
things, so I would be in favor of moving it forward.
Holland: Madam Chair?
De Weerd: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: The only other comment I have is looking at the future land use map. It looks
like there is potentially a park to the east side of this, kind of southeast of this parcel,
and so I was wondering a little bit about pathways and connectivity into some of those
other areas in the future. It looks like it's surrounded by trees and not a lot of pathways
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 14 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 12 of 72
on the outside edges on the east or the south side.
McCarvel: Yeah. I guess it would have to be the sidewalk on the north and, then --
Josh said that there is another roadway going back there on the south side; right? In
the future. The east -west roadway.
Beach: I can get into a little bit more detail with this. There was a -- there is a master
transportation plan that was approved for this section here and I can -- I can show you
that if you would like. We didn't put that in our presentation. But there will be a collector
roadway on the south boundary of this property that will be constructed with a different
development when the property to the south develops. We have added a condition to
the -- to the applicant that they provide an access point for vehicles on the south side of
the property, so that once that is constructed folks are able to utilize that and that will
help with their 200. 1 anticipate them, you know, further to the west that property is
going to develop and it's currently developing, so that will help that. But, yeah, there is
-- there is a master transportation plan. I could find that and show you if you would like
to see.
Fitzgerald: We trust you.
McCarvel: Thank you, Josh. Any other comments? Would anybody like to make a
motion?
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0003, as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018.
Holland: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve H-2018-0003. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
C. Public Hearing for Lost Rapids (H-2018-0004) By GFI-Meridian
Investments 11, LLC and Brighton Investments Located at the
Southwest Corner of State Highway 20-26 (Chinden Blvd.) and
North Ten Mile Road
Request: An Amendment to the Future Land Use Map
Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to Change the Land
Use Designation on a Combined 78.33 Acres of Land from
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 15 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 13 of 72
the Medium Density Residential (61.83 Acres) and the Mixed
Use - Community (16.50 Acres) to Mixed Use - Regional.
2. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 78.33 Acres of Land
with R-15 (39.01) Acres), R-40 (6.50 Acres), and C -G (32.83
Acres) Zoning Districts.
3. A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 1 Residential Building Lot,
13 Commercial Building Lots and 1 Other Lot for Dedication
of right-of-way on 36.2 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-40
and C -G Zoning Districts.
4. A Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B, Which Prohibits New
Approaches Directly Accessing a State Highway to Allow 2
Accesses Via State Highway 20-26
McCarvel: Okay. So, I believe we are to the one everybody has been waiting for.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: I just want to be for full disclosure to the -- my fellow commissioners. I live
in a neighborhood very close to this application, but I feel I can be impartial. Just want
to make sure that you don't feel like I need to be excused from the proceedings, so
disclose that and -- and let you make that --
Wilson: You're not going anywhere.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
McCarvel: You're not getting out of this one.
Fitzgerald: Are you sure?
McCarvel: Okay. And I would just like to take a moment to -- our citizens here are
usually very polite, but I do want to take a moment to just mention there is a lot to get
through here and this is a public meeting, not a rally, so, please, no clapping, gasping,
shouting out and that kind of thing as we go on and I'm sure anyone who has been here
before knows we listen to all parties and we are volunteers and members of the
community, just like everyone here, and we do our best every time to do what's right for
the city and its residents. So, if we can move on in that spirit. So, at this time I would
like to open the public hearing for Item No. H-2018-0004, Lost Rapids, and we will begin
with the staff report.
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, the first application before you is a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 16 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 14 of 72
request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land you map, followed by
annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and there is a variance request, but that is for
action by the City Council. Commission action is not necessary on that. This site
consists of approximately 69 acres of land. It's zoned RUT and Ada county, located at
the southwest corner of South -- excuse me -- State Highway 20-26, West Chinden
Boulevard, and North Ten Mile Road. Adjacent land uses and zoning. To the north is
Highway 20-26, Chinden Boulevard, and single family residential properties in Spurwing
Orchard Subdivision and West Wing Estates, zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15 in the city and
RUT in Ada county respective -- respectively. To the east are single family residential
properties in Irvine Subdivision and a rural residential parcel zoned R-8 in the city and
RUT in Ada county. To the south are existing and future single family residential
properties in Bainbridge Subdivision and a church zoned R-8 and L -O respectively. To
the west are future single family residential properties in Banbridge Subdivision, zoned
R-8. Back in 2008 an amendment to the comprehensive future land use map was
approved to change the future land use map designation on the property at the -- the
14.57 acres of land at the northeast corner of this site from medium density residential
to mixed use community. The current comp plan designation is medium density
residential, 52 acres on the west end of the site and south end and mixed use
community 14.57 acres at the northeast corner of the site. The applicant has submitted
a request for an amendment to the future land use map contained in the
Comprehensive Plan to change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of
land from medium density residential, 61.83 acres, and mixed use community, 16.5
acres, to mixed use regional. The staff report includes analysis and conditions of
approval based on that request. Since the staff report was issued staff has met with the
applicants to discuss the recommended changes to the concept plan, which are fairly
substantial, in order to be consistent with the provisions contained in the
Comprehensive Plan for the requested mixed use regional designation. Without these
changes the proposed development plan is more consistent with the commercial future
land use designation. The applicant communicated to staff that they would prefer to
develop the site consistent with the proposed concept plan without significant changes.
Therefore, both staff and the applicants agree a commercial designation is more
appropriate for the eastern portion of the site where the commercial and multi -family
residential uses are proposed and that is the preliminary plat area that we will discuss
later. The remainder of the site would remain under the current medium density
residential designation. The applicant has submitted a letter to the city requesting this
change. Staff has submitted a memo to the clerk included in the public record
containing revised conditions of approval based on the proposed change. No changes
are proposed to the zoning district or the concept plan. Annexation and zoning is 78.33
acres of land with R-15, which consists of 39.1 acres. R-40 consisting of 6.5 acres.
And C -G zoning, which consists of 32.83 acres is requested consistent with the existing
medium density residential and proposed commercial future land use map designations.
A conceptual development plan was submitted as shown that demonstrates how the
site is proposed to develop with a mix of single family residential detached and
attached, age -qualified units on the west side of the site here. A gross density of five to
eight units per acre. A very large 168,652 square foot big box retail building for Costco
internal to the development. A fuel sales facility for Costco at the northeast corner of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 17 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 15 of 72
the site at the intersection. Ten commercial retail -restaurant -office pad sites adjacent to
the state highway and Ten Mile Road and a multi -family residential development
consisting of approximately 109 townhome and garden style units in nine structures at a
gross density of 18 to 24 units per acre south of the Costco site adjacent to Lost Rapids
Drive. It will have a clubhouse and a swimming pool. And this is just another master
plan that the applicant submitted that has a little more color to it and landscaping.
Conceptual building elevations were submitted, photos and renderings, to demonstrate
the general style of development proposed for this site. All structures on the site,
except for the single family residential detached units, are required to comply with the
design standards in the architectural standards manual. The elevations that are shown
here are for the multi -family residential section. The townhome style units are proposed
at the bottom right and, then, the garden style apartments are at the top right. Concept
plan is shown for the multi -family residential section. The elevations in the left side of
the screen here are the single family attached and detached units. They are proposed
to the west of the commercial development. And, then, just some examples of building
styles proposed in the commercial development. And, then, of course, the elevations
for Costco. A preliminary plat is proposed as shown that consists of one residential
building lot, that's for the multi -family, 13 commercial building lots and one other lot for a
dedication of right of way on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C -G zoning
districts. The applicant requests that they be allowed two building permits for the
construction of the Costco store and fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the
subdivision plat. Staff is amenable to this request. Access is proposed via one access
from Ten Mile Road, an arterial street, between Lost Rapids and Chinden Boulevard.
I'm going to flip back to the concept plan here. It's a little easier to see. So, that access
would be right here where you see the arrow. Two accesses via U.S. 20-26, Chinden
Boulevard, a state highway, and those are here and here and two accesses via Lost
Rapids Drive, a collector street, and that is right here and right here. New approaches
directly accessing a state highway are prohibited. The applicant is requesting a
variance to this standard. ITD submitted a letter to the city stating they will approve the
proposed access via the state highway with the improvements in spacing outlined in
their letter. The applicant's narrative states that primary service access for Costco
delivery trucks and other local vendors will be from the driveway access via Ten Mile
Road. A driveway access via Lost Rapids Drive is also available when access via the
traffic signal at Ten Mile and Lost Rapids is needed. A self-imposed restriction is
proposed by the applicant for a no through truck traffic sign to be installed between the
Tree Farm Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Drive service driveway access, along
with other restrictions as agreed to by the applicant that are contained in the staff report.
Improvements to U.S. 20-26 Chinden Boulevard and Ten Mile Road are planned as
follows: Phase one. Chinden is to be widened to four lanes with signal intersection
upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder. Ten Mile widened to four lanes from Chinden and
Walmart and signals at Black Cat Road and Lost Rapids Drive prior to Costco opening.
Phase two Chinden will be widened to four lanes from Tree Farm to State Highway 16
within two years of Costco opening. Addition, Costco and the other commercial uses
and residential units will pay impact fees in excess of two million dollars to Ada County
Highway District for local street improvements. The street section shown on the plat
depict Chinden widened to four lanes of travel with two turn lanes within 140 feet of right
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 18 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 16 of 72
of way and North Ten Mile Road widened to five lanes. The letter states that the
western most access via the state highway will be allowed as a temporary right -in, right -
out, left -in until such time as the highway is widened to three lanes in the eastbound
direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to right -in, right -out. A 550 foot long
approximate decel lane will be required. The driveway nearest the intersection will be
allowed as a right -in, right -out and another decel lane is required. However, due to the
distance between -- excuse me -- distance restriction between accesses ITD may allow
for a ten percent decrease of the standard requirement. The multi -family residential
development will require approval of a conditional use permit in the R-40 zoning district.
Written testimony has been received on this application from Mike Wardle, Brighton
Corporation, as the applicant's representative. They have requested, as I mentioned
before, to change their comp plan map amendment request from mixed use regional to
commercial just for the platted area and leave the remainder of the area the same,
which is medium density residential. There have been many letters of testimony in
excess of 850 received from the public in favor and in opposition to the proposed
development that are included in the public record. Staff is recommending approval of
the proposed application with the development agreement and conditions in Exhibit B of
the staff report as amended in the memo from staff that is also included in the public
record. Staff will stand for any questions.
McCarvel: Any questions at this time for staff? Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Sonya, with the change to the commercial designation, does any -- nothing
changes as far as the proposed development for the townhomes and whatnot and the
location of the buildings there; is that correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, nothing -- nothing has changed to the
site plan or the zoning. That is correct.
Cassinelli: Thank you.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Sonya, on the -- on the apartments, just wanted to confirm what you said.
So, when they get ready to build that they have to come back with the conditional use
permit; is that not what I heard?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that is correct.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: This is a conceptual plan only at this point.
Yearsley: Okay.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 19 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 17 of 72
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, another question for staff.
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Right now the way it's -- the traffic flow, the way it's proposed, coming out of
that development if -- if somebody wanted to go west on Chinden, can they make a left
coming out onto Ten Mile there or will that be right -out only? Because they, obviously,
can't make -- they won't be able to make a left onto Chinden anywhere, so if somebody
wants to get back out onto Chinden and go westbound on Chinden --
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioner Cassinelli, yes, they would have to get back out on
Ten Mile Road to do that.
Cassinelli: Are they going to be able to do that at that -- that middle point or will they
have to go to Lost Rapids and come out?
Allen: I believe the -- the access on Ten Mile is full access. Yes, they would be able
to --
Cassinelli: The one in the middle will be full. Okay. Thank you.
Allen: Unless it's restricted in the future by a median.
McCarvel: But, then, they could still take a right out on Lost Rapids and there is a tree
-- or a light at Tree Farm; correct?
Allen: That is correct. And, then, there will also be a signal at the Lost Rapids -Ten Mile
intersection.
McCarvel: Any other questions for staff? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Wardle: Madam Chairman, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. 12601 West Explorer
Drive in Boise. There are other representatives of the property owners, Costco and
consultants, that will -- some will participate this evening in our discussion. Let me just
go briefly back through some of the information that Sonya has provided concerning the
site as noted at Ten Mile and Chinden. The project itself will eventually, at
development, be 58 percent residential, 42 percent commercial. The applications
before you were considered last night by the Ada County Highway District commission.
They recommended, as a recommending body only, approval of the Comprehensive
Plan amendment and annexation and zoning and they did specifically approve the
preliminary plat in their actions. Sonya has noted that the Comprehensive Plan
amendment request has been modified so that the western portion of the project
identified as Bainbridge North will remain unchanged as medium density residential and
commercial on the balance with no significant change in the proposed concept plan as a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 20 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 18 of 72
result of that action. The zoning Sonya also noted there will be R-15 zoning on the
Bainbridge North portion and that's primarily to allow the size of the lots and so forth.
It's still single family attached and detached with densities not to exceed eight units per
acre. The R-40 zoning with the development agreement stipulation of not to exceed 24
units per acre when they come back with the conditional use permit for the apartments
in the future and, then, of course, the C -G commercial zone on the corner and the
preliminary plat with the noted site plan for the Costco facility specifically. There will be
a lot of conversation this evening about the Comprehensive Plan. The original
Comprehensive Plan, as noted August 6th of 2002, had a hundred acre bullet -- or bull's
eye on the site for mixed use regional. Of course, it was on the westerly portion of the
site centered at the intersection of Tree Farm and Chinden. There have been three
iterations of the Comprehensive Plan future land use map. The latest one made in
October of 2008. You will hear a conversation about the fact that the Comprehensive
Plan shouldn't change, but the Comprehensive Plan has changed not only three times
on this site, it has changed seven times within the immediate vicinity of north Meridian.
So, it seems that the plan is in search of an opportunity and we believe that this is the
opportunity for this particular location. Buffers are provided for the benefit of the
surrounding neighborhood, significant buffers along Lost Rapids and Tree Farm,
depicted at the top left. Bottom right would be the screening between the single family
homes and the residential -- should be the apartment units and, then, there will be
significant, very wide and very tall landscape buffers between Costco and the residential
units to the west in the future. All of those will be subject to future CZC requirements.
The roadway system -- and there will be some brief conversation toward the end of our
presentation concerning the fact that Chinden will be widened to five lanes through this
application. Eventually a seven lane facility. Ten Mile will be widened to five. We
currently already have the two lane collector with bike lanes on Tree Farm and Lost
Rapids. In the staff memo -- and these items will both be discussed briefly by those that
follow me. On the second page of the staff memos that modified the conditions and
requirements based on the changed land use designation, we just note the note that on
page two, Item B, that talks about shifting the fuel sales facility off the corner, that will be
discussed specifically and we will be asking for deletion of that requirement. And, then,
Item H that talks about the site access should be encouraged from Ten Mile and Lost
Rapids, rather than the state highway, as noted by Sonya ITD has approved the access
points on Chinden 20-26 and you will hear from the neighbors a great deal of concern
about emphasizing the access via Lost Rapids and so we do support the approved Ten
Mile and Chinden access points. I'm going to turn the time now to Costco to talk
specifically about their site issues.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Whelan: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is Brian Whelan. My
address is 2311 West 22nd Street in Oakbrook, Illinois. My role representing Costco is
in the site selection process and we typically wouldn't get into this type of conversation
in these venues, but as you may know we held two neighborhood outreach meetings
and at those meetings there were many questions relative to why did we pick this site,
why are you here, why don't you go somewhere else. There was lots of different
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 21 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 19 of 72
comments. I suspect there will be questions on that tonight. So, I wanted to just briefly
share with you some of our thinking and some of our analysis as to how we ended up
here. As you know we are a membership based retailer. Consequently, we have very
robust data on all of our members. Where all -- where all of our members live,
frequency of shops and so forth. With that data we are able to calculate where our
primary trade areas are. The map that's in front of you today represents the two primary
trade areas for the existing buildings that we have in the greater Boise area. Outlined in
blue is the -- is the primary trade area for our Nampa building and outlined in orange is
the primary trade area for our Boise building. You can see in the middle where the two
trade areas overlap. There is a significant area where those members go to both. It
may be the time of the day, the day of the week, what their day has in front of them. But
those -- those are the members that go to both locations. When we approached this
analysis, you know, from a big picture perspective, our goal was to first and foremost try
to better serve those members where there was trade area overlap. We wanted to
make sure that we could more directly serve that group of existing members. Secondly,
we wanted to make sure that when we selected a location that we did it in a proper
spacing manner such that we didn't damage one of our other existing units too
significantly. So, what I have shown on this particular map is actually the triangle that
you see is the miles and drive time distances of this proposed site to our existing
buildings. As you can see the drive times are, essentially, equidistant, 20 to 25 minutes,
both to Nampa and Boise from the potential location. So, it really optimizes the spacing
while also achieving our goal of better serving those -- those members where there is
trade overlap. Lastly, we wanted to position the -- the new location to take advantage of
the large population growth that's occurring in this area. As you know, the growth
continues. Our research indicates that in the near term significant population growth will
continue to occur south of Chinden in this area and the longer term the growth will
continue west. So, by positioning ourselves at Ten Mile where we could serve those --
the new population that occurs south -- south of Chinden and at Chinden where we can
serve those new residents long term that will be growing in the west, we just felt that this
was really an optimal location to meet those needs. So, with that I will prepare to
answer any questions you may have now or later, whatever may be appropriate.
McCarvel: Any questions for this applicant? Okay.
Whelan: Thank you. With that I'm going to turn it over to Peter Kahn, who is going to
talk about some other technical aspects of our project.
Kahn: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Peter Kahn. Address 999 Lake
Drive, Issaquah, Washington. I work for Costco and responsible for the technical
development of this project. The first slide is just some basic information about a
Costco, our typical hours of operation. They are fairly limited, 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. 9:30 to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on
Sunday. Gas station opens earlier and stays open a little bit later. It usually opens by
6:00 a.m. and closes by 10:00. Most of our employees are out of the building by 11:00
p.m. One of the conditions and one of the things we talked about when we had our
community meeting was limiting deliveries. We have agreed to that condition and that's
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 22 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 20 of 72
currently in the staff report. Just a little bit about employment. Generally a warehouse
of this size will employ 250 to 300 people. Typically 125 to 175 a shift, depending on
how busy we are. And the average wage of a U.S. warehouse is over 22 dollars per
hour, plus benefits. This is our site plan, which you have seen before. It's, basically, a
168,000 square foot building, 781 parking spaces. This shows our truck routes. We
expect most of our delivery trucks, at least from the Costco depot in Salt Lake City, to
come up Ten Mile and enter into the site. Most of those deliveries come before we
open. During the course of the day we have local deliveries. Dog food. Flowers. Milk.
Odds and ends that we buy from local vendors in the area. We also have fuel trucks
that will deliver to the gas station on the corner. One of the issues that was in the staff
report on the conditions was the location of the gas station and we think having it on the
corner is the best solution for this site. Principally, if you have ever shopped them, our
gas stations are busy. This one is going to be a fueling -- in Boise and in Nampa we
have 16 fueling positions. This one has -- will start with 24 fueling positions and be
expandable to 30. We also have more queuing depth, which we have increased by
approximately 35 percent. One thing that we found, especially in Nampa where it's
close to the roadway, and that would be the case if we were to move it to the west or to
the south, is that when we are busy and people come into the center, they have to make
a decision, am I going to go to the gas station or am I going to go in and just park and
buy merchandise. And usually that causes hesitation, causes traffic to back up and get
-- and spill out into the public roadways. If we have our gas station up on the corner
that allows people to enter into the site and, then, they have a few hundred feet to make
that decision as to what they want to do. They may decide the line is too long or they
may decide, well, maybe I don't need gas today or maybe I do and go ahead and move
toward purchasing fuel. One of the other issues staff brought out was they felt that the
intersection where people, in entering the gas station, that was going to be a pinch
point. This diagram kind of shows that we believe that that won't be the case since the
movements are limited. It's one way in and one way out of all our gas stations. And so
the choices people have will be limited at that intersection. And should we need
additional queuing here is a plan that shows a plan that we could implement. Our gas
stations are manned. We have people out there that can direct traffic, so we can add
an additional storage of 17 vehicles and we can have a storage for 65 vehicles to sit
and wait. Under the current design, once it's fully expanded to five islands, we can have
enough storage for 75 people. Here is a picture of one of the other comments from staff
was aesthetics. We put together this perspective. We believe that we can screen it
adequately, so you don't see the fueling cars from the highway and our canopy is not
very intrusive, it's low profile, and made of high quality building material. Here is a
prospectus on our building and with that I'm available for questions or whatever else you
might need.
McCarvel: Any questions for this applicant? Okay.
Kahn: Thank you.
McCarvel: Do you have any other presenters?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 23 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 21 of 72
Daleiden: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, Andy Daleiden, principal
engineer with Kittelson & Associates, 101 South Capital Boulevard, Suite 301, Boise,
Idaho. 83702. I'm the traffic engineer working with Costco on the development team.
want to just provide just one element and that is just that we -- we did have -- we
worked with Ada County Highway District and Idaho Transportation Department to do a
traffic impact study. Idaho Transportation Department, as staff indicated, has submitted
a letter and accepted that traffic impact study and the access on Chinden Boulevard
with -- with certain improvements and those improvements are widening Chinden
Boulevard from Linder Road to Tree Farm Way and, then, along with signal
modifications and signal improvements at the Ten Mile and Chinden intersection.
Second, we worked with Ada County Highway District and last night at the Ada County
Highway District commission they approved the traffic impact study and conditions for
the preliminary plat. On that aspect, the improvements that are proposed are improving
Ten Mile Road to five lanes from Milano to Chinden and that would also include a new
signal at Lost Rapids and, then, an access as indicated on the site plan. Related to
access, just because the question came up earlier, just wanted to share just from a
distribution standpoint for the project, trips are expected to the west about -- just a little
over 20 percent and so when you take in account that, that's in and out, so that's -- you
know, there is going to be two directions. The outbound heading west is actually a
pretty low volume in elements and so the access plan that's -- that's identified provides
ample opportunities for folks to get onto Ten Mile. We also have provided a U-turn
opportunity at Ten Mile and Chinden, so vehicles departing to the north on Chinden
would be able to make a U-turn maneuver at the signalized intersection there. You
know, that's just providing different -- different options to distribute that traffic that would
be heading westbound. With that I will stop just knowing that we are out of time, but
wanted to --
McCarvel: There is a lot of information to get through on this application, so we are
going through it -- a little lenient on 15 tonight.
Wardle: Madam Chair, we would just stand for any questions that you had before
testimony. If you have them at this point we would respond or we can wait until later.
McCarvel: Questions? Commissioner Yearsley?
Yearsley: Madam Chair. On the apartments, just -- just help me understand what --
what your concept plan is at this point. Would you kind of explain that one for me?
Wardle: Yes. The intent -- there are two story townhome style apartments fronting Lost
Rapids -- facing inward with a berm and landscaping and fencing separating them from
the public street. So, you have a two story look along the street. Then you have three
story -- three three story buildings that abut the commercial on the east and the Costco
on the north. So, you have a step situation without the intrusive elements of a large
scale building on the street frontage. That, of course, will come back for a conditional
use permit review in the future.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 24 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 22 of 72
Yearsley: And, then, in your comment you talked about that you are limiting at 24 units
per acre, which I calculate to be about 156 units; is that not correct?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, it could be, but as depicted that's about
109 units and that's less than 20 units per acre.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: We just -- we just realized that, you know, we want to make sure that people
don't anticipate that there is going to be an extremely high density, so it would be
capped, but that would be by development agreement. When it comes back the
number may vary from what is shown right now, but certainly would not exceed that.
Yearsley: Okay. I actually have a couple more questions, but I want to let -- if anybody
else has questions I would --
McCarvel: Keep going.
Yearsley: In your residential area that you're showing, you're showing a park -like facility
and I guess for me -- are you planning to come back for a preliminary plat of that
subdivision or are you trying to plat this at the same time? What's your intent on that?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's -- that's a concept only. The
concept as depicted is, essentially, the same age qualified gated community that we are
currently doing in the Paramount project using the term Cadence. So, it does have to
come back for a preliminary plat and probably PUD to address variations in setback and
so forth. So, that's going to come back in a preliminary plat at the very least, probably a
PUD application, which gets into more detail and conditioned type requirements.
Yearsley: Okay. And, then, the -- the park to the south, is that for the -- I'm assuming
that that's not part of this application and as what's been platted already; is that correct?
Wardle: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, that's actually the Keith Bird Legacy
Park.
Yearsley: Okay.
Wardle: Seven and a half acres that Brighton donated to the city and was opened and
completed -- well, this last year it was opened. I would just note, then, that -- so that
everybody understands clearly that the Lost Rapids -Tree Farm collector roadway has
also been fully improved. It's a two lane roadway with bike lanes and was constructed
with the intent to provide backage to the intensity of uses to the north.
Yearsley: Okay. I think that's all I have at this point.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 25 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 23 of 72
Wardle: Thank you very much.
McCarvel: Okay. So, at this time we will begin the public testimony. Normally I just
kind of go straight down the sign-up list, but I think tonight we would like to start -- is
there anybody here that is requesting the ten minutes that has the backing of an HOA or
shall we just start with -- yeah. If you do a show of hands and those people don't speak
the rest of the evening. So, do you want your three or ten? But you're speaking for the
HOA? For which HOA? Why don't you come to the front. Okay. And who is the show
of hands of the HOA you're speaking for?
McNeil: Do they get to speak or are you saying if -- if they do not get to speak I will not
take ten minutes.
McCarvel: All we are trying to do is reduce redundancy, if we are going to be speaking
to the same issues.
McNeil: I understand that. Are you going to take their -- their privilege away to speak
for their three minutes? If so I will sit back down --
McCarvel: Okay.
McNeil: -- and go through the list three minutes at a time.
McCarvel: Put him on for ten minutes and we will go from there.
McNeil: So, if I understand, Madam Chair, anyone that wants to speak for their three
minutes gets their -- their time to speak, is that -- is that my correct understanding?
McCarvel: Yeah. You're going to speak for the HOA concerns; right?
McNeil: Yes.
McCarvel: Okay. Which HOA and --
McNeil: Spurwing Greens Master Association, which includes --
McCarvel: So, I would say you're not speaking on behalf of your HOA if there is that
much discord.
McNeil: Can we get a show of hands who is in favor of --
Allen: Madam Chair? And city attorney should probably be chiming in on this, but if -- if
a representative is here representing a group of people they are allowed up to ten
minutes as determined by the Commission Chair and, then, those folks that they have
shown by their -- their hands that that person is speaking for does lose their turn to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 26 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 24 of 72
speak. If they choose to speak on their own, then, they shouldn't be raising their hand.
McCarvel: I think just on the feeling of the crowd why don't we give you -- why don't you
take your three minutes and speak your peace and, please, state your name and
address for the record and --
McNeil: Okay. Hi. My name is Tom McNeil. I live at 706 Crestview Drive, Nampa.
am the secretary of the Master Spurwing Greens Association. And, yes, Ten Mile and
Chinden is -- was my former address. We just moved, but I still am a member of that
board. They were very -- very clear on their design. First of all, I want to say that we
are not against a Costco development. Spend thousands of dollars at Costco. I am
against the siting. I am against the changing of -- at this site changing of the
Comprehensive Plan. There is -- and, yes, I know it's a living document, it's subject to
change. However, at this particular site -- if you look at your -- their diagram of the
triangle, they are trying to attract business from the north and yet they are sitting on an
artery that deadheads. There isn't any way to come from the north. They can come
from the west or east or south. And so I have talked with -- with the Costco
representative about better -- better sites, but it comes really down to the safety of this
issue. We heard a couple of things about how do people go west. Well, you know how
they are going to go west? They are going to make a right turn on Lost Rapids, go over
to Tree Farm and make a left there where it is -- it has already got a signal. Well, the
problem with that ACHD did a traffic study in 2015 that said it's at maximum capacity
then with 3,000 cars going through that intersection a day and so we are going to -- we
already -- and we already are at or exceed the traffic pattern for that. So, it just -- it's a
terrible concept to have it right there. They were better where they first intended, where
all of -- you know, when they were at Linder and they did away with that for whatever
reason, because that's a four way. They can head, north, south, east or west. I know
they want to access because of the Ten Mile interchange on 1-84 and that makes sense,
but as far as the traffic plan, the changing of your -- the Comprehensive Plan for this
particular project -- and I'm speaking specifically about Costco -- it is not a good
representation for what we need in that area. I can take you to a better one. It's in the
Comprehensive Plan and if you want to go to the Fields -- Highway 16 and Chinden, I'm
all there for -- I will work -- I'm a real estate agent, I will work my tail off to get that. So,
thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Denise LeFever.
LeFever: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Denise LeFever. I live at 6706
North Salvia Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And, yes, I am a Spurwing resident. With
that said, I see that they made significant changes and it was included on page 14 of
the staff report that -- to be able to address what was in the staff report, it would require
significant changes and at this point in time with all of these changes and not having a
staff report that's clearly gone back through and analyzed these changes, I don't think
this is fair to the public to not have a chance to go back and comment and see what the
staff has to say about it. That's first. Second is right now we are -- we are living -- right
now we are living in an era where job growth is really, really high in our area and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 27 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 25 of 72
inventories for real estate is really, really low. On one of the reports from Boise Real
Estate Association it says we have less than one month of inventory in December.
Pulling out this much R-8 residential in an area that is like one of the most premier
areas to live, Spurwing and Bainbridge, is gorgeous. Houses sell quickly over there.
Even the houses that are on the corner of Tree Farm Way and Chinden -- two of them
right there sold before they were even finished and right here they were talking about
going back through and allowing a conceptual plan and not allowing the preliminary plat
-- I don't -- it said before that's not necessarily in the best interest of the city to do that.
This doesn't give any assurance that they will develop it as said. In addition to that, we
have 55 -- 55 plus communities, nine of them, just north of 1-84. Five senior living
assistance. And this -- this isn't even necessarily all the way complete, because there is
other processes that are -- that are happening that aren't updated on here. These are
the ones that are absolutely done and ready for -- ready to take reservations or move
people in. One of them is Brighton's project a mile and a half down the road. It's a very
large project. This need for senior living has already been met and by their own
admission part of why they want to have R-15 is to have flexibility a lot and setbacks.
The R-8 absolutely matches what's going on around the area and the MUC -- yes, that's
nice, I mean it would be nice to have some restaurants and it would be nice to have
some areas to go back and service the residents in that area, but to go back through
when we have such tremendous job growth and we are bringing in people from the
lower 48 -- I mean, excuse me, my slip. People in from Texas and other areas being
recruited for St. AI's and St. Luke's that are absolutely looking for this product type, that
Bainbridge and Spurwing allows. I would like the -- I would like the Commission to
either deny it or allow a continuance so the public can have a chance to take a look at
these significant changes.
McCarvel: Thank you. Edward Simon.
Simon: Madam Chairman and distinguished commissioners, my name is Edward
Simon. I live at 4642 West Renhold Street in the Bainbridge Subdivision and the first
thing I would like to quickly mention is that I think it was deceiving in the first part for no
one for Brighton to mention what they had planned when we sold -- bought our house
five months ago. But what I would like to really go into is when we moved in the house
in October one of the first things that impressed me was getting outside -- getting
outside and hearing cows, hearing horses, and one day I drove around and it was about
three-quarters of a mile away, so that, obviously, carries. So, now what we are looking
at -- and especially now that I hear about the 75 cars that are going to be idling their
engines waiting for gas, we are going to be having diesel trucks jackhammering
between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m. to get to Costco or just idling waiting for the place to open,
so they can do their business and all that sound is going to radiate through the whole
area. That's really going to impact the quality of life and, face it, that's why we all move
someplace is the quality of life. So, sound alone is going to be horrific from this. When
you get the trucks coming down Chinden and Ten Mile and hitting those jack brakes,
that's going to make a lot of noise. At this point I will just yield to someone else. I won't
take too much time. But this is absolutely the wrong project for the wrong area. Thank
you.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 28 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 26 of 72
McCarvel: Thank you. Don Petersik.
Petersik: Madam Chair, I'm new to the area --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record. Sorry.
Petersik: I'm new at this. Don Petersik. 3378 West Ryder Cup, Meridian. Anything
else?
McCarvel: That's it.
Petersik: Okay. I'm new here. I grew up in Boise. I have been gone a number of
years, but come home to retire and I'm going to miss the onion fields. First and
foremost, I bucked hay on a lot of this land out here and what I see happening in Idaho
is growth and I think it's great. I have moved here from Redmond, Washington, where
over the last two years we had a Costco project go up and there were concerns where
-- it's a mixed area of industrial, as well as lots of residential. The fears never
materialized. Costco was a good neighbor there and it has been an asset to our
neighborhood there. So, when we were moving here -- and one of the main reasons I'm
here tonight is my wife said you go and tell them Costco is good, because she doesn't
like to drive to Nampa and she doesn't like to drive to Boise. That's just one of those
things. So, the location for us would be perfect. Now, what I came here for is to learn
from our neighbors what their concerns are and I wanted to see how the government
works in this area, but from my vantage point a Costco, at least where I come from, was
a very good neighbor and they took care of things there. That's all I have to say.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Robert Neufeld.
Neufeld: Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission, my name is Robert Neufeld.
I reside at 3756 West Snow Cherry Court in Meridian. I have had some questions that
came up just this evening that I would like to ask the Commission to consider.
Apparently there have been some significant changes made to the public proposal or --
not the public -- but to the proposal and as Ms. LeFever commented earlier, the public
has certainly not had the time to digest those. The majority of my remarks this evening
were directed toward the staff report that was included as part of the public record
online. I reviewed those very, very carefully and had many questions regarding what
staff was saying in the report as compared to what they are recommending to you
tonight. It appears that many of the issues that are being addressed are issues that
staff also shares in those concerns and I will give you a couple of the comments and
these may be kind of out of sequence now because of the changes that have been
made, but staff recommended that in their report that at least a minimum of ten specific
items needed to be taken -- action needed to be taken on that -- in the application
before staff could approve it. The application as submitted is certainly not consistent
with requirements of the City of Meridian for a zoning change to MUR, but, apparently,
that has changed also and nobody's had the opportunity to review that. The application
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 29 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 27 of 72
does not clearly indicate why the city would be better served by having a Costco at that
location, rather than within an already adopted MR -- MUR location closer to Highway
16 and the U.S. 20-26 intersection. While this application claims to show north Meridian
is underserved and distant from existing Costco sites in Boise and Nampa, neither this
or prior studies explain why the community would be better served by a regional project
than a community -sized project currently envisioned and these are quotes taken directly
from the original staff report. These are not my words. Okay? The staff comments and
recommendations included the following -- and, again, this is a quote: The proposed
application and concept plan is not -- and emphasis on the word not -- within the report
-- generally consistent with either of the proposed or future land use designations.
Many more significant issues were also addressed by staff in their 64 page report that
you had the benefit of and that was available to the public and those concerns must be
addressed before your decision is made tonight. Surely any application that raises so
many concerns by staff must also cause great concern for you as Planning and Zoning
Commissioners. The application will not serve the betterment of the City of Meridian or
their residents. I respectfully request that you listen to the concerns of the staff as
addressed in that report and the public in opposition and that you deny the application
before you tonight. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. David Reyes.
Reyes: David Reyes. 5781 North Joy Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. Madam Chair,
esteemed Commissioners, good evening. I have a PowerPoint that I have submitted, if
you could, please, bring that up, if you don't mind. For the next few minutes I would like
to highlight how this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and future land
use map violates both the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as city ordinance.
So, the first slide -- when you guys are already. Okay. I'm going to roll. Slide one. So,
how it violates Comprehensive Plan goals. There are many instances of violations of
the Comprehensive Plan goals. I'm going to highlight two. The first is to protect existing
residential properties from incompatible land use development and adjacent parcels.
Secondly, minimize noise, odor, air and visual pollution in commercial development
adjacent to residential areas. There are many more. Those are just a few that come to
mind. My next slide. As I understand it, according to Meridian municipal code, the
criteria for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan future land use map -- there are
eight of them. I have them on the left-hand side of the table that you see here. On the
right in boxes I want to highlight several of these. First, consistent with other elements
of the Comprehensive Plan, this amendment constitutes a large zoning change that is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Well, I can see them right here. So, I'm
going to move on. Number two. Does not provide public services. Instead it provides a
spot zone for the benefit of the developer, not the benefit of the residents. Number four.
The UDC prohibits direct access to state highways. Number five. Does not provide
sufficient transition between medium and low density housing. Lastly, number seven,
the requirement is to provide sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact
associated with the development of the area. This amendment will exponentially
exacerbate the impact of traffic. Next slide. My reactions on this site -- the Genosic
properties 2008 ruling -- this Commission concluded two points. This office does not
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 30 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 28 of 72
support direct access from the property to Chinden Boulevard U.S. 20-26. Number two.
Safety and mobility concerns. The access so close to the Ten Mile and Chinden
intersection. This amendment proposes a similar access point 870 feet from that very
intersection. Next slide. I want to leave you on a personal note. In 2015 my family and
I relocated from California to Idaho seeking relief for the results of uncontrolled
development. The Comprehensive Plan and future land use map were key elements in
our decision to settle in the Bainbridge Subdivision in Meridian. This Lost Rapids
application opens the door to uncontrolled development in the north Meridian region.
Madam Chair, esteemed Commissioners, I urge you to, please, deny the Lost Rapids
application. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Andrea Carroll.
Carroll: Madam Chair, Commissioners, good evening. My name is Andrea Carroll. My
business address is 714 West State Street in Boise. I was retained by a coalition of
Bainbridge and Spurwing residents who are opposed to this application. It's a
commonly repeated maxim, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and
over and expecting a different result. We know from experience that impact fees and
other funding sources for transportation is inadequate and does not keep up the pace
with a booming economy and a rapid development. That's why we are in this situation
where a major corridor, Chinden, needs to be widened based on current -- based on
previous growth, based on current needs, and ITD cannot afford to widen it. The
previous system has not worked and it's put us in this position. To be clear, widening
Chinden alone is not going to fix the congestion and safety issues along that corridor
and if you have to approve more growth in order to make that happen. ITD, ACHD, and
a traffic impact study is not a guarantee that the proposal will absorb its own traffic
impact. Now, Costco -- Costco is a very vehicle dependent venue because their
business model is to sell items in bulk, in a quantity that a pedestrian, a bicyclist, or a
bus rider would not be able to transport it. All of the residences that you see in the
multi -family or other nearby residences would not be going to Costco to purchase those
items and, then, take their bicycle back to their home. That's -- that's what a mixed use
development should look like. The uses should complement each other, but that's not
what you're seeing in this application. Now, Costco is a great company. It sells high
quality products, probably most of the individuals in this room go to Costco and each
letter of support that you have received represents an exponential number of residents
that will be driving to the location from farther and farther distances away, perhaps even
Star, because the larger that triangle gets that Costco showed, the more and more
residents from outside the current circle will be buying Costco memberships and
frequenting their company, which is great for Costco. Is it good for the City of Meridian?
The funding issues are, obviously, not the fault of any one developer and certainly not
this developer. So, to play Devil's advocate for a second, I would ask is it fair to put it as
the responsibility of this developer to solve a regional problem that they did not create.
It is fair, because they are coming to you now wanting to build something that will
significantly increase vehicle traffic. It is fair, because right now the City of Meridian is
not yet under any legal obligation to approve this project and it is fair, because the most
legally defensible moment of time for the City of Meridian to hit the brakes on
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 31 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 29 of 72
development in this area before it gets out of control is before it grants a property owner
any entitlement through annexation and zoning. Not for a future CUP permit, it's right
now. This is the time where you hold the power.
De Weerd: Thank you, Andrea.
Carroll: Thank you.
McCarvel: Amy Cully -- Cullian? Yeah.
Cuhaclyan: Good evening, Madam Chair, Commissioners. I guess what I'm hearing --
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Cuhaclyan: Amy Cuhaclyan and my address is 5831 North Saguaro Hills Place in
Meridian. I guess what I'm hearing tonight is a lot of concerns about growth and I feel a
lot of those concerns about growth are being placed on this development and what it
seems like is maybe if people had some sort of idea of how we are going to fit
infrastructure in to all of that growth is something happening within the next five years,
ten years, people might feel more comfortable. It seems like there is a lot of fears over
that. There is a lot of nostalgia about what this area should be because of where -- you
know, how this picturesque city were more rural than other areas and they want that,
but we can't stop the influx of people coming in and we need to prepare for that growth.
I used to live in Seattle. I felt like Seattle was a great neighbor. I have had family
members who came up in the world working at Costco, like having luxurious lives
because they were able to work themselves up from just, you know, a grocery clerk and
I think that's amazing. The economic opportunities here are really great and the ability
to use this opportunity to plan out the infrastructure and what we want for the future of
our city is also great. So, I think this is a really fantastic opportunity. There is pluses
and minuses here, but I think the potential has great impact. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Mike or Peggy Dunlap.
Dunlap: My name is Mike Dunlap. I live at 5256 North Cougar Flat. I'm not used to
talking to a lot of people. Change is coming. You can't stop it. People sit back and
they gripe and they complain. I understand that. The area I moved into, Lochsa Falls --
well, it was pretty well developed before I moved there, so I knew what I was getting,
but people out here, the thing -- housing and developments of commercial are going to
stop, because they don't like it, are sadly mistaken. Costco is a pretty good company.
They pay three times more the wages per hour than the people down the street
Walmart. There is a lot of jobs there that some of these people might like to have.
Especially the young people coming out of schools right now. It gives them a great
opportunity to help pay for their college education and make it on their own. You can't
stop progress. It's going to come no matter what you do. You got a choice probably
right here. Now, over on Linder we fought to keep apartments out and we won that
battle, but if you turn down a commercial property your next applicant is probably going
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 32 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 30 of 72
to be for a subdivision or it's going to be apartments and I bet it will be apartments. I
don't think you want a whole -- how many acres? Eighty acres of apartments or -- with
that application will show up. The contractors are probably waiting in the wings right
now to see this thing fail so they can get their applications in. You want apartments,
fine. If you want something that's commercial, it can help your community with wages,
now is the time. You won't have a better time. That's it. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Ken Marshall. Please, no clapping.
Marshall: Ken Marshall. 6003 North Exeter Avenue, Meridian. I am a resident of
Bainbridge. My presentation tonight is solely focused on traffic. It's not anti -Costco,
anti -development, anti -anything. As you see my first slide here basically says that this
development is an access constrained location with inadequate ingress or egress traffic
access points. I believe that some of these were mentioned earlier. Can I go to the
next slide or -- eating up some of my time here. Okay. Next. All right. Thank you. So,
anyway, here -- we have seen this, we are pretty familiar with this already. You can see
access point A, access point B, both of these are the direct accesses onto Chinden,
which, yes, has been approved by ITD. I want to point out that A was listed as a
temporary access, meaning that they have the future possibility of eliminating the left
end, most likely the right -in, right -out. Also access point C, which was put in by ACRD,
is also listed as a temporary medium, that they reserve the right to eliminate the full
access out of that thing should conditions warrant that happening there. So, I, basically,
wanted to point out. So, I wanted to just state here again on this one, two of the four
access points are listed as temporary and I list the details on that on this set over here.
I want to give you a part of a quote, because this is in their own words in the application.
This project will generate a substantial amount of patron and delivery truck traffic that
would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods. There is a little bit more of that
quote, but I think that hits the gist of it. So, I also contend that the estimation of the
vehicle counts they are going to utilize for West Lost Rapids is flawed. I have pointed
out several times that the TIS has a couple of mistakes in it as far as the assumptions
go. Basically, they counted on a left turn lane out of access A, which they were not
granted. So, the traffic cannot go westbound onto Chinden from that right there and I
also believe that the lack of that direct access is going to result in most of the traffic
headed westbound, as well as some of it that's coming in because they missed the
lights, et cetera, etcetera, onto Lost Rapids, so -- and I have thrown some numbers
together there that can be looked at. The next thing I would like to point out here is this
is just a quick map of the Costco Boise. The reason I put this here, it shows that there
is no nearby residential roads that are required for access. And the last one would be
the Costco Nampa, which repeats the exact same thing. There is no nearby residential
collectors or anything required for access. So, that should end the show. What I want
to, basically, say in my last few seconds here is we are being asked to focus on the
grandeur of the mighty Oz and to ignore the details behind the curtains. I want to state
that those details contain the truth and the facts that are going to impact this decision for
generations to come and I ask that you go against this proposal. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Michael Pataglia. Dave and Hailey Dawson.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 33 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 31 of 72
Dawson: Commissioners, Dave Dawson. 7162 North Spurwing Rim Place, Meridian,
Idaho. I grew up in the Seattle area. Woodinville. It's neighborhood similar with a
Costco and Costco is a great company, it has done a lot of good things for our -- for the
community. However, Costco opened a -- one of their locations as a -- in Woodinville
where I grew up and what happened is it changed the complexion of our neighborhood
and our community and had a real negative impact to traffic flow and it took away from
-- it's the residential component and Spurwing, Bainbridge, these are residential
communities, that's why a lot of the folks who are in this room are here. We appreciate
that aspect of where we live and we want it to stay that way. My ask of you is that you
deny Costco coming here. It's a good company, but it's just the wrong spot -- it's the
wrong spot for the organization. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Shelley Lupher.
Lupher: Good evening. I'm Shelley Lupher. My address is 7030 North Sienna Glen
Way. And just for full disclosure, Mr. Fitzgerald is my next-door neighbor. Hi, Ryan. I
have not seen him since about the solar eclipse. So, we have not spoken about this
issue. We have been hibernating all winter. So, I'm here to speak not only for myself,
but for my husband and a number of other residents in my neighborhood who would like
to testify but for fear of repercussion against their jobs and their livelihoods, they fear
speaking out against this developer's plan, which I find personally disturbing and
indicates capture in the market. So -- next slide, please. So, here is the site as it is and
has existed since 2008, as Mr. Wardle brought up earlier and how the site is currently
being marketed by Brighton for the Bainbridge folks. The area around the site has been
developed to low to medium density housing as the comp plan has designated over the
years. It's taken a while to get there with the recession, but things have grown out from
there just as planned. Access requirements for Chinden have not changed. In fact,
they have been tightened. One of the key points that we found is that there has been a
significant reduction in access points over the years for Chinden, including the people at
Double Eagle Lane directly across the road from this development. Ten Mile Road to
the north has not come to fruition and it will not be extended, invalidating the idea that
this is a regional center, therefore, inappropriate for a regional commercial business.
So, what does this mean? This means that this proposal puts our community at risk.
Asking for a 113 percent increase in commercial density from 15 acres to 32 plus acres
is a huge step up, as well as the density increase for housing to R-40 and R-15. The
application as it stands is incomplete and we learned of changes of it today and this
leaves a potential for large expanded commercial to the west, instead of MUC or
residential. At this point there is no plan for small -- the small retail plats on the edges
and Costco has a history of fighting adjacent retail with lawsuits from other businesses
trying to come in and compete next to them. The application has failed 60 percent of
the comp plan requirements and 100 percent of the UDC requirements. The staff
comments utilizing the words if will be and changes recommended, again, validate that
the application does not meet the requirements. The application also fails across
multiple critical areas for designing approximate mixed use developments, which may
be invalid at this point with the commercial aspect. In addition, no economic analysis
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 34 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 32 of 72
has been done and as a taxpayer I want to know what I'm getting into for the next 20
years, if they are going for STARS development requests and things like that, that falls
upon our backs as taxpayers. So, the staff summary clearly indicates that the proposal
does not fit this site. I'm not going to read that paragraph to you, you can read it.
Denying this application does not constitute a taking of property rights as currently they
are not entitled to any. Denying the application as is or as a straight commercial zoning
does not also deny the applicant any property rights, as a request that they are making
for that zoning, that they are requesting is a hardship that they are making themselves.
At this point the applicant can turn a reasonable profit from the site through a true MUC
zoning. At this time we ask that you deny this application in its entirety, enforce the
comp plan and protect our community. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Jane Albert.
Albert: Good evening. I'm Jane Albert. 6628 North Salvia Way. I'm in Spurwing
Greens. I'm before you tonight to comment upon this project, specifically the negative
impact on quality of life. The increased density and intensity of land use affects the
quality of life for our neighborhoods in a number of ways, such as excessive regional
traffic routed to and through our neighborhoods, coupled with increased traffic due to
the density of the residential portion of the property. Unsafe pedestrian connections
within the proposed projects and lack of a safe access for the Keith Bird Legacy Park.
Increased noise and air pollution from the site. Potential exposure to hazardous
chemicals. Incompatible architecture of the industrial sized building and adjacent strip
malls to the existing neighborhoods. And excessive lighting. These, then, create
neighborhood and community concerns for environmental impacts affecting quality of
life for our residents. The increased density and intensity of land use and resulting
increased traffic will generate hazardous material, such as petroleum and contaminants
from brake and tire wear, which leads to runoff of various contaminants into our ground
water, which is a depth of 11 to 18 feet, equaling the placement of the tanks of the
proposed gas station. The large impermeable surfaces of the parking lots adjacent to
the commercial buildings and high density residential units creating additional runoff and
water quality concerns, as well as them creating islands. The significant concern of the
health dangers associated with a high volume gas station, such as pollution from
evaporation and, finally, the outdoor lighting in the parking lots and buildings that
increase -- increase night sky light -- night sky light pollution and in particular noise
pollution. Noise affects more than quality of life. It's a health issue interfering with
cognitive functions, including attention, concentration, memory, reading ability and
sound discrimination. The long-term consequences of these effects on children's
development is particularly significant. Residential industrial noise conflicts arise not
just from increased traffic, but by roof top ventilation systems, power equipment to clean
the parking areas and for commercial property maintenance, mechanical equipment,
loading and unloading delivery vehicles, heavy truck backup beepers, generators and
refrigeration equipment. My hope for the legacy of the Planning and Zoning
Commission is that there is less concern about attracting this growth and more concern
about managing growth toward a positive and proactive vision as created in the
Comprehensive Plan and end state that preserves the enviable lifestyle we have come
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 35 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 33 of 72
to expect in Meridian. I urge you to deny this application.
McCarvel: Robert Friedlein.
Friedlein: My name is Bob Friedlein and I live at 3510 West Bay Oak in Spurwing,
Meridian. Is it possible to put up the map for the Comprehensive Plan that was on the
screen when we started tonight?
McCarvel: We will have our technical master over there do that.
Friedlein: I think it was larger, showing especially out in the west. While he's doing that,
I certainly have no problem with Costco. I think they are a great company and they do
think deliver a good product. My difficulty with this is Costco on that site. If you look at
the plans and look at the residential, those concentric circles as you start going out to
intersection of Chinden and Ten Mile you will have residential, residential, residential
until you get clear down to Linder or to Walmart as you're going down Ten Mile. To
change the Comprehensive Plan seems to be to try and fit this monster into a small
area and it just -- to me it doesn't make a lot of sense. To give you an example, as was
said earlier by the Brighton rep that the Lost Rapids access off of Ten Mile was
designed to handle this situation. Well, there is an island right in the middle of Lost
Rapids right there where ten wheel semi -trailers is never going to make that turn. They
can't do it. They are going to have to jack hammer the sidewalks out or they are going
to have to jackhammer the -- the median there. I think if you look at this entire growth
area -- or certainly the growth that headed, there is no question. The residential growth
is going to produce traffic which is going to augment the Costco traffic, which is going to
build on itself and build on itself. Seventy-five hundred cars a day is what we were told
by the Costco rep. That doesn't include the truck traffic at all and that the 20-26 corridor
just is not ready today, nor is it going to be ready with their proposed changes. So,
please, consider these items and either extend this application or deny it tonight. Thank
you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Sue Fillman.
Fillman: Good evening. I'm Sue Fillman. I live at 6550 North Lonicera Way, also in
Springwing Greens. Three years ago just about this month the Planning and Zoning
Commission and City Council unanimously designed a zone change because it wasn't
compatible with our community and this proposal also is not compatible with our
community. It sits in the middle, as we heard, in the middle of a large residential area.
It's also kitty-corner from a private country club and I am going to speak to the
Comprehensive Plan. It requires that any change protect existing residential properties
from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels and I think this change is
that incompatible land use. The plan also says that requesting a land use change in the
City of Meridian is a big deal and we all agree, the families who live in the adjacent
neighborhoods and who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in that community
should have a big voice about this decision. Taxpayers would ultimately repay Costco
for the road improvements, the City of Meridian will get additional tax revenues and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 36 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 34 of 72
some people might even save a few minutes getting to a new Costco, but the residents
will be dealing with the downside of living next door to it and that's the traffic, decreased
property values, litter, noise, congestion and there are going to be a lot more car
accidents. The future land use designation for this 78 acres was known to the
developers when they purchased it. That's the risk developers take. They propose a
change to the plan for economic gain, that's what developers do. Sometimes the risk
pays off and sometimes it doesn't. Please don't make the residents of Bainbridge and
Spurwing Greens pay that price we bought there because we bought city's vision in the
Comprehensive Plan. We invested in our homes with the expectation that the
Comprehensive Plan meant something. The plan says, quote: Citizens are
encouraged to use this document to better understand the city's vision for their
neighborhood, their business and the city as a whole. Well, we did. Please deny this
application.
McCarvel: Thank you. Les Carson. Please hold the clapping. Okay. Roger Nielson.
Nielson: I would just like to say --
McCarvel: Would you, please, state your -- I'm sorry --
Nielson: I'm Roger Nielson. I live --
McCarvel: -- please state your name and address for the record.
Nielson: Yeah. Roger Nielson. I live at 3998 West Big Creek in Meridian and I would
just like to say that our neighborhood was concerned about an Albertson's store and a
McDonald's moving into the corner of Ten Mile and Chery Lane and we were really
concerned about that and it turns out that our concerns really should not have been a
concern at all. Albertson's has been a good neighbor. So has the McDonald's and
there was a church that was moved out and a drugstore was put on the corner and, you
know, we have had more trouble with -- I think rock trucks building subdivisions driving
up and down Ten Mile -- at least 20 rock trucks a day going past that intersection and
they really even have not been a problem with us. I mean we have been able to get in
and out of our subdivisions and -- and I think what Costco is proposing here or what the
developers are proposing I think it's just fine. I think if you look at that map that they
have, I don't see any -- not even one residential lot facing on that road that goes close
to their residential neighborhood and I think being right there in the intersection -- a
major intersection between Ten Mile and Chinden I think it's the ideal spot and I think
anybody that bought a house in that area should have known that there was going to be
some type of development in there that's not going to be residential. Anyway, thank
you.
McCarvel: Please hold your comments in the audience. Bob Rock.
Rock: Hello. My name is Bob Rock. I live at 4090 West Lost Rapids Drive in
Bainbridge and I totally agree with the gentleman that just spoke. The residents
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 37 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 35 of 72
absolutely should have known about this development, this project before we bought
our houses, but we didn't. Is the drawing in front of you there?
McCarvel: Yes.
Rock: I couldn't help noticing tonight when I saw that triangle. It reminds me a lot of the
Bermuda Triangle. I know what I'm talking about, because I have been there. It's a
place where things get sucked in and things that we don't expect happen. But I think
that's exactly what's going to happen with this. The current two Costcos that we have,
as the gentleman from Costco stated, about 18 -- 18 miles apart. About eight miles
from Meridian is either location, depending on where you live. Most shoppers split their
time between the two. Once we add the third Costco, if it goes in, if you were to draw
three circles around those, then, you're going to have about a four mile radius from each
Costco of which to choose from. So, if you're within four miles of any of those three
Costcos you get to choose. Most people are probably going to go to the new Costco,
because it is going to be big and shiny and everybody is going to want to go there. I
don't care if I lived down by the Costco off Cole I would probably go to the new one.
The new Costco will probably absorb 40 to 50 percent of the business from the other
two Costcos. So, on top of the business that this Costco is supposed to bring in, it's
going to bring in even more. More traffic through our neighborhoods on roads that
everybody that's talked so far has talked about the roadways are not going to be able to
handle that. In addition, shoppers to the north, east, and west will converge on this new
Costco. They are to be coming eastbound Chinden from Eagle, south on Highway 16
from Emmett and above, west on Chinden to avoid 1-84. Years of roads -- road work
and construction will just add to the chaos. It's not going to be fixed before that. In fact,
last night at the ACHD meeting -- it's probably not in the record, but at least two of the
Commissioners were pretty outspoken about why don't you build the roads first and,
then, build the stores. So, even they have concerns, even though it didn't show up in
their final recommendation. Traffic studies so far are not based on worst case. They do
not account for the neighborhood impact. They do not take into account the -- as to the
impact on the activity in the two parks that are nearby, especially on the weekends
when you have outdoor activities and everybody is also going to Costco. Another thing
to consider. Future state. What we like to think about this; right? But what happens if
Costco starts moving to more online sales and we already know Amazon's moving that
really rapidly and, God forbid, what happens if they decide to close one or two of the
other Costcos? It's a very realistic possibility. Where do you think everybody is going to
go if they close either one of those Costcos? They are all going to come to the new
Costco, if it's still there. So, it won't be the Meridian one that gets closed if that
happens. In conclusion I want to say that it may have been lost on everybody here that
we are a fairly new neighborhood, we are not built out yet, we have a pretty good
showing here. We do not have an HOA, because we pay our dues to Brighton. So, we
are not represented by our own HOA. So, we are expecting you all to be our
representative. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Megan Rock.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 38 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 36 of 72
M.Rock: My name is Megan Rock and I live at 4080 West Lost Rapids Drive in
Bainbridge neighborhood. I am a mother and I am a business owner and I have been
born and raised in this Treasure Valley my entire life. I have been here longer than
most people have, because they are foreign. I have seen the growth. I understand the
nostalgia. I'm not here to argue whether or not Costco is a good company. I'm not here
to argue whether or not there is a need for another Costco. I'm here to argue that it is
inappropriately placed in this neighborhood for a number of reasons. I will let other
people tell you those, but I wanted to hit on a couple of points that were brought up.
There is a conflict of interest with Brighton being our neighborhood association.
Furthermore, if you look at the gas station map that was shown earlier, you can see that
the traffic is routed between Costco and the outlying buildings. Yesterday it was stated
by the Brighton representative that they are expecting that people will park at Costco
and, then, walk to the outlying buildings. So, then, you're putting more pedestrians at
risk. Not just the people in the neighborhood, but every single person who comes to
Costco and, then, makes a trip to an outlying area. I would also like to see that on Ten
Mile -- or, sorry, on Lost Rapids that the road has bike lanes on each side and it's very,
very narrow when you have no parking signs and people are parking in the bike lane.
You're putting not only pedestrians at risk, you're putting bicycles at risk, you're putting
motor vehicles at risk as well and you're opening them up to liability as they are crossing
in and out of the lanes where they are supposed to be appropriately placed when
people are parking there. We have Heroes Park just across Ten Mile Road. If you
have ever driven that on a Saturday during soccer season you will know that Ten Mile is
literally flooded, even parking -- parking, sorry, extends even into the Mormon church
parking lot across the way, because there is such inadequate parking there. Where are
those cars going to go? Where are these kids going to safely cross over to the park to
go play their activities? You're putting the community at risk with the current situation
there and, then, now you're talking about adding exponential risk on top of that. I would
also like to point out -- back to the use of Lost Rapids, which is two of the three main
entrances for Bainbridge Subdivision and one for Spurwing Greens. There is already
extreme difficulty getting in and out of that subdivision, even with a signal at that
intersection. My kitchen window looks directly out at the red barn on Chinden, if you're
familiar with that and I see that intersection and it's terrifying to sit in your backyard
having a dinner with your family and you're hearing cars running into each other on a
regular basis. You go to sleep with police lights lighting up your bedroom windows,
even with the blinds, because there are accidents happening on Chinden that are not
being properly addressed. Now, we are going to compound the issue. I ask that you
deny this application.
McCarvel: Thank you. Kim Miles.
Miles: Good evening.
McCarvel: Please state your name and address for the record.
Miles: My name is Kim Miles. I live at 2099 West Martin Creek. That's in the Lochsa
Falls Subdivision. And I came here tonight hoping to be educated on the issue, but also
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 39 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 37 of 72
believing that I had a pretty firm idea of which side I was on. I'm now not so certain. I
came in here thinking I have lived in Meridian 20 years or so now. In that time we have
seen tremendous change and I think the saying that the only thing that stays the same
is that nothing stays the same fits. Idaho is one of the fastest growing -- if not the
fastest growing state in the country right now, so we can expect to see a lot more
change in our future. With those changes there is going to be increased needs for
housing, for jobs, for services. The traffic will increase. All of these things will happen.
That's a given. These things are inevitable. Change is going to happen. So, then,
what's the best plan? How do we plan now for those changes that are going to
happen? What are the best services and the best businesses that our residents need
and deserve? At first I was encouraged by the Costco project, one, because Costco is
an excellent company. I love Costco. They are an excellent employer. And, yes, I do
believe that they are a good neighbor and also I saw hope in the fact that there was
direct access via Ten Mile down to the freeway. The proposal to widen Chinden and go
on up Highway 16, 1 thought that was a great plan. I'm not so sure now. I drove the
route earlier today. I was not at first aware of the fact that some of Costcos traffic would
be directed through -- I don't remember the name of the street. Just to the south -- Lost
Rapids. I'm very concerned about that. I don't believe that a few signs put up that says
Costco traffic keep out, is going to keep people from going through there. I think their
neighborhood and that little park right there are at risk. I don't blame these residents.
was really disappointed when we didn't get the WinCo or the Costco on Ten Mile and
Linder, but I have to tell you I understand these concerns and especially tonight hearing
that there is a possibly more viable property on Highway 16 and Chinden where we will
not impact existing neighborhoods. I'm wondering why that hasn't been done. So,
tonight I no longer support this project at this location. I do fully support Costco, but
also support my neighbors.
McCarvel: Thank you. Dirk Minatone. Dirk Minatone. Did I get that right? Okay. I will
go with what you say. Dirk, why don't you come up to the podium. Yeah.
Minatre: My name is Dirk Minatre. I live at 6864 North Pira Avenue in Spurwing
Greens. Madam Chair, Commissioners. I think that is -- is a good project for a different
area. This is -- again, it's an area where we have -- we already have inordinate traffic
problems with this area before we even think about a Costco. I see times when the
traffic is back all the way up to Tree Farm on Chinden, blocked at Ten Mile. I see traffic
blocked at 4:00 o'clock all the way to Walmart on Ten Mile. This is before we even
consider anything else. And this is not even taking into consideration the 50 more
homes that are -- townhomes that are going in next to us, the 92 that are going behind
us, the expansion of Bainbridge and, then, the expansion of Bridgetower Ten. Where
ever that is, because it's just -- that's like a tour and these houses are just -- all these
houses are bringing two cars typically and where do they all go. Well, they go on the
road and we already have that problem and the state's been remiss in its job of -- of
ensuring public safety in terms of -- of giving us adequate infrastructure in terms of this
-- this crazy growth that we are experiencing now. Why isn't Costco looking at the
different triangle going down toward State Street and Legacy and all that growth there
where they have four lane roads available or even as others have mentioned out there
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 40 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 38 of 72
on 16. You know, this is just the wrong spot for the Costco. It's too much. We can't
even bear the traffic we have got. We need to take a deep breath and kind of plan a
little bit better for this growth and how we are going to go forward or it's going to be
messed up even more and I hope that you can take these thoughts into consideration.
McCarvel: Thank you. David Zaremba.
Zaremba: Good evening, Madam Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is
David Zaremba. I live at 2540 North Crooked Creek Way in Meridian. Let me make a
comment about the Comprehensive Plan first if I may. As you know, the
Comprehensive Plan as required by state law and Meridian's was developed with much
input from stakeholders and the general public and it's created and finalized at public
hearings like this one. Changes to it are made at public hearings like this one. Its best
use is as a living document. You use it to make sure that Meridian is keeping a
balance. That we have industrial. That we have different kinds of residential. That we
have -- that doesn't mean that you can't change a certain use in a certain area. As a
matter of fact, it is a guideline and you can make those changes. The best use of the
Comprehensive Plan is, okay, if we make this change, we need to make sure we are
keeping a balance. If we remove some industrial property, do we need to add one
somewhere else. So, that's the use of it is a living document. Let me also comment on
-- on traffic. The traffic on Chinden and Ten Mile is going to get a lot worse. We have
known for 20 years that it was going to get a lot worse, not having anything to do with
Costco. The growth in Eagle and north of Eagle, the growth in Gem county around
Emmett, the growth to the west of us in Canyon county, all are going to come on
Chinden. In the sixteen years that I served on this Planning and Zoning Commission
and on the City Council, we had many, many meetings with ITD discussing the future of
Chinden, along with Ten Mile. They understand the growth and the problems that are
going to happen on Chinden, but somehow they failed to fund anything to solve it. It's
not on the radar. To have Costco step up and say they are going to help with some of
this I think is a wonderful thing to have happened. We know the projections for growth
in the Treasure Valley are that within the next 20 years, four to five times -- I'm sorry --
three to four times the current population is going to live in the Treasure Valley. During
that time the center of that population doesn't move out of Meridian. We will be the
center. We will continue to be the center and all that traffic is going to come through
Meridian. Dean Willis knows, because he's at every meeting that I was at over those 16
years. But I have often said instead we kicking about the traffic, we need to take
advantage of it, find ways for people to stop and leave a few dollars in Meridian. Find a
reason for them to come here, not just to come through here. Costco is that
opportunity. If you go through the parking lots in the Nampa or the -- or the Boise store
you see license plates from Gem county, from Boise county, from Valley county.
believe those people will choose the Meridian store. Many of them while they are here
will shop at our other stores and other restaurants and I believe that the whole thing will
raise Meridian and help us keep a balance of what is available both for shopping and for
employment. So, I urge you to approve it. If you need to make some adjustments or
requirements, that's your job. But I urge you to recommend approval to the City
Council. Thank you very much.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 41 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 39 of 72
McCarvel: Thank you. John Williams.
Williams: Hello. My name is John Williams. I live at 5876 North Assisi Way in the
Bainbridge Subdivision. Many others have also mentioned that one of the reasons they
decided to move here is -- all we can use is the best data that we have available and
think we bought into the promises that were given to us via the Comprehensive Plan of
Meridian, as well as the spokespersons for the Brighton Subdivision via their realtors.
We also can look at planning that they have provided us in the neighborhood as those
buying in the neighborhood, which is a lot in that area and it specifically states future
medium density housing. Not planned. Not proposed. But future. Which what that
signifies to someone building is this is what the developer absolutely plans to do. If you
look at the Bainbridge Subdivision website right now at this very second, if you look at
the plat map it says future medium density housing. So, I think where we get a lot of
passion is owners that invested in this area and bought into the -- the vision of the
Comprehensive Plan, which says to preserve some small town character and charm.
And I think that is vital to your residential areas. Adding a commercial area like this in
the middle of a residential area is unprecedented in what we can see for the valley.
Look at Nampa, look at Boise, it's not in the middle of a residential area, it is in the
middle of a commercial planned area. We can't stop progress like it's been -- that's
been mentioned. We are going to grow, but I hope as Commissioners that you can help
preserve that small town charm and feel and what is such huge draw to Meridian is that
feel and slapping this in the middle of that residential area does not preserve that. It
affects the quality of life and it goes against the Comprehensive Plan that we bought
into and a lot of others have said it lot more eloquently than I have, we are making
compromises left and right to try to fill a lack of planning for the infrastructure and, yes,
okay, you have Costco coming in and we have -- are we going to maintain that -- that
character or are we going to sell our souls to Costco to help bail us out? I feel that's the
problem and I will concede the rest of my time.
McCarvel: Okay. Thank you. Okay. That's everybody that has signed up. Did I miss
anybody? Okay. One more? Okay. Then we are going to go for a break here in a
second. Okay. Please state your name and address for the record.
Stevenson: Jerry Stevenson. 6040 North Ten Mile Road, Meridian, Idaho. 83646.
And I'm also going to request ten minutes, because I represent Canyon county as well.
McCarvel: Are they here? Unless you have new --
Stevenson: Well, here is the deal. I live directly across the street. It impacts me more
than it does anybody else. I drive to Canyon county as well. I own property -- also farm
ground on the other side of Highway 16 and Star Roads. That traffic over there -- what
you guys are failing to acknowledge is the impact to the traffic outside of this immediate
area. I mean that's a -- that's a real problem. There is bottleneck all the way to
Chinden. I drive everyday all the way through and it's a solid line. There is the main
arteries. Highway 44, 20-26, and the interstate. Everybody from Canyon county over.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 42 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 40 of 72
And I also farm out there in Canyon county as well. That's why I say, you know, I pay
taxes over there. I represent everybody over there that's traveling through here that
isn't aware of what's going on. They will be impacted as they drive all the way into
Boise with this stop and go traffic that they have already seen over the years. When I --
I go back many years. I grew up on Eagle Road when it was a two lane highway. I can
speak from experience of what actual people go through. I have lived across the street
-- directly across the street from where Costco is proposing this for 30 years and so I'm
impacted more than anybody else out here. I can sit down and say, okay, sign in or
whatever, nobody's come to me. I have talked to a couple -- I have had to reach out to
talk to a couple of brokers, commercial guys, and my property is really going to be
significantly impacted, because there is -- nobody really knows what's going to take
place here. So, I mean I could be for it and maybe try to hold out for big dollars, but
have lived there all my life and Ada County Highway Department won't even talk to me
about what their actual plans are, because if I don't want to sell my property frontage
right there I would recommend that this plan be taken down, because you need to plan
on Ten Mile Road being extended around what they plan on taking my property over,
because I'm not going to let it go, I got five dogs that's buried right there on the berm.
have spent a lot of dollars improving my property. I have had to -- just due to the traffic
at Walmart coming in, I have been impacted. They have put a -- a gas relief valve right
next to my house. I have had to deal with that issue. And those are things that nobody
ever looks at. So, there is a lot of impacted people that aren't even looking at right here.
You take a look at Lost Rapids directly across the street from where this is at. There is
no bike lane. Everybody parks their cars on the street, because they can't fit them all in
the garage and now you're going to have everybody from Lochsa Falls Subdivision
trying to use that as a main artery getting to this location right here. You take a look at
every Saturday out there, you got the sports annex right there where everybody is
parking up and down the streets on Ten Mile across the street. There is a lack of
parking spaces. Saturday is probably Costco's busiest day. This is going to impact that
-- those events there as well, so -- I mean this is just not the right site. I'm all for
development. I have been expecting this to happen, but not Costco. We need to have
something where people can walk to, right their bikes. And as everybody knows here,
Costco -- everybody has to drive to pack up their stuff, so this is the wrong type of -- it's
not a community place. Costco is not a community member. Take a look at their
website. They don't contribute any money back into the community for any civic
organizations or donations of that sort. So, you tell me --
McCarvel: Will you wrap up your thoughts?
Stevenson: They don't do that as well. I mean I could go on and on, but -- but the
traffic is bottlenecked all the way up across -- you need to take a look at this -- the traffic
outside of the area down -- my renters and -- I can't get out of that place on Chinden
over there. And, then, take a look at the plan also. They are not going to -- they are
going to open up Costco within two years later, maybe. And I have seen how dates get
shifted back and forth through all these things before they extend it out farther. They
are going to create more of a traffic jam before they actually fix what they are creating.
So, I think this is just the wrong plan. I ask you to reconsider. Let another developer
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 43 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 41 of 72
come in and do something more fitting for the community. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. So, that was everybody on the list. I think we are going
to take -- okay. One more and, then, we are going to take a break.
Morrette: High. My name is Michael Morrette. 1805 West Island Green Way. I'm a
resident in the area, a business owner in the area and a developer in the area.
support the development. One -- the main point I would like to make to everybody is
that a lot of the traffic we see on this road is the result of all of us in this neighborhood
traveling to Costco 15 miles away.
McCarvel: Please, no outbursts.
Morrette: Furthermore, Costco, yes, may not be a walking business, but the businesses
it will bring to that area may very well be walking businesses. Like the McDonald's was
for my nephew, who I was raising through high school when he needed a job in high
school. He rode his bike. He couldn't go anywhere else. Without that McDonald's
there, when it was one of the only places, my nephew wouldn't have had a job. Many of
us who live in this area will have kids, we will have grandkids who will work in these
areas. Okay? Many of us ourselves will work and own businesses in this area. Okay?
We can't be just a bunch of houses without services and businesses to cater to us -- to
cater to us and it's not fair for anyone -- I live in Castlebury West. My property value, if
it's going to go up, if it's going to go down, just as much as anyone else. Okay? It's not
fair for me to say my house is worth more than someone down on Ten Mile and that
they should be burdened by the businesses I want to visit. It's not fair for us to keep
passing our burdens on to everybody else. Every community should shoulder their own
burdens. Costco, WinCo, they will bring road improvements a lot sooner than the
planned 2021 and without Costco, like everyone else said, something is going to go
there, just like my business at the corner of Linder and Chinden, businesses are going
to come here whether anybody likes it or not. I like it. Thank you all, Madam
Commissioner and Commission, for your time and for everyone else showing up for
voicing your opinion, I appreciate it. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. And the lady in the gray sweater, did -- and is that it or are we
going to -- because I'm going to let her speak and, then, we are going to close the public
testimony, then, and take a break.
Dawson: My name is Terri Dawson. I live at 3808 West Magic Spruce in Meridian. My
-- there is only one Costco in the United States that has -- is in a residential
neighborhood and -- can you guys hear me?
McCarvel: Yes.
Dawson: Okay. It's Lantana, Florida, and it was built in 1991 where -- could I show you
the picture?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 44 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 42 of 72
McCarvel: It won't be part of it -- it can't -- on your phone it's not part of the public
records. You will have to go back and stand and not -- speak into the mic.
Dawson: Anyway, it's -- it butts up next to the freeway and there is residential, but the
thing is is this Costco was built in 1991 and these homes came in afterwards.
Therefore, the residents knew what they were getting into. So, anyway, I think it's --
say I love Costco. I have been going forever, but I think it's as bad to be in residential.
And that's it.
McCarvel: All right.
Dawson: Nothing. Okay. Thank you.
McCarvel: Uh-huh. Do you want to make a motion -- we have got more -- okay. Let's
take a break and we will come back to this. Five minutes.
(RECESS: 9:57 p.m. to 10:03 p.m.)
McCarvel: Okay. We will resume public testimony. Does anybody have anything new
to add?
Reynolds: Hello, Madam Commissioner and Members of P&Z Council. My name is
Sally Reynolds. I reside at 1166 West Bacall Street in the Paramount Subdivision and
some of you know me, you have seen me testify before on behalf of a group called
Smart Growth For Meridian. So, I stand before today -- I'm concerned, as many people
have already said, that Costco is a great company, but that this site might not be the
right fit. It is not a referendum on their business practices. It is if their business practice
fits at this location, which a lot of us do not believe it does. There have been traffic
concerns brought up and one other that I wanted to add to that is because of an
application which you have heard me testify on previously, which was recommended for
denial to City Council and ended up being continued, it's now going to be remanded
back to you, that application down the road -- those road improvements are not moving
forward at all. So, I think it's wonderful that the road would be widened here and -- from
Highway 16 down to Linder, but from Linder until Locust Grove it will just be a
bottleneck and my house looks out right back between Meridian and Linder Road and I
just see the cars lined up every single day. So, with that said, that -- I just see that
bottleneck getting worse and worse and it is our responsibility -- Chinden is an east -
west expressway. It is one of the most vital corridors that we have here in the Treasure
Valley and it is our duty to protect it for the commuters who are from Nampa, who are
from Caldwell, who are trying to get to work in Boise or Meridian. Another point of traffic
-- I know that -- I mean Costco is great. I don't go there really often, but if I have to go I
either go to Boise or Nampa, like they said, but I don't go often and when I come back
out of that industrial area I just breathe a sigh of relief, because I am happy to be out of
that traffic and that congestion and to go back to nice quiet north Meridian. That small
town charm that's been referred to here earlier. And so to have all of that in north
Meridian does not fit with the Comprehensive Plan or the goals of that Comprehensive
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 45 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 43 of 72
Plan and I know that that will be revised, but a lot of man hours and expert testimony
went into creating that for a reason and the residents did make decisions on that and so
I believe that it's the Commission's duty to uphold that. The last item that I will say is if
there are a lot of changes that are to the plan, which we have seen with a previous
application just recently, I would urge you to at least, at the very minimum, continue it
until there is more finality in a plan, because as residents we are going on -- I think nine
months now going with an application that you all rightly recommended denial, but,
unfortunately, that did not get taken into consideration and because it's been a
nightmare process now. So, I urge you to recommend denial to the City Council and,
hopefully, Costco can find another location more suitable for their business model.
Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. I think one more. Okay.
Winter: My name Paige Winter and I live in the Bainbridge Subdivision at 4113 West
Wolf Rapids Street. I -- for me, I know that Lost Rapids Drive -- Street will be used quite
a bit. I am a frequent shopper at Craft Warehouse and Walmart and I go from one Craft
Warehouse to Walmart back through that neighborhood, because I don't want to go
around to Eagle and -- and Fairview and so I know that Costco shoppers will use -- I
would if I didn't live -- I would use that road, Lost Rapids Road, to get away from the
congestion that will happen at Chinden and Ten Mile. And also I'm wondering for
Costco, if they received this much opposition in other places that they try to build,
because it seems to me that they -- most of their locations are in more commercial
areas than this. This is definitely not a commercial area, this is a residential area and
am not opposed to commercial development at all, I enjoy a neighborhood shop, but not
the Costco shops. Huge shop. My son is one of nine boys about his age and they have
dubbed them the Bainbridge Boys Club for fun and they run around the neighborhood
and they play at different houses -- different neighbors and in the parks and in the Keith
Bird Park and for them to -- I let him go, because I feel like it's a safe neighborhood and
a safe place for him to be and he -- if this Costco were to come in and more traffic,
would be more afraid. I wouldn't let him go and have that old fashioned nostalgic -- let
the boys go run around the neighborhood and play until it's dark and, then, they are
supposed to come home, which I have told him to do and he enjoys that. If Costco
were to come in, the more traffic like that, I would not allow him as much free rein as
do now, because I would be worried about the traffic and, really, I would be worried
about strangers coming on that street and, you know, abducting him -- I don't know.
Mom worries. But it would -- the ability to get to my home -- I travel that road two or
three, four times a day. The ability to get to my home and the access to my home
would be impaired by Costco and the traffic there and the enjoyment of my son and my
family would be impaired as well. Thank you for your time,
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. One more.
Southam: Yes, Madam Chairman and Commissioners, my name is Lynn Southam.
reside at 6508 North Salvia Way in Meridian. I won't be long, I just find it interesting that
everybody thinks Costco is wonderful, but they would like it in someone else's
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 46 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 44 of 72
subdivision. What I find really interesting is that the one thing we all agree on is why
hasn't Costco looked at Highway 16 and Chinden or that area? No one opposes that.
Everybody here would be in favor of that and so as you weigh this decision I think you
may want to delay your recommendation until maybe Costco gives a response to that
question, why not put it in the area that the whole community supports. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. I think there was one back --
Dennison: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Kevin Dennison. I reside at
3244 West Salix Drive, Meridian. I know -- it's Spurwing Greens Subdivision. Can I get
the -- the before and after comp plan, please. There are many issues on this -- on this
proposed Costco and when I first heard about it and took a look at it -- and, by the way,
I have been a developer here and one of the groups that started Roaring Springs Water
Park, I have -- I have had businesses here and I live here as well and when I first saw
the Costco project come in I thought, well, if the infrastructure here supports it, it's
something that I could get behind and the more that I have taken a look at it and studied
it, I have come to the determination that it just isn't for this area period. There right now
are 16,000 trips -- this is Costco's words -- in front of Ten Mile and Chinden. With
Costco coming in there will be an additional 17,000 trips and as anybody knows that
lives out in that area, if you're coming down Ten Mile at any time of the day and want to
make a left-hand turn onto Chinden, you will wait as long as five and six light cycles.
Two days ago -- Tuesday at 2:30 1 was headed east on Chinden and -- this is 2:30 in
the afternoon and from Linder to Eagle Road it took me 27 minutes. So, what the -- the
proposition is -- from Costco is the message of just pushing the bottlenecks further up
the road. Ten Mile, they are talking about widening that up just until they get to the --
the park and, then, it will go back to two lanes in between McMillan and Ustick, we are
back down to two lanes, a huge bottleneck there, and, then, we widen back up to four
lanes until we get to the freeway. Same thing on Chinden going east and west. We
are going to open it up, just to Tree Farm, or maybe a little past, and, then, eventually
we are going to get to Black Cat, but, then, once you get to 1-16 going east or going
west, we are going to be down to a bottleneck again and it just isn't the right spot for
this. In the comp plan, if you take a look at that, there is not one spec of dirt in that
entire area that was ever looked at as being commercial. That comp plan was done
with taxpayer money and I'm sure the city put a lot of time, effort, dollars towards that
comp plan and we all bought into it and now you have basically told us that the comp
plan means nothing and by heck we are going to bring in a Costco in a residential
neighborhood. Nampa doesn't have it. Boise doesn't have it. Twin Falls doesn't have
it. But, yet, you are going to throw it in one of the busiest sections in Meridian. Meridian
is a great city. Don't mess it up. This thing needs to be stopped and it needs to be
stopped now. Thank you.
McCarvel: Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Would the applicant like to come
forward.
Wardle: Madam President, Commission Members, Mike Wardle. I'm going to make just
a couple of observations and, then, Mr. Turnbull will conclude. Interesting the comment
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 47 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 45 of 72
made by the gentleman just up about the comp plan never showed a shove of
commercial dirt out here. The comp plan in 2002 when it was first created had a
hundred acres of mixed use regional, which would anticipate some very significant
commercial. There has been no significant change in the applications. The only
change was just the question of what the underlying land use designation would be. In
looking at how best to implement the project it became clear that the commercial
designation versus the mixed use regional was the most effective because of the unique
character of all of the units and proposals on this site, the residential, as well as the
commercial. Mitigation will start with this project on both Highway 20-26 and Highway
or, excuse me, Ten Mile Road. Comment just made about the bottlenecks back down --
Ten Mile Road is currently in design by the Ada County Highway District with
anticipation that they will widen the entire roadway from Chinden down to Ustick Road
within the next two years. What they will do is hand off their plans to Costco to get that
first mile done while they are working on the second mile. So, Ten Mile Road will
probably -- coincident with the opening of this project have a five lane facility, if not
totally completed with Costco's effort and shortly thereafter with ACHD. With regard to
Highway 20-26, they are asking -- they are all suggesting to you this evening that we
want more residential without any services. We are willing to drive through everybody
else's neighborhoods to get to those services, but we don't want them here. Now,
Costco is unique, no question about that. With regard to Lost Rapids Drive, the
collector road that Brighton built in advance of any of these development opportunities,
it is a two lane collector roadway with bike lanes. It was constructed with the intent that
it would provide not only access, but also a separation, just as 20-26 separates
Spurwing from the site and -- so, anyway, I'm going to just turn the time to Mr. Turnbull
to conclude, but I appreciate your listening to our comments this evening.
McCarvel: Thank you.
Turnbull: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, my name is David Turnbull.
Office address is 12601 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I appreciate the testimony of
everybody here. I really do. And I understand the emotions, some of angst that goes
into an application like this. Change can be unsettling. But if you have lived here for a
period of time like many of us have, we have seen a lot of change. Over the past
several years I get -- there is two questions I get asked the most. Actually, first of all,
will go back to a comment I heard from a planner that came to one of our municipal
leadership meetings. He -- and he was referring specifically to U.S. 20-26. He said
who in their right mind would develop residential along that corridor and I raised my
hand. I mean I think it's a -- it's a great neighborhood. I think we have developed
some really great neighborhoods here and I understand the emotions of some of the
residents that are here, but over the past few -- few years I get asked two questions
more than anything else. When are we going to get Chinden improved, like it's my job,
and when are you going to get us a Costco and I'm serious, I get that question all the
time. So, I want to make it clear, we never owned this corner, the 15 acres where the --
that the Gossers own. We never approached Costco. They came to us and they
assumed we owed that corner and I referred them on to Gossers. They started working
on an application. Well, it could have been a Costco with no -- none of the surrounding
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 48 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 46 of 72
commercial uses. It could have just been a plain Costco with a parking lot and a service
station. They came to us and said let me work with you to improve some access, to
create some setbacks, so we can get some more commercial retail pads that would be
more conducive to an overall project and so we worked with them and we wanted to
make the best project possible and, frankly, we have been pretty hard on them about
some of the things they wanted to do for some of the things we thought were necessary
to see to help protect the existing neighborhood, preserve traffic and the first thing I told
them is you're not going to get anything here unless you make some significant
improvements to the infrastructure and Costco stepped up to the plate. They are
proposing spending 15 million dollars on infrastructure to widen not only Chinden, but
Ten Mile Road. So, we are going to see significant improvements here. I have heard
some of the comments about existing conditions on -- on Chinden. I have heard some
testimony about some of the accidents. I drive back and forth every day. I live out in
that area. Almost without exception I -- you know, anecdotally most of the accidents
see are on the two lane stretches. Where we provided the expansion -- we provided the
expansion for all of Chinden between Cloverdale and Eagle Road. We developed all
that property. We gave the right of way to ITD for the last expansion that they really did.
We don't see very many accidents there were it's a five lane facility. I want to talk a little
bit just about that -- that corridor, though. Many of you know we developed the Target
store there at the corner of Chinden and Eagle and I got to tell you that when we did it
we also did some apartments there, the Renaissance Apartments, and the
neighborhood was very unsettled about that whole application. Even my own wife -- we
live a couple of miles away. She was -- she was -- she didn't like it herself. I said, you
know, right now you drive all the way to Milwaukee to get to a Target. You understand
that. She said yeah. But we lived in the country and, you know, it's just one of those
nostalgic things. So, we had some comments from some people that have come in
since this testimony that have said, you know, I lived in that Hobble Creek neighborhood
when Target was put in. We were all up in arms about it. But, you know what, they
became a great neighbor and I think Costco is doing their level best to be that same
way. Fred Meyer is close to our homes as well. I have a lot of neighbors that when
Fred Meyer was proposed came out in -- in opposition. I had one neighbor in particular
who was at every hearing opposing it. He told me six months later -- he said, you know,
I went to all those hearings and I was against it, he said, but I kind of like it and -- so,
that's just the -- you know, that's the way things happen. I mean even Rocky Mountain
High School, when we put that into our Paramount Subdivision, you know what, it's a
big traffic generator and it causes people concerns and do we have issues with some
cut -through traffic? Yeah. But that's because we are required to provide connectivity
and so we can't -- we can plan for it the best we can, but you're going to have issues
whenever you have a traffic generator, but you have traffic generation already. I drive
to the Nampa Costco, I drive right by this site and I go all the way to Nampa. So, I just
want to reiterate Costco -- is fronting these improvements in -- in advance of them
opening their store. So, I think that they have done a good job. I think when it comes
down to it on these traffic issues, you have to trust that ACHD and ITD have done their
job. This applicant has done it the right way.
McCarvel: Please no comments from the audience.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 49 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 47 of 72
Turnbull: This applicant has done it the right way. It's done the traffic studies. It's taken
them to ITD and you have approved traffic studies and approved sets of conditions in
front of you for this Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, unlike one of the
previous projects that you -- you had to deal with. So, when this project is completed it
will become part of the fabric of the community. Like I said, I don't dismiss your -- the
concerns that have been expressed by the neighbors, but I think this application has
done a pretty good job. I will tell you that on the balance of the property we gave you a
fairly accurate concept plan of what we expect to do with all of the residential area,
because I didn't want the neighbors to think that, you know, just leave it blank there and
think, well, this could be expanded in the future. We are drawing a line in the sand here
and saying this is what it is. So, I will stand for any questions you might have at this
point.
McCarvel: Any questions for the applicant?
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: So, I guess the big question in the room is why not 16 and Chinden?
Turnbull: So, we own both properties. You would have to address that to Costco. They
chose the site. They have looked at -- I mean we own the property. Some people have
suggested Ten Mile and 1-84, too. I see a lot of the comments and everybody has their
idea of where it ought to go. You know, Costco representatives and traffic engineers
are here to address any of those questions.
Yearsley: Thank you.
Turnbull: So, if you would like them to come to --
McCarvel: I think so.
Yearsley: Actually, I think I would, if you don't mind.
Whelan: Madam Chair, Commissioners, my name is Brian Whelan. To answer that
question, we -- we have been looking for years for a -- for a site that was acceptable to
us in Meridian. And just so you know a little bit about our process, we -- it's not just me
who is involved in this -- this decision. We retain local help and in this case we retained
Thornton Oliver Keller to help us with, you know, the local questions about how people
move --
McCarvel: Can you pull the mic a little bit closer?
Whelan: Sorry. Local questions about how people move in the market, perceptions of
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 50 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 48 of 72
locations, and those kind of things. In addition to that, we have our senior management
come visit all our sites, which we did in this particular case. I think the fundamental -- as
I pointed out earlier about the Ten Mile site, I think one of the fundamental things that
really attracts us to it is -- is the growth. When we looked at the growth, certainly in the
near term, the five to ten year growth, it continues to be south of Chinden and what Ten
Mile does is allows us to have all those folks filter into Ten Mile, get to the site and to be
able to circulate through the site, so that there is access both to Chinden and Ten Mile.
It creates a much more effective way to circulate people in and out of the project and
serve, we think, the core market much better. If we went to 16 we are effectively having
one point of ingress and egress out there, which I'm sure what we -- if we were there
that would be the topic. How are you going to go get all these people in and out of here
with one point of ingress and egress and -- and those are just some of the fundamental
reasons why we considered -- we considered many others, too. This has been a
process. Our investment is significant here and we -- we haven't made mistakes and
we don't plan to and we really think this is the right spot for us.
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson. Please, no comments from the audience.
Wilson: What we a -- we had testimony about just its proximity to residential areas.
What do you say about that?
Whelan: Well, the testimony was that there is only one Costco in the world that's near
residential and that's just false. We -- we have multiple locations that are near
residential. For example, Coeur d'Alene is surrounded by -- if you pulled up an aerial of
Coeur d'Alene it's surrounded by residential uses. One of -- one of the letters we
received through this process from one of our existing members was a member who
just moved here from Lehi, Utah, and our building in Lehi, Utah, backs up to some very
desirable single family residential and this particular member lived in that subdivision
and I could read the e-mail to you if you would like, but she just raved as to how good of
a neighbor we were and how that we did not negatively impact the property owners of
those immediately adjacent residential properties. There are others. We just completed
one in Louisville, Kentucky, where we are surrounded by residential on three sides.
have done projects in Toledo, Ohio, where we are surrounded by residential. There are
many examples where we have residential nearby. It really is, you know, a market
determinate in terms of -- of what makes the most sense for us.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I just -- anybody else had questions?
McCarvel: Anybody else for the applicant? Yes.
Fitzgerald: Overall?
McCarvel: Yes.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 51 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 49 of 72
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Just for Mr. Turnbull or -- either one of you could answer. Just for the
record, can you explain the process of timing for road improvement, so everybody in the
room can understand, because we have heard about 14 different versions of that
tonight. So, I just want to clarify for the record when the roads are going in and what
timing and, then, how far they are going to go, so we are all on the same page.
Whelan: Yes. Right. So, just -- just as broadly, so we, obviously, have a process to go
through here. If we are fortunate enough to be successful, you know, that will take us
into the summer of 2018. After -- after that we would acquire the property and, then,
begin all of the -- the planning process in terms of the plans that are necessary for the
road improvements. That would occur from 2018 to 2019. It's really a two-step
process. ACHD already has Ten Mile scheduled to be widened and they have initiated
the plans for Ten Mile already, so they will -- they will be completing those plans. We
will be completing the plans for Chinden. That planning process in terms of developing
those plans and pursuing the right of way will happen between 2018 and let's hope early
2019. Some of these dates with right of way are -- you know, we can't be specific on.
And, then, we would start construction hopefully in late 2019 and be able to open the
new Costco in 2020, but the roads would be --
Fitzgerald: Can you talk about the roads?
Whelan: There were -- there were several allegations or -- and statements relative to
the roads. To be clear, the condition that we have from ACHD, as well as ITD, is that
we would not be able to open until Ten Mile Road has been widened as proposed and
Chinden has been widened from Linder to Tree Farm. There is a second phase that
would take the Chinden improvements from Tree Farm to Highway 15. We ideally
would like to do that all in one phase. The reason that there are two phases is is that
the traffic report and ITD has concluded and agreed that the impacts of our project only
would require us to expand it to Tree Farm, but they are asking us to go above and
beyond what the minimum requirements are and that would be that last segment from
Tree Farm to Highway 15. Again, we would like to all do it at the same time. The
practical reality is that right of way gets a little more complicated from Tree Farm to 16.
And the other part of Chinden most of the parcels are larger, they have already been set
aside, and it's more of an execution in terms of acquiring that right of way. It gets more
complicated when you get further out. It would be our hope and desire to do it all at
once. We are not in the road building business, we don't want to do it more than once,
and consequently if we could do it that way that -- that would be our desire.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: Do you have anybody like -- I mean that's come to you and wanting some of
those outlying property -- the outlying pads around the gas station and --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 52 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 50 of 72
Whelan: The Gossers will -- will control those pads, so I will let them respond.
Gosser: Trevor Gosser. 74 East 500 South, Suite 200, Bountiful, Utah. We haven't
gone out and marketed these out parcels yet. We are waiting, you know, to get through
the approval process. We don't like to speculate on land and build buildings.
Obviously, we -- we need the infrastructure and improvements that come in. So, we
have held off on marketing the out parcels until we get approval.
McCarvel: And I know the staff report is asking -- recommending that the gas station be
moved further to the south, so is that something you -- you would be in consideration of
or why --
Gosser: Yeah. We do not agree with that recommendation and you have before you
for the site plan now a -- the location of the gas station, as has been pointed out here,
they are the busy. So, what -- while we like to be -- full disclosure, we like to be on the
corner, we like to have the visibility, but the more important issue for us is making sure
that the traffic flow associated with our gas station -- fuel facility works optimally. In this
particular case it was pointed out early -- earlier that about 20 percent of our traffic
would come from the -- from the west. So, consequently, in the initial stages we think
the majority of our members will enter off of Ten Mile and when they enter off of Ten
Mile, in order to get to this fuel facility they would make a right-hand turn. The staff is
recommending that we pull that fuel facility closer to that intersection. Our experience is
is when you're asking people to make a right-hand turn and, then, another quick right-
hand turn, it doesn't function properly. By having it on the corner those members can
make a right turn and have what I call a runway to have a little distance before they
have to make the movement into the fuel facility and by doing that that gives us more
spacing to manage that traffic and, then, those folks can get into that fuel is facility with
another right turn. So, they are very easy movements. But the critical part is is to not
try to burden that intersection with too many immediate movements and for those
reasons we think that, you know, moving it further south really doesn't function for the
overall project. We don't think it helps the overall project.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: To that point can you speak to the staff's concern about that -- that right turn,
that entrance being so close to Ten Mile and whether that's going to create a traffic
issue?
Whelan: Are you asking me?
Perreault: Whoever would like to respond.
Whelan: So, I'm sorry, the entrance --
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 53 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 51 of 72
Perrault: The entrance to -- so, just to the west of the -- of the commercial lots as you
come to -- you know, off Lost Rapids going north.
Whelan: Off Lost -- okay. So --
Perreault: Directly to the east of the townhouses from the entrance from Lost Rapids.
Whelan: Okay. So -- yeah. Sorry. I'm going to let the traffic guy help.
Daleiden: Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Commissioners, the -- Andy Daleiden,
Kittelson & Associates. The question with the access off of Lost Rapids Drive there and
that location -- so, there is two elements there. The aspect there that's going to be a
signal -- signal on Lost Rapids and Ten Mile and, then, you will have that access
there. Separation wise, you know, from our perspective in terms of looking at what the
storage needs are for the signal, that there is adequate distance there to have that as a
full access at lost -- for the entry off of Lost Rapids. Second, it was -- the location there
was to line up with the access that's existing on the south there with the church, so
providing that. So, that was part of the site planning there. But, additionally, just on
Lost Rapids there, that section would be improved, so there would be a dedicated left
turn out heading to -- turn onto Ten Mile. There would be a through lane and, then,
there would be a right turn. So, that additional elements that's within the existing curb to
curb would be done in that section to be able to help manage that at key length at the
signal, which is one of the concerns when you have, you know, maybe a closer spaced
access and we -- ACHD has approved that, you know, through -- through our analysis.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Will there be dedicated left turn back out onto Lost Rapids from the exit --
entrance-exit?
Daleiden: Yeah. On -- Madam Chair, Commissioner, the aspect on -- on the driveway
itself for further for Costco and the rest of the development there would be a left turn
and a right turn and it would be determined on -- if that's left through or through --
through right for the -- but, yes, there would be that dedication.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
De Weerd: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I guess in your study of this, do you know -- you know, everyone is talking
about the bottleneck. I know this is not within our purview, but the bottleneck from
Eagle to Linder, do you know if or when ITD is planning to widen that road or have you
heard of any -- and I -- like I said, you may not know, but I was just curious if you knew if
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 54 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 52 of 72
ITD was planning to widen that anytime soon.
Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, ITD is in the design phase right now
of -- for widening Chinden Boulevard between Locust Grove and Eagle. So, that's in the
design phase. I believe it's a 2021, 2022 time period for that to go into construction and,
then, the section between Locust Grove and Linder Road, that's being evaluated as part
of a separate application with Linder Village, looking at that as a potential fund --
potential improvement package with that project. And, then, this project is looking at, as
was indicated, from Linder Road to State Highway 16 widening. So, the planning, you
know, potentially, you know, if -- if the development projects and the ITD project that is
sometime in 2023, 2024, that whole corridor would be widened to five lines, which is a
significant improvement for that. Otherwise, these sections in here would be delayed.
That the plans that we have -- in conversations with ITD about their approach to
widening is that they will be alternating between Chinden Boulevard and State Highway
44, one mile segments, and doing that from a widening standpoint. So, you can go
back right now, thinking about the -- they are starting with Locust Grove to Eagle and,
then, the next one would be State Highway 44 and, then, come to Chinden and vice -
versa. So, it will take several years for this section to be widened without some of the,
you know, project support through development.
Yearsley: And, then, the follow on question -- and is State Highway 16, from Chinden to
the interstate, even in the books or even projected at this time?
Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Yearsley, the project right now just went out.
There as a request for proposals out that Idaho Transportation Department released for
the design of that roadway, but it's estimated I believe a 400 million dollar type
investment to do that, so it's still a ways out from being able to get the funding for that
improvement. But from a design standpoint that is out on the streets.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: And, then, they haven't even identified or purchased right of way for 16; is
that correct? Or your understanding?
Daleiden: Madam Chair, Commissioner Fitzgerald, that's probably -- that's out of my
purview to be able to address that.
Fitzgerald: Okay.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
Fitzgerald: Can someone speak to -- we have delivery time set up and in the -- in our
staff report and in the requirements for the project. I think we have had a couple of
comments about truck idling beforehand. Can you speak to that, just so that we have
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 55 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 53 of 72
an understanding of what that looks like? You have fuel trucks showing up at 2:00 a.m.
and waiting around with their, you know, their engines on for the numerous hours, how
does that work for Costco? How do you guys regulate that?
Whalen: The majority of our trucks come from our -- we call it the Depot -- it's a cross -
docking depot. We operate a little bit differently than most retailers in that we
encourage most of our vendors to bring the products to our depot, which in this case
would be served out of Salt Lake City and, then, we put those products on our own
trucks and deliver them here. So, in this particular case really in response to some of
these questions at the neighborhood meeting, we agreed that none of our deliveries
would occur between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. So, we have agreed to that restriction.
That's a condition in the staff report and we find that to be acceptable. That goes for
fuel trucks as well, because the -- the majority of these trucks come from our depot, we
have the ability to stage them such that -- you know, we don't want them coming when
we are not ready for them. So, the objective is -- is that that situation would not exist
where they would be idling and waiting, because they are coming from our own depot
that we would be able to sequence that such that those deliveries could occur without
that requirement.
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have another question, then, probably for -- for Dave on the -- the
residential property to the -- to the west, you're asking for an R-15 zoning, but as I just
want to clarify, in the development agreement you're asking to -- to limit that to an R-8
capacity, is that correct? Am I getting it correct?
Turnbull: I think in the staff report we have limited the density between five and eight
units per acre. The R-15 zone is there primarily to get the dimensional standards. It's
been something we have grappled with for a long time, you know, we have talked about
these different zoning designations and probably someday the UDC will be modified to
where it has more flexible zoning designations in the R-8, but for right now to get this
kind of unique patio home type of environment, it's R-15 dimensional standards we use
with the R-8, essentially, density limitations.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: More green space in --
Yearsley: Oh, no. Absolutely. I just -- I just -- like I said, my concern is -- is if we give
them the R-15 density, having them come back in the future and asking for something
different, but if they are agreeing to limit that between five and eight I'm more
comfortable leaving it that as the R-15, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. It means to stay -- the plan relatively close to this plan.
Turnbull: Madam Commissioner and Commissioner Yearsley, we anticipate that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 56 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 54 of 72
condition being in the development agreement.
Yearsley: Okay. That's perfect.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for Brian. We were just talking about delivery time periods and
think you said 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m.
Whalen: Correct. That none --
Cassinelli: None during those -- those hours. Would you be flexible to widen that to say
7:00 a.m?
Whalen: While I would love to be able to say yes, the nature of our business, as you
know, our product is -- we don't have a back room. Our product is on the floor in the
racks. That's -- that's where we store our product and we do not -- for safety reasons
want to put product onto the floor while we are open for business. So, we need to have
the majority of our deliveries -- especially the larger deliveries -- occur early, so that we
can get that product off the truck and into the racks before we are open. So, it's just not
practical for us to -- to agree to that type of delivery restriction. We really reached to get
to the 5:00 a.m. Yeah. Dave is suggesting I speak to handling it inside. Again, that
product comes off -- off of our trucks and into our racks by 9:30 in the morning, so that
it's -- so that it's there before we open. It's the way we do business. We would really
like to start delivering at 4:00 a.m. if we could in order to meet -- meet those delivery
requirements.
Cassinelli: Okay.
McCarvel: Any other questions?
Perreault: Madam Chair?
De Weerd: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: I have a very specific question about the site plan that -- the area to the east
of the R-40 location, what kind of buffer is there between those residences and that
drive?
Whalen: I'm sorry. Are you saying on the plan or --
Perreault: The east side of the townhomes.
Whalen: I'm going to let Mike speak to that.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 57 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 55 of 72
Perreault: Or apartments. I think those are apartments there. Yes. That's right. In that
little --
Wardle: Oh, so you're just talking about the service drive -- along the west side of that
service drive, the commercial on the east, the apartments to the west? Okay.
Perreault: That's not just a service drive, that's access for the public -- to the
development; correct?
Wardle: Yeah. But it's a private -- it's a private drive system. Sonya, help me out. The
requirement for the -- the landscape buffer, since we have the residential use on the
west side of that drive and commercial on the east, what does the -- what is the
requirement for the width? I believe it's 20 or 25 feet, is it not?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, it is 25 feet on the resident -- excuse me -- on the
commercial property to the residential uses.
Wardle: So, we are not talking about an absolute dimension today, because that has to
come back for conditional use and CZC, but we will meet the requirements for the
buffering virtually all the way around these other uses adjacent to the commercial and
you will see there is a very significant one between the Costco and the proposed patio
homes that Mr. Turnbull just mentioned. Thank you.
Yearsley: While you are -- while you are there, I know at the last moment we changed
-- you requested the change in -- in the future land use map and I know that the staff
had gone through and made changes to the staff report based on that condition. Can
you -- I know we have got the revised staff reports. I just want to make sure -- there is a
lot of stuff that's deleted and then -- and that was deleted because it was not required
for the current future land use map designation; is that correct?
Wardle: That is correct.
Yearsley: Okay. So, really, the staff report really didn't change, it was just -- it didn't
have to meet those conditions, so it wasn't required to be in the staff report.
Wardle: That is correct.
Yearsley: So, I was just, you know, trying to understand, you know, what -- what has
changed, what's there, why it has changed. It just helps me understand that a little bit
cleaner, so --
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 58 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 56 of 72
Holland: One more question for you, too. Is there anything else that was in the staff
report, aside from shifting the fuel sales facility, that you had issues with or any
disagreements with?
Wardle: I cited H earlier. I don't have that in front of me. If you would -- somebody
would refresh my memory of what H is.
Allen: Madam Chair, would you --
McCarvel: Yes, please.
Wardle: Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
Allen: It sounds like the applicant has it.
Wardle: It's right here. It was suggesting that we actually put priority access onto Lost
Rapids, with the assumption that there would not be access to Chinden Boulevard. ITD
has approved those access points. The City Council will have to confirm those access
points in its action when it considers the proposal, but it's clear from the neighborhood
concerns that we don't want to do anything that would force more traffic on Lost Rapids
and away from the major transportation corridors. That's the issue.
Turnbull: Madam Chair, can I just follow up on that briefly?
McCarvel: Sure.
Turnbull: It was suggested during the public testimony that access restrictions to State
Highway 20-26 have gotten more restrictive over time. I have been involved in this for a
long time and we actually funded the north Meridian area plan years ago -- I can't
remember how many years ago -- where we brought in all the stakeholders and talked
about Chinden specifically in great detail and it was decided at that point that -- that
signalized access to Chinden Boulevard should be restricted to the half mile points and
we have -- and you can see that we have followed that pattern in our Paramount project
and in our -- you know, in Bainbridge and Spurwing Greens. We are not proposing any
additional signals with this project. However, it is true -- and I sat on the -- ITD
convened an access management committee a number of years ago to talk about state
highway access requirements, striking a balance in urbanizing areas for access controls
and they came up with some very specific requirements and allowances for some
additional access points that would promote a balance between safety -- I can't
remember the criteria, but it was safety and economic growth and those kind of things.
So, it's -- it is actually true that access has become -- not more restrictive, but there are
allowances now being provided for just this kind of an instance. However, we stand firm
about not having any more signals than at the half mile point. That's something that's
been in the plan for a long, long time. Thanks.
McCarvel: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. At this time could I get a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 59 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 57 of 72
motion to close the public hearing for item H-2081-0004.
Holland: So moved.
Fitzgerald: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in
favor say. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
McCarvel: I think we have several issues to discuss. Does everybody feel like they
have all the information they need to move forward tonight or would we like to discuss
that for a while? I think -- yeah. This is a big change on -- I mean the designation has
changed, so we do want to give this careful consideration. I think this is a good layout.
I mean we just need to discuss, you know, a lot of -- obviously, our main issue is the
traffic and just general quality of life was the general opposition, but we had a lot of
public testimony via e-mail as well in support. So, I think a couple of the issues -- you
know, when I first heard about the Costco going in there was, okay, you put this next to
a residential and, you know, you have got these -- the noise at all times, but, you know,
I think have made some considerable considerations about delivery times and this is not
a 24/7 open facility. And I, for one, think if it goes forward, I -- I like the gas station
think where it is. I think it allows -- they have given it a lot of thought in the stacking
and, you know, the one way in and out and everything, I think leaving it on the corner is
probably okay.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: Well, first of all, I want to thank everybody who showed up here, because
know it -- it says a lot about our community that we have citizens who care about the
projects that we are seeing. We are all residents as well. I'm born and raised in the
City of Meridian. Grew up off of Eagle and Franklin Road, so I'm well aware of some of
the development changes that have happened throughout this community. One of the
most interesting quotes I think I have heard when you talk about economic development
is about growth and you can either design smart growth or you can have growth happen
to you and so as we think about, you know, what we -- what we want to see in the city
and where we want to have it, we want to have a good mix of residential, but we also
want to have a good mix of commercial and employment centers, so that we can really
meet the needs of our community and our citizens. The more you have bigger
neighborhood pockets and less of those services I think the harder it is for community
citizens to get to some of the services. So, a couple of things I thought were interesting
reading through the staff reports and some of the things that came in. I know that
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 60 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 58 of 72
COMPASS did a study -- pull it up real quick -- talking about the housing ratio to
employment mix and so when you look at that they say the jobs per housing ratio in this
area is about .5 and a good jobs housing balance will be a ratio between one and 1.5.
So, in this area, yes, right now it's -- it's primarily been a residential area, but I think it's
also a major corridor where there is a lot of people commuting back and forth and
typically good growth tends to go along some of those major transportation corridors, so
regardless of what goes here, I think we are going to see more development
opportunities coming in off of these highways, especially as Highway 16 gets completed
and kind of connects into that corridor. I think the developers have done a really nice
thoughtful job of thinking through how they could integrate housing in kind of a tiered
structure into the Costco, so it wouldn't be as much of a burden to some of those
neighboring residential areas. I know we have got a lot of items to discuss here, but
think I'm in favor of the project the way that they have laid out. I agree with leaving the
-- the gas station where they have got it up in the corner, because I think they have
made some good points about transportation flow in and out of the property. That's
what I have got for now.
McCarvel: Thanks. Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I would actually prefer Commissioner Fitzgerald go first, but I will take a stab
at this. So, the two big things that I think I have heard on this one is the Comprehensive
Plan change and two is traffic. Interestingly enough, two to three years ago ITD finished
a study identifying that the state has a three hundred million dollar shortfall in
transportation funding for the state for locals and for ITD and identified that if we don't
do anything, you know, we will continue to have problems. Interestingly enough, the
state legislature only gave them a pittance of that 300 million and said you don't need
more and then -- and, then, in that what they gave more was only designated to
maintenance, not to expansion, and most of the ones who were opponents of funding
transportation were actually Meridian senators and representatives. So, you complain
about ITD and ACHD for not fixing the roads -- it goes farther than that. It goes to the
state legislature. They are unwilling to fund transportation and transportation growth.
So, having Costco step in and -- and actually fund a good portion of this growth or
expansion, in my opinion, is actually a benefit to our community. They realize the
deficit. They can't fix the entire problem, because that's just too enormous. That has to
be done on a higher level than just Costco. But I think they have stepped up to try to fix
their surrounding problems. They have worked with ACHD, they worked with ITD, to try
to come up with how do we -- how do we at least fix my area. So, I do applaud them
for that and understanding that growth. I have heard a lot of people asking for services
in this area, you know, because a lot of them when they have moved out here, you
know, they had to go back to Boise or to Eagle Road for services, now we actually can
actually bring services to them, so they don't have to travel very far. I know it might be
an inconvenience for a few, but I think as a whole I think this is actually a good area
and, in fact, I would actually be amenable to having commercial all the way to Tree
Farm, but they decided not to go that route, because they didn't want to be too much
commercial. But I think there needs to be some commercial corridors in this area to
service the locals and I think if you look at the Comprehensive Plan that when it was
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 61 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 59 of 72
done it was in 2008. Many of the homes out that way were not even out there in 2008
and so we have all contributed to that traffic and that growth and -- and, you know, they
are talking to not allow this to stop growth. How do you -- you know, where do you draw
that line? Do you draw the line now? Do you draw the line in the future? Should we
have drawn the line before you got here? Those are always tough decisions to make
on how do you do that. But, you know, I think for this application, the applicant has
actually put limitations on themselves for what they are asking for. Regarding the -- the
apartments, everyone is concerned about apartments. They have actually limited them
to a smaller number than what they could potentially be allowed. Regarding the zoning
for the homes, they are limiting themselves smaller than what they could be allowed. I
appreciate those limits and, actually, having those steps. So, I actually -- I believe I am
in favor of this application. I am in favor of the gas station at the corner. I think it makes
more sense and I think it will help with traffic congestion in that area. So, that's all I
have for right now.
McCarvel: Next?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Question for staff. Just a clarification. Currently it is mixed use community;
correct? And we are looking to go to mixed use regional and now to commercial; is that
correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, currently if you will look there at the map on your
top left, the yellow area is medium density residential and the small corner area, the
brown area, is mixed use community. The applicant's original request was for the entire
property, the medium dense residential, as well as the mixed use community, to be
mixed use regional. Their change has gone from -- gone back to the -- excuse me.
They are now proposing for the medium density residential that exists today to remain
on the western portion of the property and, then, the eastern portion of the property to
go to commercial.
Cassinelli: Okay. Thank you.
Fitzgerald: And, Sonya, can you keep that up? Madam Chair.
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: So, I -- this one is a hard one, obviously, because I have my fellow
neighbors in the audience and -- and it's tough. But I -- I have taken numerous
positions on this Commission that I got to follow what I normally do and so you look at
the map, Spurwing was originally designed to have commercial in it. It was designed to
have -- it was -- Tree Farm was done by Derek O'Neal and it was originally looked --
supposed to look like Valen Crossing and so that was restaurants and commercial and
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 62 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 60 of 72
it was walkable, but it was also -- it was supposed to be commercial. That and so things
have shifted with the changes in times and a down -- the downturn in the economy. So,
there was commercial supposed to be there and I think services were a piece of that
and a piece of this hard corner. This was also a state highway. It's going to be seven
lanes eventually and we hope to God that the 800 people that wrote letters to all of us
and to the City Council, will send letters -- go home tonight and send letters to your
legislators and tell them it's ridiculous that we are waiting this long to get highway
funding. It's crazy. And so one of the conversations I have had with legislators down
there is public-private partnerships may be the only way we can get our state highways
funded and so this is a hard corner. I have -- it's where commercial makes the most
sense. It also comes with houses aren't built in certain parts of it yet and there are
buffers between the houses that are there currently and what's coming in the future.
So, I -- I tend to lean towards what Commissioner Yearsley and my fellow
Commissioners have said, this is -- I think Costco has done a good job of trying to
defuse what issues are out there, while also providing some significant capital into the
game to help us with our infrastructure issues and I do agree that the fuel station should
probably stay in that corner.
McCarvel: Yeah. I tend to agree. I mean even though it seems as a big leap going to
the commercial designation, I think as a commercial designation goes that even though
the Costco will, obviously, generate a lot of traffic, it's -- just in how they do business
think it -- it's not as commercial as it could -- you know, as the designation makes it
sound. I mean --
Fitzgerald: Have three story apartments. Please, folks.
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Casinelli: Can I take a swing? First of all, I think we all know that -- that Brighton does
a -- a first class job in -- in their developments and Costco is willing to invest 15 million
in the roads that we may not see for a long time. That said, my issues with this are --
feel that this needs to go somewhere in the half mile mark where there can be a light
onto Chinden directly from Costco. Trying to get out onto -- onto Ten Mile, will the
current layout shows access to go left onto Ten Mile and, then, left or right onto
Chinden, that may be restricted in the future and most likely will be. There is no left turn
available onto Chinden. I think there is going to be -- what's going to wind up happening
is a lot of traffic being routed through a residential collector distributor that is not made
to handle that, going past a park, so I see a lot of -- a lot of issues with that. Also in
going from the mixed use community, the retail limitation there on building size is
30,000 square feet. Now, we are going five times that size is what they are pushing for
to one to -- over 168,000 square feet. I look at Boise and Nampa and those -- those are
surrounded by commercial. They develop commercial around -- the Boise Costco was
there before I came here, but, you know, when Nampa was built there was no
residential. There is residential to the north, to the east, and being developed to the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 63 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 61 of 72
west there. So, I -- with that I have an issue with that, too. It's just -- it's coming in after
the fact, into existing homes and I think we have got to -- you know, it's our
responsibility to take a look at -- at the surrounding areas and it's -- you know, we are
not bringing residential up to an existing commercial facility, it's going the other way
around. So, I think that really needs to be looked at and the biggest concern that
have, again, is -- is that traffic flow getting out. It's going to -- it's going to take people
through the Lost Rapids, it's going to -- on that corner -- and isn't the fault of -- of the
development, it's not the fault of Costco or anyone, it's just -- it's the way that these
roads are laid out and access points. If there was a -- if there could be a light that would
allow traffic to go left or right onto Chinden right out of -- right out of Costco I would like
the project. As it stands, because of that, I'm not in favor of it. If it were at the half mile
point it would have the light and I would be happy with it.
Yearsley: So, can I follow up with your thought? So, if they swap this you would be in
favor of the project?
Cassinelli: Put it down -- put it down at Tree Farm?
Yearsley: Yeah.
Cassinelli: Well, I think that it's a little late for that, isn't it?
Yearsley: No, I'm -- I --
Cassinelli: If it were there and the project were originally -- the entire development were
already set up for that and the homes that were there and going in around it knew what
was happening, I would have a -- I would have a different outlook. As it is I look at a
map and I -- you know, a mile down the road between -- between 16 and Black Cat --
you can do it.
Yearsley: Yeah. I was just posing it -- just a question --
McCarvel: Quiet, please. We have heard you all. Yeah. I see Ten Mile -- the access
out there as being a lot like what happened -- what Cole is right now to the Costco out
there. When I first started going to Costco there you could take a left or a right out of
that -- not the Lost Rapids one, but the other one up north and now, you know, they put
the barriers there and you can only take a right going out of that particular entrance and
they have got the light down farther to the south, which is exactly what's going to
happen here and that's -- you know, it's just -- it's pulled all the traffic down there, so you
-- and you can go out left or right pretty easily at that mark and I would have to agree
that the majority of the traffic going out onto Chinden is probably going to be going to
the east, you know, at this point, so --
Cassinelli: Can I add one more thing on that?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 64 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 62 of 72
Cassinelli: What I see if people could only -- they come out of that -- that southern drive
by the commercial and came out on Lost Rapids and can only turn left and go out to
Ten Mile and then -- and, then, go that way, it would look a lot different, but the fact is
they can go through Lost Rapids -- they can take Lost Rapids and go over to Tree Farm
and out that way and if -- if I was driving out that way that's how I would do it. I'm trying
to look at this from a -- I'm trying to look at this as a -- from a -- from a neutral aspect.
don't -- I don't live in that area. I'm about three miles away. Personally Costco -- the
closer it is would be more convenient, but I'm trying to look at this as the big picture and
what this is going to do to the city, what this is going to do to the -- the residents of
Meridian that have already bought homes there and that live there and to me -- and my
views here, that's -- that's always -- that's the position I have -- that I have taken is
what's there first and how do we incorporate the things around it. Again, it's that traffic
flow. To me that's -- and it -- I just see a lot of traffic going through -- cutting through,
going through Tree Farm. I mean I see -- people are going to be backed up on Ten Mile
going north. I have already been in a situation where I have been backed up. Of
course, it's one lane and you do sit through a couple of cycles. People are already
going to be making that -- that cut off now. Obviously, when Ten Mile -- when that
intersection gets -- gets improved and you will have two left turn lanes, it will be a lot
smoother and I don't think people go through that way, but I think coming out of Costco
to go out to Chinden that's what's going to happen and with -- with the number of
residential homes in there, with kids and there, I -- in the park, I don't like it.
McCarvel: Anybody else? Commissioner Wilson?
Wilson: Yes. So, rather than bash on the legislature, which I would love to do, or even
talk about how I think that -- you know, I think this does fit what we are looking to do in
Meridian in terms of having more economic development and good commercial
development, because I think that's what Costco is. I mean just looking at that corner,
again, with the Comprehensive Plan -- I mean we heard a lot about -- well, this is how
we understood or, excuse me, the future land use map. This is what we understood it
to be. We are making some kind of leap. I just don't -- I don't just think that's the case.
Again, I mean that corner is mixed use commercial -- you know, the only thing -- I mean
mixed use commercial, sample uses, personal and professional offices, schools, parks,
residential, retail office, high density residential dwellings, community grocery, garden
centers, hardware stores, restaurants, banks -- again, I don't think we are making a leap
here in terms of our discretion in -- in allowing this Costco here. I think we are -- I think
we are using a degree of discretion, but we are also following what the comprehensive
-- or the future land use map tried to look forward to. Again, it was made 11 years ago.
That was pre -recession. That was pre the spectacular growth that we saw -- have seen
in Meridian. So, in many ways I just don't see us making a gargantuan leap here and
we have a development that I think -- I mean it's a great development and I think I'm
supportive of it.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 65 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 63 of 72
McCarvel: Commissioner Perreault.
Perreault: Unfortunately, I disagree with Commission Wilson. I -- I think it's a big leap
from mixed use community to commercial. I believe the intention of mixed community is
to increase pedestrian traffic to -- to make it more of that neighborhood feel and I don't
think that -- that the commercial designers as it is will do that. Now, that's not to say
that mixed use community still fits that location. That's just what the plan is at this -- at
this moment. I do wholeheartedly agree with Commissioner Cassinelli about the traffic.
I have concerns about how the traffic flows within the development, how it -- Chinden,
the right -in, the right -out, not being able to turn left from Chinden into the -- into the
development with a light. So, those are my main concerns are traffic flow within --
within the development and going around that -- that corner of being a state highway
and definitely see opportunity for traffic issues, just with -- you know, if somebody's in
that -- that left hand lane heading west and if people are coming from the east -- west to
the development and, then, you know, they are slowing down in that straightaway left
turn lane to get into -- or the straightaway lane to get into the left turn lane, they are
slowing down and, then, they are sitting in a left turn lane stopping and how many
people have you seen that pull out into a left turn lane, so that they can sit there for a
minute to get into the opposite direction of traffic. I just -- I see there being a lot of traffic
issues just having a left turn lane with no lights coming in and out of Chinden.
Holland: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Holland.
Holland: So, looking at the -- the transportation issues, I agree there will probably be a
little bit more of a strain on Lost Rapids and Tree Farm Way than I would like to see as
well, but I think if you have got people that are heading westbound on Chinden, if they
turn left on Ten Mile at that light there, they can turn right into Lost Rapids. I think the
challenge will be if they are trying to head back westbound again on Chinden, getting
out of the complex, that's probably the biggest sticking point I think all of us are seeing
here. At the same time I think it's really generous that Costco is willing to put up so
much money to help enhance these road improvements coming earlier than what ITD or
ACHD would be able to do. Whenever you have got a developer that's willing to invest
in putting in some of the infrastructure, I don't think that will come along every day that
we would see the ability to put in some of those infrastructure needs now, so that we
can move forward in getting some of this development underway. So, I think there is
kind of a double edge sword there, too. There is certainly some challenges with -- with
how that Tree Farm and Lost Rapids flows, but I think enhancing those corridors so we
can get people moving faster through those spaces -- good thing.
McCarvel: Any other comments? Suggestions?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 66 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 64 of 72
Cassinelli: I just want to kind of reiterate my comment -- the one comment earlier that
said in the zoning changes proposed we are going from a maximum of 30,000 square
building to 168,000 square foot. So, that is -- this is a big jump. I also wanted to
piggyback on something that Commissioner Fitzgerald said and that was up -- he
brought up Brown Crossing and, boy, I would love to see something like that
somewhere in this part of Meridian and, again, just reiterating my comment that there is
so much residential already there to the north, to the east and it will be west and south
-- which came first and in other locations Costco came first and not in this one. So,
that's -- again, I just wanted to reiterate those comments. Thank you.
McCarvel: Okay. We all still thinking? I will give you a moment.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, question for staff.
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: Sonya, so -- a couple things for -- if this was to go forward -- so, we have
109 units we are tying this to for the high density residential, the R-8 max to the -- on
the medium density residential and all the renderings and those that we have are -- all
going to a DA; is that correct?
Allen: Madam Chair, Commissioners, that is correct. And you can find that in Exhibit B
of the staff report.
Fitzgerald: Thank you.
McCarvel: So, are we at the point for a motion or would we like more discussion? Have
you had enough time to --
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Turn on my microphone. I'm willing to throw out a motion and see what
happens. After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend denial to City Council of file H-2018-0011 on -- on the grounds of issues
with -- with the traffic layout, with ingress and egress to the complex and also opposition
to a zoning change from mixed use community to commercial.
Perreault: I second that motion.
McCarvel: We have a second. It has been moved and seconded to recommend denial
to the City Council for H-2018-0011 -- or, sorry, 2018-0004. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed?
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 67 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 65 of 72
Wilson: No.
Yearsley: No.
Holland: No.
Fitzgerald: No.
McCarvel: Motion to deny is denied. Fails. Thank you.
MOTION FAILED: TWO AYES. FIVE AYES.
McCarvel: Would we like more discussion or a different motion?
Holland: Madam Chair? Just one more comment. I don't know if I'm -- I'm ready to
make a motion, but I would say if -- if the biggest concern we have is trying to figure out
how we do the commuting patterns, I don't see justification enough to deny the project.
I don't know that I want to continue it either, but I think they have done a really nice job
of trying to plan some smart growth here, trying to make sure that they have -- they
have taken in a lot of consideration. We have gotten a lot of public testimony, a lot of
people speaking in favor of the project, as well as those speaking opposed. I don't
know if there is any other solutions we can play around with for how we help with the
transportation issue around that Tree Farm and Lost Rapids and I don't think we should
deny it based on just that issue.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: I have a tendency to agree and the -- the interesting thing about this is ACHD
has reviewed this -- they have reviewed this traffic report and they made a motion to
approve it. ITD has reviewed the traffic report and has agreed to it and -- and has
agreed to the conditions. You know, we may see -- you know and -- you know, there
may be some more traffic onto Tree Farm and Lost Rapids. Interestingly enough, one
of the applicants -- or individuals who testified already commented that she cuts through
the neighborhood. I mean it's going to happen. People do it now. They will continue to
always do it. There will be some traffic impacts to this area because of the growth no
matter what we put in this development here, either high density residential, which that's
kind of what they are talking about is apartments on this corner, you could have four to
five hundred units potentially here with similar traffic patterns, because that's what -- if
you're listening to Commissioner Wilson's comment is high -- you know, that mixed use
community is high density residential and looking at the plans -- I mean they are talking
big high density. So, I think it's a good mix. I don't know -- I think they try to do the best
they can. I'm not sure what else to do, except for maybe another access out onto Lost
Rapids, which they were not wanting to do, because they are listening to the
neighborhood. So, I think they are trying to be sensitive, but yet try to move their
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 68 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 66 of 72
application forward, so --
McCarvel: Yeah. I think more access to Lost Rapids just increases the traffic out there
and I just think Costco, as a commercial entity, with their business hours, is, you know,
more limited than most other retailers. I think that balances some of the impact as far
as the noise and that kind of thing and especially, you know, the overnight -- some of
the issues you have with other types of retailers going in.
Yearsley: And a lot of times you won't get the a.m. commute traffic.
McCarvel: Right. They don't even open until 10:00.
Yearsley: 10:00.
McCarvel: Yeah.
Wilson: Just -- Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I don't know of this is additive, but I mean I do think -- we, obviously, hear a lot
about traffic when we are dealing with these big developments, but I don't -- I don't
know if it's necessarily linked to the development or it's just the reality of the growth
that's occurring across this area and, again, I think -- I think if -- if we think about
whatever is -- that area is going to develop and whatever develops in there is going to
have a significant traffic impact and, obviously, we read in the staff report that Chinden
is going to be -- I mean it is already -- it's a state highway, it's going to expand to seven
lanes, and just looking at that astronomical growth that's going to occur in terms of car
trips to 2025 and beyond, I mean that was eye opening, because I had never thought
about it. That really has nothing to do with -- if we put a Costco in here or if we put in
another 400, you know, houses. The traffic -- the development is coming. We are
looking -- before us we have -- I think we have a very solid proposal that I think fits
with the community, that fits with what -- how we want, you know, Meridian to grow and
I think I'm basing that with my support.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: Just a question to Sonya. So, if we make a motion for this to approve, do we
need to accept Brighton's recommendations -- or requests and also -- I'm trying to figure
out how do you make this motion with -- with all the changes that's happened. Accept
Brighton's request, modify versus your memorandum that you put together, plus the
other conditions? Is that how we need to kind of phrase this?
Allen: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, I would refer to the memo from
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 69 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 67 of 72
staff --
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: -- and if there is any changes that you want to make from that document, state
them on the record.
Yearsley: Okay. So, your memo from -- your memo includes Brighton's request to
make that change; is that correct? On the -- the -- the future land use designation
change.
Allen: Yes.
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: Yes.
Yearsley: And then --
Allen: My memo reflects the -- the applicant's change to commercial and how that
impacts the staff report, so --
Yearsley: Okay.
Allen: You have it there before you if you would like to reference it.
Yearsley: Okay.
McCarvel: Yeah. And I think the thing we do need to reference in the motion that
think we were -- everybody was in agreement, if this were to go through -- is Section B,
the -- B, the fuel -- fuel sales facility staying where it's at.
Yearsley: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Yearsley.
Yearsley: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0004 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, with the following modifications: To
accept changes to the staff report per Planning and Zoning's memorandum, dated
March 1st, 2018, with the removal of Section -- Section B to shift the fuel sales to the
corner -- off the corner and to leave the fuel where it's at.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve item number -- recommend
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 70 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 68 of 72
approval to Item number H-2018-0004, Lost Rapids. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed.
Cassinelli: Nay.
Perreault: Nay.
McCarvel: Motion carries:
MOTION CARRIED: FIVE AYES. TWO NAYS.
D. 2018 UDC Text Amendment (H-2018-0011) By City of Meridian
Planning Division
Request: A Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC
Pertaining to Uses Allowed in Table 11-2A-2; Standards for
Portable Signs; Daycare Facility Specific Use Standards;
Provisions to Allow Multi -Family Private Open Space
Standards to be Eligible for Alternative Compliance AND
Modify the Subdivision Street Names Standards to Align with
Newly Adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and
Addressing Number Code
McCarvel: We do still have more meeting to get through, so if we could -- if you would
be quiet as you exit. At this time we would like to open the public hearing for Item H-
2018-0011 -- no. Item H-2018-0011, the 2018 UDC text amendment. And in just a
moment well begin with the staff report.
Parsons: Where did everybody go? Are we ready?
McCarvel: We are ready.
Parsons: All right. Well, at least a couple of members stayed in the audience, so I do
appreciate them sticking around. So, let's kind of wrap up this evening on a positive
note and we will get through the last item and get you guys out of here, so you get
home to your families. So, the last item on the agenda this evening is the 2018 UDC
text amendment application. Again, this is citywide. So, these -- the application before
you this evening really is -- a lot of them are primarily clean-up items. You have my
staff report, but there are a couple that I do want to touch bases with you on tonight, just
to kind of loop in and let you know where we transpired on some of these and how they
have come about. So, in my presentation to you this evening I have some of these
strike out underlying changes of those modifications to the UDC here and I would let
you know that we did send -- as in the past we have always informed you that we do
have a UDC focus group and we tend to circulate this information to them, along with
the BCA, which is the Building Association of Southwest Idaho. Because these are
minor changes this evening before you, I did send out the changes to the -- to those two
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 71 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 69 of 72
groups. Received e-mails from two members, one from Becky McKay and the other
from Cornell Larsen. Cornell didn't have any issues with the changes before you this
evening and Becky had inquired about some of the changes that we were proposing to
the reduction in the balcony private open space requirements for the multi- family
development. So, I answered her questions and told her that she needed to refer her to
the alternative compliance section and that would help explain what the changes are
moving forward. So, I just wanted to at least go on record and let you know we -- we
didn't receive anything formally from those groups, but we did have two members reach
out and say they were -- they were okay with the changes this evening. And so in -- in
going through the first slide here you can see -- currently we do not -- and I think this
Commission has seen a lot of changes over the last -- a lot of daycares from people in
the last couple of months, with daycare groups in particular and currently the way the
code is written those aren't allowed in the R-4 zoning district. So, now we are proposing
with this change that we allow those as a conditional use in the R-4 zoning district to
kind of marry up with what's allowed in the R-8 and R-15 zones. The next item is
portable signs. Currently in our downtown area business owners are allowed to have
those, but it was tied to a specific use and you can see here in the strikeout version only
a retail use, a restaurant use, a drinking establishment and a personal service use could
take advantage of getting a portable sign. A lot of the business owners downtown were
upset with that code change. We conferred with our Legal Department and we realized
that that may be illegal, so we just had -- it would -- to avoid some lawsuits in the future
we probably should remove that from code. Keep in mind that portable signs aren't
allowed throughout any other zoning district but the Old Town zoning district and that is
not changing. So, only in the Old Town zone are you allowed to have a portable sign
with this proposed change. Next page. I probably won't spend a lot of time on this. It's
just more of a clean-up. Currently when you want a daycare facility within the City of
Meridian, typically Planning and Zoning can't allow them to get occupancy -- or allow
them to even get their certificate zoning compliance until we have confirmation of their
background check and that seems to kind of bog down the process for people who want
to start a business for daycare. So, this particular change has cleaned it up, so it
pushes it down the road that prior to us giving them occupancy we want to make sure
that that process is completed. Next item is one that came before you a couple months
ago with the TM Creek project and at that particular time the applicant came forward
with a UDC text amendment for the TM Creek Apartments. At that time the applicant
was proposing to change the multi -family specific us standards to change the -- the
patio requirement from 80 square feet to 60 square feet. At that time, as we went
through that public hearing process, we realized that staff realized -- in working with the
applicant we realized that we didn't want to make that 60 square foot requirement
across every multi -family project, we wanted to make sure that it's -- if we were going to
do that that would do it or allow it through what we call an alternative compliance
process. So, basically, saying we will look at that on a case-by-case basis and
determine whether or not that development is in the right context to allow for smaller
patio or less private open space. In advice with our attorney, because it wasn't noticed
the correct way, moving it from -- it being part of the multi -family standards to it
becoming an alternative compliance standard, legal felt we should go back through that
process and bring this forward to you with the correct change and that's really what this
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 72 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 70 of 72
is this evening. So, basically, Council gave us -- the developers a blessing to move
forward with that change, but now it's on staff to come back and bring that for you --
before you and share it with you, that we are, in fact, making that change based on the
direction and I think this Commission supported it and also the one that Council
ultimately gave us the direction to do. So, that's -- what this basically does -- it says,
yes, we'll look at this, but you have to go through the alternative compliance process.
So, to make it very simple, all multi -family development still have to provide that 80
square feet of private open space, unless they seek alternative compliance. And, again,
that would be a director's level decision alternative compliance. So, this slide and the
next change -- again, just kind of marry the two up and ties this private use -- usable
open space standard to the alternative compliance section and under that section you
have to meet certain criteria and certain findings in order to grant that exception to that
standard. Again, that would be director level. And, then, the last item that I want to
touch bases with you is -- and you're pretty familiar with this, but recently City Council
just approved a street naming ordinance -- a new code, essentially, and so what this
last slide does it marries that UDC document with that newly adopted document by the
Council. So, just what -- FYI, for your information, street name changes, if there are
appeals or any issues with that, they will be coming before you for a recommend -- or
for approval.
Fitzgerald: And we have final or the City Council?
Parsons: Yes, you would have final approval. And, Andrea, if you would like to chime
in or add anything to this, I would open it up to you, but --
Pogue: No. This is -- this is just a clean up.
Parsons: It was a clean up. And so other than that -- other than the two -- applicant or
two -- group members, they gave me comments, staff did not receive any additional
information -- or any additional comments on this application. I will conclude my
presentation and stand for any questions you may have.
McCarvel: Okay. Any questions for staff?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli.
Cassinelli: Bill, on the -- allowing daycare in an R-4, typically R-4 is going to have larger
homes, therefore, in daycare you have more capacity and that, more traffic. Was that
-- was that considered? Could that potentially be an issue or is that just something we
will take on a case-by-case basis with -- with the application?
Parsons: Madam Chair, Members of the Commission, there is a lot of things to
consider here. In our code we have three different daycares that you can apply for and
that's what you see on -- in that table. So, we have a daycare family, which is six or
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 73 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 71 of 72
fewer. We have a daycare group, which is between seven and 12. And, then, we have
a full blown daycare center, which is a commercial business. If you look at this graphic
here, you can see -- you can actually have a daycare center in an R-4 district through a
conditional use permit. So, you can have a commercial business in an R-4 zone, which
makes sense. Now, the other interesting piece here is -- is how the building code plays
into this. Under our current buildings -- the adopted building codes that we have in
effect in the City of Meridian, a single family home still is considered -- you can have up
to 12 kids in a daycare center in a residential neighborhood or in a home and still be
considered a single family residence. There is no need for you to change your
occupancy from a residential status to a commercial status. So, this allows you to kind
of stay within what the building code allows without changing occupancy, but the other
reason why we are taking this into consider is just for what you said, you get a bigger
lot, so you have the ability to possibly watch more children, but you have more area in
your backyard to do that. You will have -- I don't want to say you will have a bigger
home. In Meridian these days you seem to have a bigger home on an R-4 lot than you
are in an R-8 lot. You have a bigger garage, more parking. By leaving it a conditional
use permit, again, that gives you the ability to say whether or not 12 is an appropriate in
a neighborhood based on the public coming and testifying on an application. I know the
recent ones that you guys have made recommendations on, some of them you agreed
with the 12 and others you capped it at eight, because you didn't feel they had adequate
parking or you thought it was a disruption to the neighborhood. So, that still gives you
that level of scrutiny, but that's kind of staff's rationale why is it good in an R-8 zone, but
why are we limiting it in the R-4 zone. And, really, there really isn't much difference
between a residential district and our eyes, so why not just open it up. We have sent a
lot of neighbors -- or a lot of customers that come to the counter, they have applied for
six and they want the ability to go 12. So, we told them we were going to process this
change and move forward and maybe see more of these if -- if you support this change,
but, again, if you don't like it you can certainly make that recommendation to City
Council and we can remove that from this round of the UDC changes.
Perreault: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Cassinelli -- Perreault.
Perreault: So, if I'm understanding this correctly, currently the daycare family is permit
-- or they would apply for a conditional use permit, but not the daycare group in the R-4
zone?
Parsons: The daycare family requires an accessory use permit, which still requires a
neighborhood meeting, but it only requires them to notice the property that's a hundred
foot radius and with a conditional use permit you have to go out 300 feet.
Perreault: Okay. Oh, I see.
Parsons: It's just an administrative process. It doesn't require a public hearing, but it
still requires them to hold a neighborhood meeting and inform the neighbors.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 74 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 72 of 72
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I just want to know if I can start naming streets in -- oh, sorry.
Wilson: Ryan Way. Ryan Street. Fitzgerald Boulevard.
Perrault: Madam Chair, I have another question for staff.
McCarvel: Absolutely. No more from Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Perreault: Is there a concern with -- with the portable signs in Old Town, that it will -- I
mean just if everybody sticks a sign out on the sidewalk, one business after the other
after the other after the other -- I mean that becomes a situation where it's intrusive to
pedestrian access. Is that a concern? I mean am I way off base on --
Parsons: Yes and no. The good thing about a portable sign is that you can take it in
and out during the day. That's why it's portable. Right? You move it in and out. In our
downtown area if you would ever look at a map in our GIS system, a lot of the buildings
are right up to ACHD right of way, so even though the sidewalks are part of ACHD right
of ways and so a few years ago the city went through a process and we entered into a
master license agreement with ACHD to allow for pedestrian activities to happen within
the right of way and we control that through what we call a use -- it's a use permit in the
right of way. Those signs have to remain outside of the pedestrian zone. So, they --
they have to -- again, that's the thing is you can move them and they don't -- they are
not permanent. They are considered a permanent sign, but they are in and out -- going
in and out every day. So, yes, that has been addressed under a different process.
That's a different section of code that we use to apply those rules.
McCarvel: Any other questions? Besides Commissioner Fitzgerald. Okay. We had a
few people sign up for this for public testimony, but I think that they thought they were
signing up for Lost Rapids. So, is there anyone here that wants to testify on this
application?
Fitzgerald: Commissioner Zaremba wants to talk. No.
McCarvel: I thought I told you to be quiet. All right.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair, I move we close the public hearing on H-2018-0011.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: Do we need to approve this formally or -- yeah. How about a different
motion.
Fitzgerald: We have to close the public hearing first.
McCarvel: Oh, close the public hearing. Okay. It has been moved and seconded to
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda April 5, 2018 — Page 75 of 161
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
March 1, 2018
Page 73 of 72
close the public hearing on H-2018-0011. All those in favor say aye. Oppose? Motion
carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Fitzgerald: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Fitzgerald.
Fitzgerald: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to
recommend approval to City Council of file number H-2018-0011 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date of March 1 st, 2018.
Wilson: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to recommended approval for H-2018-
0011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES.
Wilson: Madam Chair?
McCarvel: Commissioner Wilson.
Wilson: I move to adjourn for the evening.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries. Good night.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:15 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
APPROVED
RHdNDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
¢PIED A1UG,
ATT T: �so '•yam
r ,t City of
InnTnTAN
C. -JAY CPLES - CITY CLERK`./Yi 1�
SEAL
ern P
F O
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018
MAO -A
Agenda Item Number: 2
. ................. . . . .
Project/File Number: q
Item Title: Adoption of Agenda
Meetina Notes
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018
Agenda Item Number: 3A
Project/File Number:
Item Title: APPROVE MINUTES — FEBRUARY 15, 2018
I�alhn�
J
Approve Minutes of the February 15, 2018 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting
c✓
Meetina Notes
Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission
February 15, 2018
Page 76 of 76
Fitzgerald: Second.
Cassinelli: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to approve file H-2018-0001, Pine 43. All
-- with one modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
McCarvel: And since we have outlived the circulation in the room, can I get one more
motion?
Cassinelli: Madam Chair, I move to dismiss -- to --
McCarvel: To adjourn.
Cassinelli: Adjourn.
McCarvel: Would you like to adjourn? Would you like to go home?
Fitzgerald: Second.
McCarvel: It has been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed? Motion carries.
MOTION CARRIED: SIX AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:01 P.M.
(AUDIO RECORDING ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
AP�iH
EROVED
NDA McCARVEL - CHAIRMAN DATE APPROVED
ATTEST:
z Chy
JAY IPLES - CITY CLERK 1100,140
i SEAL- �Q
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018
--- .__.-_.......... _... --- __ ....... ......... . _ ... .._ -- .._..._._..----
Agenda Item Number: 3B
Project/File Number: H-2018-0001
Item Title: FFCL PINE 43 APARTMENTS
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Pine 43 Apartments (H-2018-0001) by Pine
Development Partners, LLC Located North of East Pine Avenue and East of North Locust
Grove Road.
Meeting Notes
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 81 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 82 of 227
s-�
By action of the Planning & Zoning Commission. at its regular meeting held on the I . day of
NAG rrh , 2018.
COMMISSIONER RHONDA MCCARVEL, CHAIRMAN VOTED
COMMISSIONER RYAN FITZGERALD, VICE CHAIRMAN VOTED 1 " 7 C
COMMISSIONER STEVEN YEARSLEY VOTED_
COMMISSIONER GREGORY WILSON VOTED
COMMISSIONER LISA HOLLAND VOTED
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM CASSINELLI VOTED
COMMISSIONER JESSICA PERREAULT VOTED
A evz,-� -
Rho da McCarvel, Chairman
�QoRp,TEDgv � l
Attest:
2L .s
(11y of
r E IDIAM-
�IOAHO
y Coles `'ty ClerkO_ SEAL
n
Copy serveM upon the Applicant, the Planning and Development Services divisions of the Community
Development Department, the Public Works Department and the City Attorney.
By: 0"4Dated:
Ci Clerk's Office
3-1-18
CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER
CASE NO(S). H-2018-0001
Page 3
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 84 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 85 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 86 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 87 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 88 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 89 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 90 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 91 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 92 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 93 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 94 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 95 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 96 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 97 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 98 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 99 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 100 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 101 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 102 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 103 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 104 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 105 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 106 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 107 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 108 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 109 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 110 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 111 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 112 of 227
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018
Agenda Item Number:
Project/File Number: H-2017-0154
Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING LASKEN ANNEXATION
by Thomas H. Lasken, Located at 721 E Pine
Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 0.99 of an Acres of Land with an R-2 Zoning
District
Meeting Notes
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2017-0154
LASKEN ANNEXATION
Please print your name I For I Against I Neutral Do you wish
to testifv (Y/N)
Changes to Agenda: None
Item #8F: Lasken Annexation (H-2017-0154)
Application(s):
Annexation
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of 0.99 of an acre of land, zoned RUT, located at 721 E. Pine
Avenue, in the NE ¼ of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East.
History: None
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MU-C (Mixed-Use Community)
Summary of Request: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designation for the property is Mixed-Use Community. The
applicant requests annexation to hook-up the existing home and outbuildings to City water and sewer service.
This site is comprised of 0.99 of an acre of land zoned RUT in Ada County. The applicant proposes to annex the property with an R-2
zoning district. Staff anticipates this property to be developed as a larger mixed use project but feels that the zoning given to the
property should match existing conditions. In order to develop further, this property will need to be rezoned.
The applicant is requesting annexation because it is an opportune time to acquire sewer service for the property since Pine Avenue will
be reconstructed.
Staff recommends the property is zoned R-2 consistent with the existing and continued residential use of the property. When a change
in use or redevelopment of the site occurs, the applicant should rezone the property to a commercial or high density district consistent
with the FLUM at that time. The City has the ability to require a development agreement but in this case we are not. This parcel is part
of a larger mixed used area, the parcel is small and other properties need to be consolidated to develop a well-integrated mixed-use
development in the area.
City water & sewer service: Applicant shall be required to connect to the new sanitary sewer mainline in E. Pine Avenue when it
becomes available.
Access: The site currently takes access from E. Pine Avenue; however, upon redevelopment or a change in use of the site, access via
Pine shall be prohibited in accord with UDC 11-3A-3A, unless otherwise waived by City Council and approved by ACHD.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor:
ii. In opposition:
iii. Commenting:
iv. Written testimony:
v. Key Issue(s):
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)]
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-
2017-0154, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1, 2018, 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-
0154, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2017-0154 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following
reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance)
Item #8G: Lost Rapids (H-2018-0003)
Application(s):
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM
Annexation & Zoning
Preliminary Plat
Variance
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of approximately 69 acres of land, zoned RUT in Ada County,
located at the SWC of SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. & N. Ten Mile Rd.
History: In 2008, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan FLUM was approved to change the future land use designation on the
14.57 acres of land at the NEC of this site from MDR to MU-C.
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: MDR (52 acres) & MU-C (14.57 acres)
Summary of Request: The applicant submitted a request for an amendment to the FLUM contained in the Comp Plan to change the
land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from MDR (61.83 acres) & MU-C (16.5 acres) to MU-R. The staff report
includes analysis and conditions of approval based on this request.
Since the staff report was issued, staff met with the Applicants to discuss recommended changes to the concept plan, which were fairly
substantial, in order to be consistent with the Comp Plan for the requested MU-R designation. Without these changes, the proposed
development plan is more consistent with the Commercial designation. The Applicant communicated to staff they’d prefer to develop
the site consistent with the proposed concept plan without significant changes. Therefore, both Staff and the Applicants agreed a
Commercial designation is more appropriate for the eastern portion of this site where the commercial & multi-family residential uses are
proposed (i.e. the preliminary plat area); the remainder of the site would remain under the current Medium Density Residential
designation. The Applicant submitted a letter to the City requesting this change (no changes were made to the zoning or other
components of the application). Staff updated the conditions in the staff report accordingly and the Commission recommendation was
based on this change.
Annexation & zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and C-G (32.83 acres) zoning districts is
requested consistent with the existing MDR and proposed Commercial FLUM designations. A conceptual development plan was
submitted that demonstrates how the site is proposed to develop with a mix of SFR detached & attached age-qualified units at a gross
density of 5 to 8 units/acre on the western portion of the site; a very large (168,652+/- s.f.) big box retail building (i.e. Costco) internal to
the development; a fuel sales facility for Costco at the NEC of the site; (10) commercial/retail/restaurant/office pad sites adjacent to the
state highway & Ten Mile Rd.; and a MFR development consisting of 109+/- townhome- and garden-style units in 9 structures at a
gross density of 18-24 units/acre south of the Costco site adjacent to Lost Rapids Dr. with a clubhouse and swimming pool. Conceptual
building elevations (photos & renderings) were submitted that demonstrate the general style of development proposed for the site. All
structures on the site, except SFR detached, are required to comply with the design standards in the ASM.
A preliminary plat is proposed consisting of 1 residential building lot, 13 commercial building lots & 1 other lot for dedication of ROW on
36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 & C-G zoning districts. The applicant requests that they be allowed two (2) building
permits for the construction of the Costco store and associated fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the subdivision plat.
Staff/Commission is amenable to this request per the DA (#1.1b.4).
Two (2) driveway accesses are proposed via US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. a state highway; (1) driveway access is proposed via N. Ten
Mile Rd., an arterial street, between Lost Rapids & Chinden Blvd.; and two (2) accesses are proposed via Lost Rapids Dr., a collector
street. New approaches directly accessing a state highway are prohibited by the UDC; the applicant requests a variance to this
standard. ITD submitted a letter to the City stating they will approve the proposed accesses via the state highway w/the improvements
and spacing outlined in the letter.
Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the following improvements are required to be
completed: SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5
miles); N. Ten Mile Rd. shall be widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals shall be installed at N. Black
Cat Rd. and W. Lost Rapids Dr.
Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for Costco, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4)
lanes from N. Tree Farm Way to SH-16 (1.44 miles).
The applicant’s narrative states that primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors will be from the driveway
access via Ten Mile Road. A driveway via Lost Rapids Dr. is also available when access via the traffic signal at Ten M ile/Lost Rapids is
needed. A self- imposed restriction is proposed by the applicant for a “no thru truck traffic” sign to be installed between the Tree Farm
Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access.
Improvements to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile Road are planned as follows:
Phase 1: Chinden is to be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); Ten Mile
widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals at Black Cat Rd. and Lost Rapids Dr. prior to
Costco opening.
Phase 2: Chinden widened to 4 lanes from Tree Farm to SH 16 (1.44 miles) within 2 years of Costco opening. (paid for by
Costco & reimbursed under the STARs agreement)
In addition, Costco and the other commercial uses and residential units will pay impact fees in excess of $2 million to ACHD for
local street system improvements.
The street sections shown on the plat depict Chinden widened to 4 travel lanes with 2 turn lanes within 140 feet of right-of-way; and N.
Ten Mile Road widened to 5 lanes. The letter states that the westernmost access via US 20-26 (1,160’ west of the US 20-26/Ten Mile
intersection) will be allowed as a temporary right-in/right-out/left-in until such time as the highway is widened to 3 lanes in the
eastbound direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane will be required. The driveway
nearest the intersection (545’ east of the previous access and 615’ west of the intersection) will be allowed as a right-in/right-out; a 550’
long deceleration lane (including taper) is required, however, due to the distance restriction between accesses, ITD may allo w for a
10% decrease of the standard requirement.
The MFR development will require approval of a CUP in the R-40 zoning district.
Commission Recommendation: Approval
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation; Brian Whelan (site selector); Peter Kahn, Costco; Andy Daleiden, Principal
Engineer, Kittelson & Associates; Don Petersik; Amy Cuhaclyan; Mike Dunlap; Roger Nielson; David Zaremba; Michael
Morrette; David Turnbull; Trevor Gasser.
ii. In opposition: Tom McNeil; Denise LaFever; Edward Simon; Robert Neufeld; David Reyes; Andrea Carroll (Attorney
representing a group of residents in Bainbridge & Spurwing Subdivisions); Ken Marshall; Shelley Lupher; Jane Albert; Robert
Friedlein; Sue Fillman; Bob Rock; Megan Rock; Kim Miles; Dirk Minatre; Jerry Stevenson; Terri Dawson; Sally Reynolds; Paige
Winter; Kevin Dennison.
iii. Commenting: None
iv. Written testimony: Mike Wardle, Brighton Corporation; and many letters of testimony (for and against) have been received – see
project file in the public record.
Key Issues of Public Testimony:
i. In favor of a Costco in this location and opinion that they are a good neighbor and will provide great economic opportunities for
the City and good paying jobs for area residents;
ii. Negative impact of Costco on quality of life (i.e. noise created from delivery trucks, idling of engines at the fuel facility, hours of
operation, increased density and intensity of land use) for area residents.
iii. Concern related to traffic impacts from the proposed development and access restrictions from the state highway and already
heavy traffic on SH-20/26; access constrained location with inadequate ingress/egress access points; unsafe pedestrian
connections within the proposed development; lack of safe access for the Keith Bird Legacy Park.
iv. Increased noise (i.e. roof top ventilation systems, power equipment used to maintain property, mechanical equipment, loading &
unloading delivery trucks, back-up beepers, generators and refrigeration equipment) and air pollution from the site; excessive
lighting generated from the site resulting in increased night sky light pollution; generation of hazardous material such as
petroleum and contaminants from brake and tire wear which leads to runoff into groundwater; large impermeable surfaces of the
parking lots; incompatible architecture of the industrial sized building and adjacent strip malls to the existing neighborhoods.
v. Against proposed change to Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential;
vi. Positive impact to the local economy from having Costco locate here; will also generate business for other
retailers/restaurants/services in the area; and will contribute to the balance and what is available for shopping and employment
in Meridian.
vii. The provision of much needed infrastructure in this area with the approval of this development without having to wait for funding
for these improvements (i.e. road widening, intersection improvements, etc.).
viii. Opinion that this site isn’t a good fit for a Costco; preference for it to be located at the SH-16/Chinden intersection to the west
instead of this property.
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i. The Applicant’s request to change their request for an amendment to the future land use map from all Mixed Use – Regional to
the eastern 32.83 acres of the site as Commercial and the remaining area staying Medium Density Residential as is currently;
ii. The traffic impact from the proposed development on adjacent streets and SH-20/26;
iii. Impact on quality of life for area residents;
iv. The location of the fuel facility and staff’s recommendation for it to be shifted from the corner;
v. Feeling that the size of buildings allowed in the current MU-C designation (i.e. 30,000 square feet) is a big jump to the proposed
Commercial designation which has no size restrictions, which will allow the proposed 168,652 square foot building.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i. Approved Staff’s recommended changes to the conditions of approval in Exhibit B as noted in the memo to Mayor & Council
from Staff dated March 1, 2018.
ii. Removed condition #1b which required the fuel facility to be shifted off the corner to the south.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i. Staff recommends DA provision #1.1b.16 is modified to add the language: Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the Costco Wholesale building, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4) lanes from N. Tree Farm
Way to SH-16 (1.44 miles) if right-of-way can be obtained.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: Many letters of public testimony have been received since the Commission hearing
–see the project file in the public record
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number H-2018-0003, as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of April 3, 2018: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number H-2018-0003, as presented during the
hearing on April 3, 2018, for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2018-0003 to the hearing date of April 3, 2018 for the following reason(s): (You should state
specific reason(s) for continuance.)
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
Z
o
n
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
M
e
e
t
i
n
g
Ma
r
c
h
1
,
2
0
1
8
Sl
i
d
e
1
h2
Ag
e
n
d
a
I
t
e
m
N
u
m
b
e
r
s
/
O
r
d
e
r
:
ho
o
d
c
,
1
2
/
1
9
/
2
0
0
6
It
e
m
#
4
A
:
L
a
s
k
e
n
A
n
n
e
x
a
t
i
o
n
Vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
/
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
It
e
m
#
4
B
:
B
a
r
a
y
a
A
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
l
a
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
It
e
m
#
4
C
:
L
o
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
–
V
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
/
Z
o
n
i
n
g
&
A
e
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
Ownership
Or
i
g
i
n
a
l
Re
q
u
e
s
t
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Ch
a
n
g
e
Co
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
fo
r
M
u
l
t
i
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
P
l
a
t
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
P
l
a
n
Changes to Agenda: [if applicable]
Item #[#]: Oaks West Subdivision - ([file #])
Application(s):
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general
location].
History: [details]
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details]
Summary of Request: [details]
Commission Recommendation: [approval/denial]
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
i. In favor:
ii. In opposition:
iii. Commenting:
iv. Written testimony:
v. Key Issue(s):
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
i.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
i.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)]
Include Bruce’s requested changes per his memo:
VI. LAND USE
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: A sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject site
currently exists in W. Quintale Drive. Service is via a lift station that is located within this
proposed development.
b. Location of water: A water main intended to provide service to the subject site currently exists
in W. Quintale Drive and in W. McMillan Road.
c. Issues or concerns: Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through
the proposed development, including the water mainline extension along the project frontage
in W. McMillan and McDermott Roads from W. Quintale Drive to the south boundary line
extended.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
2.1.3 Applicant shall be responsible for the extension of utilities to and through the proposed
development, including the water mainline extension along the project frontage in McMillan
McDermott Road from W. Quintale Drive to the south boundary line extended.
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of [date]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number [#], as presented during the hearing on
[date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for
continuance.)
Item #[#]: [Project name] ([file #])
Application(s):
Size of property, existing zoning, and location: This site consists of [#] acres of land, zoned [district], located at [address/general
location].
History: [details]
Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: [details]
Summary of Request: [details]
Commission Recommendation: [approval/denial]
Summary of Commission Public Hearing:
vi. In favor:
vii. In opposition:
viii. Commenting:
ix. Written testimony:
x. Key Issue(s):
Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission:
ii.
Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation:
ii.
Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council:
i.
Written Testimony since Commission Hearing: [name(s)] - [issue(s)]
Notes:
Possible Motions:
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number [#], as presented in the staff report for the
hearing date of [date]: (Add any proposed modifications to conditions)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Number [#], as presented during the hearing on
[date], for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number [#] to the hearing date of [date] for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for
continuance.)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 114 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 115 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 116 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 117 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 118 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 119 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 120 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 121 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 122 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 123 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 124 of 227
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 125 of 227
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 G
+nn
• � ; Say
----- _. -- - _ -- ---.. __...._..------------------------------------- ---- ---....._.._..--------
Agenda Item Number: 2A�nlr�n�
Project/File Number: H-2018-0003
Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING BARAYA APARTMENTS
r0
by Schultz Development, Located at the Southwest Corner of South Ten Mile Road and
West Franklin Road
1. Request: A Conditional Use Permit Consisting of 240 Multi -Family Dwelling Units on
Approximately 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District
2. Request: A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 13 Multi -Family Building Lots and 3 Common
Lots on 12.59 Acres in an Existing R-40 Zoning District
Meetina Notes
1b
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2018-0003
BARAYA APARTMENTS
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
<
a.4A- cA u-1- f -e2_-
.
4
_
-Joe
-� -
A,)0
CANIa-I'S
Po
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: March 1, 2018
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Josh Beach, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: Baraya Apartments – CUP, PP (H-2018-0003)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, Schultz Development, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) for a multi-family development consisting of 240 dwelling units in an R-40 zoning district;
and Preliminary Plat (PP) consisting of 13 building lots and 3 common lots on 12.59 acres of land.
See Section IX of the staff report for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP, and PP applications in accord with the conditions
of approval in Exhibit B and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit C.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of File Number H-2018-0003, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1,
2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications).
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City
Council of File Number H-2018-0003, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2018-0003 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The site is located in the northeast ¼ of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. (Parcel #:
S1215120850)
B. Applicant/Representative(s):
Schultz Development
P.O. Box 1115
Meridian, ID 83680
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 127 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 2
C. Owner:
Endurance Holdings, LLC
1977 E. Overland Road
Meridian, ID 83642
D. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a conditional use permit and preliminary plat. A public hearing is
required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on these applications,
consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11, Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 2, 2018
D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: February 16, 2018
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of vacant commercial property, zoned C-G.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: W. Franklin Road and Ten Mile Christian Chuirch, Zoned C-N.
2. East: Undeveloped property, zoned RUT in Ada County.
3. South: undeveloped commercial property, zoned C-C.
4. West: Undeveloped residential property, zoned R-15.
C. History of Previous Actions: This property was annexed and granted preliminary plat in 2006 as
Baraya Subdivision (AZ-06-061, PP-06-062, DA Inst. # 107123289).
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: Sanitary sewer mains intended to provide service to the subject site
currently exist in W. Franklin Road. The applicant will need to extend the sewer to the
subject site.
b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently
exist in W. Franklin Road. The applicant will need to extend the water to the subject site.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: There are no open waterways on this site.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this site.
3. Flood Plain: This site does not lie within the floodplain overlay district.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
The subject property is designated High Density Residential (HDR) on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM) contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of this designation is to allow for the
development of multi-family homes in areas where urban services are provided. Residential gross
densities may exceed fifteen dwelling units per acre. Development might include duplexes, apartment
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 128 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 3
buildings, townhouses, and other multi-unit structures. A desirable project would consider the
placement of parking areas, fences, berms, and other landscaping features to serve as buffers between
neighboring uses. Developments need to incorporate high quality architectural design and materials
and thoughtful site design to ensure quality of place and should also incorporate high quality
architectural design and materials and thoughtful site design that incorporate connectivity with
adjacent uses and area pathways, attractive landscaping and individual project identity.
The applicant proposes to develop the site with 240 dwelling at a gross density of 19.06 units/acre.
This land use anticipates densities greater than 15 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant is also proposing 23.6% open space for the project, or 2.97 acres of land.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: 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):
“Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the
purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E)
The proposed multi-family residential development will contribute to the variety of residential
uses that currently exist in this area (i.e. low and medium density). Staff is unaware of how
“affordable” the units will be.
“Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D)
Because of its location in close proximity to the Ten Mile Interchange (which is rapidly
developing), as well as major transportation corridors (I-84 and Ten Mile Road), this
property is ideal for providing higher density housing options.
“Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other
permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access
thoroughfares.” (3.07.02N)
The proposed multi-family development is located in close proximity to major access
thoroughfares (i.e. I-84 and Ten Mile Road Road) within the City.
“Require all new and reconstructed parking lots to provide landscaping in internal islands and
along streets.” (2.01.04B)
Landscaping is proposed within planter islands in the parking areas on this site as shown on
the landscape plan attached in Exhibit A.4.
“Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time
of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F)
Urban services can be provided to this property upon development.
“Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.”
(3.07.01D)
Few of the major employment areas within the City are adequately supported with enough
housing options. Density near employment centers allow for workforce housing and promote
community resiliency, potentially reducing commute times and expenses, and allowing for
increased community and economic engagement.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 129 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 4
“Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family, modular, mobile homes and
multi-family arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all
income groups in a variety of locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B)
The development of multi-family homes on this site will contribute to the variety of housing
types available in this part of the City.
“Consistent with the Transportation and Land Use Integration Plan, require all new
residential neighborhoods to provide sidewalks, curb and gutters, and complete streets.”
(3.07.02B)
Curb, gutter and sidewalks will be required to be constructed along the entire frontage of this
property as part of the development.
“Elevate quality of design for houses and apartments; evaluate the need for design review
guidelines for single-family homes.” (3.07.02O)
The multi-family structures within the proposed development will be subject to the design
standards in UDC 11-3A-19 and the guidelines in the Architectural Standards Manual.
Further refinement to the design of these structures is required in order for the project to
meet the design review requirements.
“Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A)
This multi-family development is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27. The landscape
plan indicates that approximately 23.6% of the development is landscaped, The site appears
to meet the requirements of the UDC and to have provided the 23.6%.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
A. Purpose Statement of Zone: Per UDC 11-2A-1, the purpose of the residential districts is to
provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan.
Residential districts are distinguished by the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and
housing types that can be accommodated.
B. Schedule of Use: Unified Development Code (UDC) Table 11-2A-8 lists the principal permitted
(P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and prohibited (-) uses in the R-40 zoning district. Any use
not explicitly listed, or listed as a prohibited use is prohibited. The proposed use of the site for
multi-family dwellings is a conditional use in the R-40 zoning district.
D. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district.
E. Landscaping Standards (UDC 11-3B): The standards for landscaping contained in UDC 11-3B
apply to development of this site.
F. Common Open Space & Site Amenity Requirements: Common open space and site amenities are
required to be provided on the site in accord with the requirements listed in UDC 11-3G-3; 11-4-
3-27C; and11-4-3-27D.
G. Structure and Site Design Standards: The proposed multi-family development must comply with
the design standards in accord with UDC 11-3A-19 and the Architectural Standards Manual.
H. Parking Standards: UDC 11-3C-6A requires off-street vehicle parking to be provided on the site.
For one bedroom units, 1.5 vehicle parking spaces are required per dwelling unit; at least one in a
covered carport or garage. For 2-3 bedroom units, 2 parking spaces; at least one in a covered
carport or garage.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 130 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 5
IX. ANALYSIS
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP):
A CUP is requested for a multi-family development in the R-40 zoning district as required by
UDC Table 11-2B-3.
The proposed multi-family development consists of a total of 240 dwelling units in (13) structures
on 12.59 acres of land in the R-40 zoning district. The units consist of a mix of 1, 2 and 3
bedroom units.
Specific Use Standards: The specific use standards for multi-family developments listed in UDC
11-4-3-27 apply to development of this site as follows: (Staff’s comments in italics)
A minimum of 80 square feet (s.f.) of private useable open space is required to be
provided for each unit. The floor plans submitted by the applicant indicate the required
80 square foot balcony required.
Developments with 20 units or more shall provide a property management office, a
maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location with provisions for parcel mail that
provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access and a directory map of the development
at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. The applican’t
site plan indicates a maintenance building, however the remaining items are not shown on
the site plan The site plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance
application should depict these items.
At a minimum, 250 s.f. of common open space is required for each unit containing more
than 500 s.f. and up to 1,200 s.f. of living area. All of the proposed units are between 500
and 1,200 square feet; therefore, a minimum of 60,000 square feet or 1.377 acres of
common open space are required for this development in addition to the 10 percent
required by UDC 11-3G-3 and UDC 11-4-3-27.
For multi-family developments with 75 units or more, 4 site amenities are required to be
provided with at least one from each category listed in UDC 11-4-3-27D. For
developments with more than 100 units, the decision making body shall require
additional amenities commensurate to the size of the proposed development. The
applicant proposes a swimming pool, a clubhouse with an exercise room, a 50’ x 100’
open grassy area, and a tot lot as amenities in compliance with UDC standards. These
amenities fall within the quality of life, open space and recreation categories as required.
Landscaping is required to comply with UDC 11-4-3-27-F. All street facing elevations
shall have landscaping along their foundation as follows: the landscaped area shall be at
least 3-feet wide and have an evergreen shrub with a minimum mature height of 24
inches for every 3 linear feet of foundation. The remainder of the area shall be landscaped
with ground cover plans. The landscape plan submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance should comply with this requirement for the sides of the structures that
face W. Franklin and N. Umbria Hills Avenue.
The development is required to record legally binding documents that state the
maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development,
including, but not limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development
features. The applicant should submit documentation of compliance with this
requirement prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 131 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 6
Parking: For multi-family developments, off-street parking is required in accord with the
standards listed in UDC Table 11-3C-6, which requires 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit with at
least one of those in a covered carport or garage. Based on (240) 1, 2- and 3-bedroom units, a
minimum of 456 parking spaces are required, 240 of which should be covered. The site plan
depicts a total of 456 spaces, 240 of which are covered,and a total of 9 additional ADA stalls
which complies with the UDC standards.
For non-residential uses such as the clubhouse, a minimum of one space is required to be
provided for every 500 square feet (s.f.) of gross floor area in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3C-6B. The applicant has indicated that the square footage of the clubhouse is
approximately 5,400 square feet, which would require an additional 11 spaces.
A minimum of one bicycle parking space for every 25 proposed vehicle spaces or portion thereof
is required to be provided on the site per UDC 11-3C-6G in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3C-5C. Based on 467 vehicle spaces proposed, a minimum of 19 bicycle spaces in
bicycle racks are required to be interspersed throughout the development. The plans
submitted with the application show 19 bicycle parking stalls.
Landscaping: Parking lot landscaping is required to be provided in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. A buffer to adjoining land uses is not required on the east and west
sides of the project because the adjacent uses are residential in nature. On the south side of the
project, however, there is existing commercial zoning that require a 25 foot landscape buffer to be
installed per UDC Table 11-2B-3, and must be landscaped in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-9. On the north side of the project alonf W. Franklin the applicant is required to
install a 25 foot landscape buffer per UDC 11-3B-7. Additionally, a 20 foot landscape buffer is
required along the N. Umbria Hills Ave. street frontage per UDC 11-3B-7.
Mitigation: The applicant is required to comply with the mitigation standards listed in UDC
11-3B-10C.5 for any existing trees 4-inch caliper or greater that are removed from the site.
Contact Elroy Huff, City Arborist (208-371-1755), prior to removal of any existing trees from
the site.
Building Elevations: Four building types are proposed for the future multi-family structures
within the development as shown in Exhibit A.5.
The architectural character of the structures shall comply with the standards listed in the City of
Meridian Architectural Standards Manual. The elevations submitted with the Certificate of
Zoning Compliance application should demonstrate compliance with those standards.
Certificate of Zoning Compliance: The applicant is required to obtain approval of a Certificate
of Zoning Compliance application for establishment of the new use and to ensure all site
improvements comply with the provisions of the UDC and the conditions in this report prior to
construction, in accord with 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 and
building design is required to be generally consistent with the elevations and site plan submitted
with this application and the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City of Meridian
Architectural Standards Manual.
B. Preliminary Plat (PP):
The proposed plat consists of 13 residential building lots and 3 common lots on 12.59 acres of
land in the R-40 zoning district. The smallest lot is 15,080 square feet (s.f.) with an average lots
size of 33,039 s.f.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 132 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 7
Dimensional Standards: Staff has reviewed the proposed plat for compliance with the
dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district. All of the lots
comply with the minimum standards. Construction of buildings on the site should comply with
the setbacks for the R-40 district.
Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3. The
proposed plat depicts one accesses for the development from W. Franklin. There will be future
access to the development once the properties to the west and south develop.
Stub Streets/Street Improvements: The collector being constructed as part of this project
(N. Umbria Hills Avenue) will be stubbed to the south property line. Other than this, there are
no stub streets proposed to adjacent properties.
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was not a requirement for this project per ACHD.
Landscaping: A 25-foot wide street buffer is required adjacent to W Franklin Road and a 20 foot
landscape buffer is required along N. Umbria Hills Avenue in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-7C A 25 foot landscape buffer is also required along the south boundary of the
property in accord with UDC 11-3B-9.
Open Space: A minimum of 10% (or 1.25 acres) of the area of the site is required to consist of
qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. The applicant has
proposed to provide 2.97 acres of qualified open space, or approximately 24%. Prior to the
Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide a detailed table indicating which areas are
included in the qualified open space calculation.
A total of 2.97 acres (or 24%) of open space is proposed consisting of common areas where
the clubhouse, swimming pool and tot lot are located, the collector landscape buffer, half
the arterial landscape buffer and miscellaneous open grassy areas that are a minimum of
20’ x 20’ in area (see Exhibit A.2).
Amenities:The applicant proposes a swimming pool, a clubhouse with an exercise room, a 50’ x
100’ open grassy area, and a tot lot as amenities. The applicant’s proposed amenities meet the
requirements for amenities per the UDC.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-17. detached sidewalks are required along N. Umbria Hilla Avenue and W.
Franklin Road per that same standard.
Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the development
in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All development is
required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved by t he City
Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in accord with
the appropriate fire district standards.
Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided
for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by the Nampa
& Meridian and Settler’s Irrigation Districts.
Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord
with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18.
Stormwater is proposed to be retained on-site in seepage beds.
In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed CUP and PP applications with the
conditions included in Exhibit B of this report in accord with the Findings contained in Exhibit C.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 133 of 227
Baraya Apartments –CUP, PP H-2018-0003 PAGE 8
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings/Other
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Proposed Site Plan (dated: 1/3/18)
3. Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18)
4. Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/8/18)
5. Proposed Building Elevations & Renderings (dated 10/17/17)
B. Agency & Department Comments
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 134 of 227
Exhibit A Page 1
A. Drawings/Other
Exhibit A.1: Zoning Map
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 135 of 227
- 2 -
Exhibit A.2: Proposed Site Plan (dated: 1/3/18)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 136 of 227
- 3 -
Exhibit A.3: Proposed Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/4/18)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 137 of 227
- 4 -
Exhibit A.4: Proposed Landscape Plan (dated: 1/8/18)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 138 of 227
- 5 -
Exhibit A.5: Proposed Building Elevations & Renderings (dated: 10/17/17
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 139 of 227
- 6 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 140 of 227
- 7 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 141 of 227
- 8 -
B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY & DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
1. PLANNING DIVISION
1.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat
1.1.1 Development of the site shall substantially comply with the preliminary plat, site plan and
building elevations included in Exhibit A, the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in
the Architectural Standards Manual, and the conditions in this report.
1.1.2 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.3, dated 01/04/18, shall be revised as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide detached sidewalks along the entire W. Franklin and N.
Umbria Hills Ave., and attached sidewalk throughout the development.
b. The trash enclosure and location should be approved by Bob Olson, Republic Services.
A detail of the trash enclosures should be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning
Compliance application(s).The trash enclosures shall also accommodate recycling
containers.
1.2 Site Specific Conditions of Approval – Conditional Use Permit
1.2.1 The developer shall comply with the specific use standards for multi-family developments
listed in UDC 11-4-3-27, including but not limited to the following:
a. The applicant shall record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and
ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including, but not
limited to, structures, parking, common areas, and other development features, per UDC
11-4-3-27G. A recorded copy shall be submitted to the City prior to issuance of Certificate
of Occupancy for the first structure within the development.
1.2.2 Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, the applicant shall revise the site
plan included in Exhibit A.2, dated 01/03/18, shall be modified as follows:
a. Depict a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox
location with provisions for parcel mail that provides safe pedestrian and/or vehicular
access and a directory map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for
those entering the development in accord with UDC 11-4-3-27B.7.
1.2.3 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.4, dated 01/08/2018, shall be revised as
follows:
a. Prior to the Commission hearing, the applicant shall provide a detailed landscape
table indicating which areas are included in the qualified open space calculation.
b. A minimum of 10% (or 1.25 acres) of the area of the site is required to consist of
qualified open space in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B in
addition to that required by UDC 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments (1.37
acres) for a total of 2.62 acres. In order to meet the requirements of the UDC the
applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the requirements of UDC 11-4-3-27.
1.2.4 All elevations that face W. Franklin or N. Umbria Hills shall have landscaping along their
foundations that comply with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27E.2.
1.3 General Conditions of Approval
1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC
Chapter 2 District regulations.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 142 of 227
- 9 -
1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set
forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.3.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
15, UDC 11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17.
1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J.
1.3.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I,
11-3B-8C, and Chapter 3 Article C.
1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-
7C (streets).
1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-
11C.
1.3.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or
mitigate for the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10.
1.3.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design
standards as set forth in UDC 11-3C-5C.
1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12.
1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the
standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C.
1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the
guidelines set forth in the City of Meridian Standards Manual.
1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle.
1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site.
1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7
and 11-3A-6B as applicable.
1.3.18 All storm drainage areas included in the qualified open space calculations shall comply with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration.
1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval
1.4.1 The conditional use may only be transferred or modified consistent with the provisions as set forth
in UDC 11-5B-6G. The applicant shall contact Planning Division staff regarding any proposed
modification and/or transfer of ownership.
1.4.2 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a
minimum height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the
area.
1.5 Process Conditions of Approval
1.5.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the
applicant shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3
Article D and receive approval for such signs.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 143 of 227
- 10 -
1.5.2 The conditional use approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to 1) commence the use
within two years as set forth in UDC 11-5B-6F1 or 2) gain approval of a time extension as set
forth in UDC 11-5B-6F4.
1.5.3 The preliminary plat approval shall be null and void if the applicant fails to obtain City Engineer
signature on a final plat within two (2) years of approval of the preliminary plat; or, obtain
approval of a time extension as set forth in UDC 11-6B-7.
1.5.4 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design
Review application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit
application.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
2.1.1 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat application. Street light plan
requirements are listed in section 6-7 of the City's Design Standards. A copy of the standards can
be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.`
2.1.2 Continue the 12-inch water main south in S. Umbria Hills to the southern extent of the preplat,
this main was shown as 8-inch in the submitted AutoCAD file.
2.2 General Conditions of Approval
2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works
Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide
service outside of a public right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover
from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in
conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water
mains to and through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement
agreement for infrastructure enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of
way (include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a
single utility, or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but
rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The
easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed
easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho
Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must include the area of the easement (marked
EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for
review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO
NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All easements must be
submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval.
2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round
source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or
well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single -point
connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized,
the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to
prior to receiving development plan approval.
2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat
by the City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and
possible reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 144 of 227
- 11 -
2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting,
crossing or laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC
11-3A-6. In performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any
other applicable law or regulation.
2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per
City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at
(208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic
purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources
Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190.
2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance
Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and
inspections (208)375-5211.
2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated,
road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision
shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits.
2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted
fencing, landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat.
2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy
of the structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety
for such improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in
UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction
inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan
approval letter.
2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting
that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building
pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a
minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure
that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or
drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district
or ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in
accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate
of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project.
2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per
the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved
prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 145 of 227
- 12 -
requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy
of the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount
of 125% of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure
prior to final plat signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by
the owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-2211.
2.2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of
20% of the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for
duration of two years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the
owner to the City. The surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash
deposit or bond. Applicant must file an application for surety, which can be found on the
Community Development Department website. Please contact Land Development Service for
more information at 887-221.
3. POLICE DEPARTMENT
3.1 Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission the applicant shall provide a pedestrian lighting
plan.
4. FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water
quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing.
4.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in accordance
with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows:
a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz
connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4
1/2" outlet.
b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle.
c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’.
e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet.
f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept.
Standards.
g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing
buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
4.3 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any roadway greater
than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved
turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets
greater than 150' in length with no outlet.
4.3 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’ inside and 48’
outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
4.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire
Code Sections 503.4 & D103.6.
4.5 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth
in International Fire Code Section 304.1.2.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 146 of 227
- 13 -
4.6 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire
Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix C.
4.7 Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as set forth
in International Fire Code Section 506.
4.8 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth in
International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 10-4-1.
4.9 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an address
identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign
ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road
fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian
Amendment 104-4-1.
4.10 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved surface as
measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire Code Section 503.1.1.
4.11 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth in
International Fire Code Section 903.2.8.
4.12 The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC
102.9
4.13 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the International
Fire Code Appendix D Section D105.
4.14 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in
local amendment to the International Fire Code 10-4-1.
4.15 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices
installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection Standard 1141,
Section A5.2.18.
4.16 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects shall
be required to provide an additional sixty inches (60”) wide access point to the building from the
fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney operations.
The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building access is provided
in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a length of 150' fire
hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code compliant
handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the Meridian
Fire Department for details.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Coordinate with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208-345-1265) on the location and design of
trash enclosures prior to submittal of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance application.
6. PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 The Parks Department did not provide comments for this application.
7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT
7.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
7.1.1 Construct Umbria Hills Avenue as a 50-foot wide street section (back of curb to back of curb)
with two 21-foot travel lanes, two 8-foot wide center landscape islands, vertical curb, gutter, a 10-
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 147 of 227
- 14 -
foot wide landscape strip, and 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk.
7.1.2 Provide written approval from the appropriate fire department for the reduced street- section.
7.1.3 Provide a permanent right-of-way easement for any public sidewalk outside of the dedicated
right-of-way. The easement shall encompass the entire area between the right-of-way line and 2-
feet behind the back edge of the sidewalk.
7.1.4 Plat the center landscape island as right-of-way owned by ACHD. The applicant or the
homeowners association shall apply for a license agreement with ACHD if any landscaping is
proposped to be located within the islands.
7.1.5 Continue Umbria Hills Avenue, stubbing to the southern property line of the site.
7.1.6 Install a sign at the terminus of Umbria Hills Avenue stating that, “THIS IS A DESIGNATED
COLLECTOR ROADWAY. THIS STREET WILL BE EXTENDED AND WIDENDED IN
THE FUTURE.”
7.1.7 Construct a temporary cul-de-sac at the terminus of Umbria Hills Avenue. The cul-de- sac should
be paved and provide a minimum 45-foot radius.
7.1.8 Construct a 25-foot wide driveway onto Umbria Hills Avenue located 280-feet south of Snow
Canyon Drive.
7.1.9 Construct a driveway from the site onto Umbria Hills Avenue with a maximum width of 36-feet
to align with Snow Canyon Street.
7.1.10 Construct the driveways as curb returns with minimum 15 -foot radii, and pave the driveways
their full width and at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of the roadway.
7.1.11 Umbria Hills Avenue is classified as a collector roadway; direct lot access is prohibited to this
roadway and should be noted on the final plat.
7.1.12 Obtain approval by the ACHD pavement cut committee before any pavement cuts occur to this
segment of Franklin Road abutting the site.
7.1.13 A Traffic Impact Fee will be assessed by ACHD and will be due prior to issuance of a building
permit. Please contact the ACHD Planner (see below) for information regarding impact fees.
7.1.14 Plans shall be submitted to the ACHD Development Services Department for plans acceptance,
and impact fee assessment (if an assessment is applicable).
7.1.15 Comply with the Standard Conditions of Approval as noted below.
7.2 Standard Conditions of Approval
7.2.1 All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all
easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right -of-way
(including all easements).
7.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the
ACHD right-of-way.
7.2.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.6, the applicant may be required to update any existing
non-compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of
ADA compliance to District Development Review staff for review.
7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file
number) for details.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 148 of 227
- 15 -
7.2.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all
landscaping proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas.
7.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be
borne by the developer.
7.2.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way.The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The
applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days
prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic
Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during
any phase of construction.
7.2.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless app roved in writing
by the District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for
details.
7.2.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC
Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD
Standards unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall
prepare and certify all improvement plans.
7.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable
requirements of ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy.
7.2.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing
and signed by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized
representative of ACHD. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of
any change from ACHD.
7.2.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site
plan and may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any
change in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the
applicant to comply with ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time
unless a waiver/variance of the requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD
Commission.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 149 of 227
- 16 -
C. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT:
The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed conditional use in terms of the following, and may approve a conditional use permit if
they shall find evidence presented at the hearing(s) is adequate to establish:
a. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the
dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located.
Staff finds that the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet the
dimensional and development regulations of the R-40 zoning district and the specific use
standards for multi-family developments.
b. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and
in accord with the requirements of this Title.
Staff finds that the proposed multi-family residential use will be harmonious with the
Comprehensive Plan and that the density is appropriate for this site. The proposed use is in
accord with UDC requirements.
c. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other
uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of
the same area.
Staff finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-
family use will be compatible with existing residential and commercial uses in the vicinity
and with the existing and intended character of the area and will not adversely change the
character of the area. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any
public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will
adversely affect the other properties in the area.
d. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will
not adversely affect other property in the vicinity.
Staff finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the
vicinity if the applicant complies with all conditions of approval listed in Exhibit B of this
staff report and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC
standards.
e. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage
structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer.
Staff finds that sanitary sewer, domestic water and irrigation can be made available to the
subject property. Please refer to comments prepared by the Public Works Department, Fire
Department, Police Department and other agencies.
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.
Staff finds that the applicant will pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the
site. No additional capital facility costs are expected from the City. The applicant and/or
future property owners will be required to pay impact fees.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 150 of 227
- 17 -
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 that the proposed development should not involve activities that will create
nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfare of the surrounding area.
Staff recognizes the fact that traffic and noise will increase with the approval of this
development; however, whenever undeveloped property is developed, the amount of traffic
generation does increase.
h. That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural,
scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance.
Staff finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
any natural feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the
proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major
importance of which staff is unaware.
2. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the
decision-making body shall make the following findings:
a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted
Comprehensive Plan in regard to land use, transportation, and circulation. Please see
Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more
information.
b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development;
Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development.
(See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.)
c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the
City’s capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at
their own cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital
improvement funds.
d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed
development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service
providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more
detail.)
e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare;
and
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the
platting of this property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention.
ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission
and Council consider any public testimony that may be presented when determining whether
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 151 of 227
- 18 -
or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which
Staff is unaware.
f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff finds there are no significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with this
property that need to be preserved with development of this site.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 152 of 227
3 f I-ee'yvt al
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018 00
0al,u
Agenda Item Number: 2n ; pGfru� I i'
-- ........... -- - ---. _. -- — _- - __ _ __ -- ---- - - _.._. -
Project/File Number: H-2018-0004 n i 2- I
15�
Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING LOST RAPIDS '
oof"'?r +0 torner
By GFI-Meridian Investments II, LLC and Brighton Investments Located at the Southwest of
State Highway 20-26 (Chinden Blvd.) and North Ten Mile Road
1. Request: An Amendment to the Future Land Use Map Contained in the Comprehensive Plan to
Change the Land Use Designation on a Combined 78.33 Acres of Land from the Medium Density
Residential (61.83 Acres) and the Mixed Use - Community (16.50 Acres) to Mixed Use - Regional. C
2. Request: An Annexation and Zoning of 78.33 Acres of Land with R-15 (39.01) Acres), R-40 (6.50
Acres), and C -G (32.83 Acres) Zoning Districts. q
3. A Preliminary Plat Consisting of 1 Residential Building Lot, 13 Commercial Building Lots and 1 C6++ we,
Other Lot for Dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 Acres of Land in the Proposed R-40 and C -G Zoning
Districts.
4. A Variance to UDC 11 -3H -4B, Which Prohibits New Approaches Directly Accessing a State Highway
to Allow 2 Accesses Via State Highway 20-26 — C��y J�� �G}i pn
I y
Meetina Notes
Z
M 04i 0o o vaorste-y
2"
�: es
February 28 / March 1, 2018
Bainbridge North / Lost Rapids Subdivision
ACHD Commission and Meridian City
Planning & Zoning Commission Public Hearings
APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVES
Brighton Corporation Michael Wardle —12601 W Explorer Dr. #200, Boise, ID 83713
Brighton Investments David Turnbull —12601 W Explorer Dr. #200, Boise, ID 83713
GFI — Meridian Investments II Derek Gasser — 74 East 500 South #200, Bountiful, UT 84011
Trevor Gasser Same
Costco Wholesale Corporation Peter Kahn — 999 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027
Brian Whelan — 2311 W. 22nd Street #208, Oak Brook, IL 60523
Kittelson & Associates Andy Daleiden —101 S Capitol Blvd. #301, Boise, ID 83702
KM Engineering Kelly Kehrer — 9233 W State St., Boise, ID 83714
This was a Lost Rapids Sign in Page
Not 2018 UDC
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2018-0004
LOST RAPIDS/ GO _S 7-6
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
L.. �V-
�.
12
12v
iV
�
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING Z
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number: 2018-0004
Project Name: LOST RAPIDS �C 05 TC d
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
V,
1'\
1'
/U -A
y�
Al
1�Nd
A)
2
1 rv.1.VvkC\) Val
�✓i
Lp '
�0
N v
1� t
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number: 2018-0004
Project Name: LOST RAPIDS /CoS-T( 0
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
,
►� G'`' fil-, ail G
pAJ4�5,*� L
C u c
11lCV�(�21 �01
(11 v- 7,c T (_2
1�
�D
,,S
�eC77
` e -
.J L
i�.
Z° f
Xi
CQTY 0 [AiMFII, D�,,,PI
LCL A NN NI ) AND Z0NI� HC)
PU o LDC HEARING SDGWIN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2018-0004
LOST RAPIDS/ C v E T C 0
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
AJO
tA)),I)),1A4A-fZ,7
I W�) ���&NtA
Li5,41wq m,4 a
X
C La �►�� � ,�
}�
Nd
VI( SM
Y
N�
i
�� oilT0r hl! F IH�ILOLI,IAH
PUBUC IAF N GANG SIGN -W SHS FU T
Date: March 14 2018 ROM #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2018-0004
LOST RAPIDS,/( ,) S -r C 0
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
u r\
un
V/
r
C
AnIll
4,
1
6) V-
J/v
lOn 0 r�
n AA-, �1L
SIms
Ct C°
i
"c""PH T Y (-11'� VViERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONIW_ Lf
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHE v
Date: March 1, 2018 �-ger
Project Number:
Project Name:
LOST RAPIDS/ (`vS�-C o
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
?d -C -CA
r
(&vv-
SlJ L SpW/ AJ
A -i
L5O
N OGI�
Zo
/
(�a rb, ��
CITY OF ME��IDh1bx M
PLAN AND ZOMM[N-J
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number: 2018-0004
Project Name:
LOST RAPIDS/ OD -5 -TC O
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
Jac. V\_ -e_ C-
1�4 u vt 6,r6 U-eka,
X
,�
e V�
t (�-
►� UIVq
1 ah v
A�Thf)
v�� `�� C,
CITY OF MERIDIAN Q
PLANNING AND ZONING D
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number: 2018-0004
Project Name:
LOST RAPIDS
0S-7_(,0
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
/ v
ry
U ( V I' I 1
Y
'�✓{ Gr / 1 I
/�,{�
/ �' 0
' ?)vl�,�
��
�/ O'er -MVV
�'/ •=���
I
U s A S+I
X
u
NziLI
,&
d
CITY OF MERIDIAN
PLANNING AND ZONING
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
Date: March 1, 2018 Item #
Project Number:
Project Name:
2018-0004
LOST RAPIDS/ Co S-T(f O
Please print your name
For
Against
Neutral
Do you wish
to testify (Y/N)
MA
Ga
A 4fu
�J b
o�o
No
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
L
o
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
H
-
2
0
1
8
-
0
0
0
4
Ma
r
c
h
1
,
2
0
1
8
No
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
C
o
m
p
P
l
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
No
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Br
i
g
h
t
o
n
M
a
r
k
e
t
i
n
g
Th
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
c
i
t
y
s
t
a
f
f
s
h
o
ws
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
•
Is
i
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
d
f
a
i
l
s
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
ti
a
l
p
a
r
c
e
l
,
a
n
d
n
o
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
l
p
l
a
t
s
•
Fa
i
l
e
d
2
3
o
f
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
n
l
y
P
a
s
s
e
d
9
,
o
u
t
o
f
3
8
i
t
e
m
s
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
.
•
Fa
i
l
e
d
A
L
L
8
o
f
t
h
e
8
U
n
i
f
i
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
C
o
d
e
(
U
D
C
)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
•
St
a
f
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
u
s
i
n
g
“
i
f
”
,
“
w
i
l
l
b
e
”
,
a
n
d
”
w
i
t
h
c
h
a
ng
e
s
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
”
i
n
t
h
e
i
r
s
t
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
sh
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
f
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
a
s
‘
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
.
’
•
Fa
i
l
s
i
n
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
c
o
m
p
p
l
a
n
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
,
t
r
a
ff
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
a
c
c
e
s
s
,
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
f
e
t
y
,
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
in
t
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
l
i
v
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
e
t
c
.
•
Ho
w
w
a
s
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
w
i
t
h
a
6
0
%
a
n
d
1
0
0
%
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
r
a
t
e
o
n
t
h
e
ab
o
v
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
?
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
c
e
s
o
u
r
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
a
t
R
i
sk
No
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ci
t
y
S
t
a
f
f
’
s
F
i
n
a
l
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
s
t
a
t
e
s
:
“
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
on
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
w
h
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
be
t
t
e
r
s
e
r
v
e
d
b
y
a
n
M
U
-
R
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
a
n
M
U
-
C
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
me
n
t
i
n
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
,
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
s
i
z
e
o
f
t
h
e
Co
s
t
c
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
i
s
n
’
t
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
M
U
-
C
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
on
;
o
r
w
h
y
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
a
n
’
t
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
n
ar
e
a
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
M
U
-
R
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
l
o
s
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
SH
1
6
/
U
S
2
0
-
2
6
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
”
Th
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
a
d
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
l
e
s
s
v
a
l
i
d
t
h
a
n
t
h
o
s
e
th
a
t
a
r
e
i
n
f
a
v
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
m
p
l
y
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
ey
d
e
s
i
r
e
m
o
r
e
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
t
o
a
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
;
th
i
s
i
s
n
o
t
a
n
e
e
d
.
S
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
r
s
’
c
o
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
o
u
t
w
e
i
g
h
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r
s
’
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
e
a
c
e
f
u
l
en
j
o
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
.
Th
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
f
i
t
We
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
f
u
l
l
y
a
s
k
t
h
a
t
y
o
u
D
E
N
Y
t
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
fo
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
o
u
r
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
!
No
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
f
o
r
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Lo
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
/
C
o
s
t
c
o
•
An
a
c
c
e
s
s
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
I
n
g
r
es
s
o
r
E
g
r
e
s
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
.
Si
t
e
M
a
p
Si
t
e
i
s
‘
a
c
c
e
s
s
co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
e
d
’
•
In
t
h
e
i
r
o
w
n
w
o
r
d
s
•
“
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
a
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
p
a
t
r
o
n
a
n
d
de
l
i
v
e
r
y
t
r
u
c
k
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
de
t
r
i
m
e
n
t
a
l
to
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
“
•
2
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
4
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
o
i
n
t
s
a
r
e
TE
M
P
O
R
A
R
Y
(
5
0
%
)
•
Si
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
:
IT
D
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
a
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
r
i
g
h
t
-
i
n
/
ri
g
h
t
-
o
u
t
/
l
e
f
t
-
i
n
a
t
S
i
t
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
A
•
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
c
e
n
t
e
r
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
an
d
d
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
Te
n
M
i
l
e
R
o
a
d
f
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
f
u
l
l
ac
c
e
s
s
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
6
6
0
-
f
e
e
t
no
r
t
h
o
f
L
o
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
D
r
i
v
e
.
Es
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
s
o
n
W
L
o
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
is
f
l
a
w
e
d
.
•
TI
S
:
I
n
t
h
e
E
x
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
p
a
g
e
5
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
;
Ye
a
r
2
0
1
8
T
o
t
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
C
o
s
t
c
o
(
P
h
a
s
e
1
)
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
ye
a
r
2
0
1
8
t
o
t
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
2
w
a
y
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
A
a
n
d
W
B
l
ef
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
t
t
r
e
e
f
a
r
m
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
fo
r
le
f
t
-
t
u
r
n
s
o
u
t
o
f
s
i
t
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
A
Re
p
e
a
t
e
d
o
n
p
a
g
e
7
;
Y
e
a
r
2
0
2
4
T
o
t
a
l
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
ns
f
o
r
t
o
t
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
o
u
t
(
P
h
a
s
e
2
)
•
La
c
k
o
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
t
o
W
B
C
h
i
n
d
e
n
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
i
n
m
o
s
t
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
n
t
h
a
t
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
u
s
e
W
Lo
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
.
•
Wi
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
I
n
g
r
e
s
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
b
o
t
h
W
B
an
d
E
B
C
h
i
n
d
e
n
a
n
d
s
o
m
e
E
B
Ch
i
n
d
e
n
.
•
WB
E
g
r
e
s
s
2
1
6
0
+
1
2
0
0
(
5
0
%
E
B
I
n
g
r
e
s
s
)
=
3
3
6
0
.
4
2
0
/
hr
•
Ad
d
1
0
%
i
n
g
r
e
s
s
/
e
g
r
e
s
s
W
B
/
E
B
C
h
i
n
d
e
n
=
6
4
0
=
4
0
0
0
t
o
ta
l
.
5
0
0
/
h
r
Co
s
t
c
o
B
o
i
s
e
No
t
e
:
N
o
n
e
a
r
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
ac
c
e
s
s
.
Co
s
t
c
o
N
a
m
p
a
No
t
e
:
N
o
n
e
a
r
b
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
ac
c
e
s
s
.
Lo
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
ME
R
I
D
I
A
N
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
A
N
D
Z
O
N
I
N
G
MA
R
C
H
1
,
2
0
1
8
DA
V
I
D
J
.
R
E
Y
E
S
-
B
A
I
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
Co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
,
Fu
t
u
r
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
Vi
o
l
a
t
e
s
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
P
l
a
n
G
o
a
l
s
Pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
in
c
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
pa
r
c
e
l
s
(
3
.
0
6
.
0
1
F
)
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
n
o
i
s
e
,
o
d
o
r
,
a
i
r
a
n
d
v
i
s
u
a
l
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
n
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
ar
e
a
s
(
3
.
0
6
.
0
1
B
)
Am
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
#
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
1
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
o
t
h
e
r
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
P
L
a
r
g
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
c
h
a
n
g
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
–
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
wi
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
p
l
a
n
2
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
g
u
i
d
e
t
o
f
u
t
u
r
e
gr
o
w
t
h
/
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
Do
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
,
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
“
s
p
o
t
z
o
n
e
”
f
o
r
t
h
e
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
3
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
s
,
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
po
l
i
c
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
P
Re
q
u
e
s
t
i
g
n
o
r
e
s
t
h
e
z
o
n
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
pl
a
c
e
s
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
a
t
r
i
s
k
o
f
u
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
4
C
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
U
D
C
T
h
e
U
D
C
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
s
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
ce
s
s
t
o
s
t
a
t
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
5
C
o
m
p
a
t
i
b
l
e
w
i
t
h
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
/
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
su
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
Do
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
me
d
i
u
m
a
n
d
l
o
w
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
6
W
i
l
l
n
o
t
b
u
r
d
e
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
/
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
ca
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Wi
l
l
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
,
w
a
t
e
r
,
s
e
w
e
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
n
e
t
se
r
v
i
c
e
s
7
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
a
r
e
a
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
n
y
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
Wi
l
l
e
x
p
o
n
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
a
c
e
r
b
a
t
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
8
I
s
i
n
t
h
e
b
e
s
t
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
i
t
y
o
f
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
U
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
i
s
t
o
o
i
n
t
e
n
s
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
s
–
s
e
t
s
b
a
d
p
r
e
c
e
d
e
n
t
Pr
i
o
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
i
s
s
i
t
e
Ja
n
i
c
e
k
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
:
C
P
A
-
0
8
-
0
0
1
“O
f
f
i
c
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
a
c
c
e
s
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
t
o
U
S
2
0
/
2
6
”
“W
e
h
a
v
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
m
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
…
ac
c
e
s
s
s
o
c
l
o
s
e
(
a
p
p
r
o
x
.
5
7
0
f
t
.
)
t
o
t
h
e
T
e
n
M
i
l
e
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
20
1
5
:
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
t
o
I
d
a
h
o
Re
l
i
e
f
f
r
o
m
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
u
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
CP
a
n
d
F
L
U
M
w
e
r
e
k
e
y
k
e
y
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
t
o
se
t
t
l
e
i
n
B
a
i
n
b
r
i
d
g
e
Lo
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
p
e
n
s
t
h
e
d
o
o
r
t
o
un
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
N
o
r
t
h
M
e
r
i
d
i
a
n
Re
q
u
e
s
t
:
D
e
n
y
t
h
e
L
o
s
t
R
a
p
i
d
s
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Th
a
n
k
y
o
u
!
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 1
STAFF REPORT
Hearing Date: March 1, 2018
TO: Planning & Zoning Commission
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate City Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR (H-2018-0004)
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The applicant, GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC and Brighton Investments, has submitted a joint
application for the following:
Amendment to the Future Land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan to change the
land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the Medium Density Residential
(61.83 acres) and the Mixed Use – Community (16.50 acres) to Mixed Use – Regional.
Annexation and zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and
C-G (32.83 acres) zoning districts;
Preliminary Plat consisting of 1 residential building lot, 13 commercial building lots, and 1
other lot for dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 acres of land in the proposed R-40 and C-G
zoning districts; and,
Variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2 which prohibits new approaches directly accessing a state
highway to allow two (2) new accesses via US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.
See Section IX of the staff report for more information.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed CPAM, AZ, and PP applications with the recommended
changes to the conceptual development plan and conditions of approval noted in Exhibit B; and denial
of the proposed VAR application in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B and the
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Exhibit D. Note: The Variance request does not require
action from the Commission; City Council is the decision making body.
III. PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to the City
Council of File Number H-2018-0004, as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 1,
2018, with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications).
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the City
Council of File Number H-2018-0004, as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018, for the
following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 154 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 2
Continuance
I move to continue File Number H-2018-0004 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date
here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.)
IV. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS
A. Site Address/Location:
The site is located at the southwest corner of US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.,
in the NE ¼ of Section 27, Township 4N., Range 1W.
Parcel No.’s: S0427110011, S0427110023, S0427141803, S0427120611, S0427120916
B. Owner(s):
GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC
74 East 500 South, Ste. 200
Bountiful, UT 84010
Brighton Investments, LLC
12601 W. Explorer Dr., Ste. 200
Boise, ID 83713
C. Applicant:
GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC
74 East 500 South, Ste. 200
Bountiful, UT 84010
D. Representative:
Kelly Kehrer, KM Engineering, LLP
9233 W. State St.
Boise, Idaho 83714
E. Applicant’s Statement/Justification: Please see applicant’s narrative for this information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map,
Annexation and Zoning, Preliminary Plat and a Variance. A public hearing is required before the
Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on all of these applications except for the
Variance, which only requires Council approval, consistent with Meridian City Code Title 11,
Chapter 5.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018
C. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 5, 2018
D. Applicant posted notice on site(s) on: February 14, 2018
E. Posted to Next Door: February 5, 2018
VI. LAND USE
A. Existing Land Use(s) and Zoning: This site consists of undeveloped agricultural land, zoned RUT
in Ada County.
B. Character of Surrounding Area and Adjacent Land Use and Zoning:
1. North: US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and single-family residential properties in Spurwing
Orchard Subdivision and Westwing Estates, zoned R-4, R-8 and R-15 in the City and RUT in
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 155 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 3
Ada County, respectively
2. East: Single-family residential properties in Irvine Subdivision and a rural residential parcel,
zoned R-8 in the City and RUT in Ada County, respectively
3. South: Existing and future single-family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision and
a church, zoned R-8 and L-O, respectively
4. West: Future single-family residential properties in Bainbridge Subdivision, zoned R-8
C. History of Previous Actions: In 2008, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land
Use Map was approved to change the land use designation on 14.57 acres of land at the northeast
corner of the site from Medium Density Residential to Mixed Use - Community (Janicek – Ten
Mile/Chinden, CPA-08-001).
A conceptual development plan was submitted that showed how the property might develop in the
future with a mix of retail [62,988 square feet (s.f.)], retail/office (11,412 s.f.), and multi-family
residential (39 units) uses. However, because annexation and zoning was not requested, a
development agreement was not required to tie future development to the conceptual
development plan.
D. Utilities:
1. Public Works:
a. Location of sewer: The sanitary sewer main intended to provide service to the subject
site currently exists in W. Lost Rapids Drive along the southern boundary.
b. Location of water: Water mains intended to provide service to the subject site currently
exist in N. Ten Mile Road and in W. Lost Rapids Drive.
c. Issues or concerns: None
E. Physical Features:
1. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Harrell Lateral runs along the eastern portion of the southern
boundary of this site and is piped.
2. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards that exist on this property.
3. Flood Plain: This site is not located in the Meridian Floodplain Overlay District.
VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION(S): Approximately 14.57 acres of the annexation area is
designated on the Future Land Use Map as Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) and the remaining 52
acres is designated Medium Density Residential (MDR).
MU-C: The purpose of the MU-C designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and
dwellings are seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses,
including residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-
residential buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use – Neighborhood
areas, but not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be
of the variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to 3 or 4 miles).
Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged.
Developments are encouraged to be designed according to the conceptual MU-C plan depicted below
(Figure 3-3 in the Comprehensive Plan, pg. 27).
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 156 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 4
Developments should have a mix of at least 3 land use types [i.e. commercial (includes retail,
restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues,
etc.), and industrial]; residential uses should comprise a minimum of 20% of the development area at
densities ranging from 6 to 15 units/acre; non-residential buildings should be proportional to and
blend in with adjacent residential buildings; vertically integrated structures are encouraged;
supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not limited to
parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools that comprise a minimum of
5% of the development area are required.
MDR: The purpose of the MDR designation is to allow smaller lots for residential purposes within
City limits. Uses may include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 dwelling units per acre
(d.u./acre).
PROPOSED LAND USE DESIGNATION: The applicant proposes an amendment to the FLUM to change
the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the MDR (61.83 acres) and MU-C
(16.50 acres) to the Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) designation.
MU-R: The purpose of the MU-R designation is to provide for a mix of employment, retail, and
residential dwellings and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a
variety of uses together, including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments
such as a regional retail center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should
be anchored by uses that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an
employment center should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential
uses as well as support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as
supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide
an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and appropriate
mix to the developments. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to the
conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5 of the Comprehensive Plan shown below.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 157 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 5
TRANSPORTATION: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of N. Ten Mile Road and
US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and is two miles east of US-16 and five miles north of Interstate 84 (I-
84). Ten Mile Road, between Chinden and I-84, is improved with two lanes between Chinden and W.
Ustick Rd. and five lanes south of W. Ustick Rd. to I-84.
A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for this development and submitted to the Idaho
Transportation Department (ITD) and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) for review.
ITD is requiring US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. to be widened to 4 lanes between Tree Farm Way and
Linder Rd. with a concrete median island; widening is to include construction west of Tree Farm Way
to taper the pavement back to a 3-lane section; and installation of conduit with fiber optics the entire
length of the widening. A signal is required to be installed at the Black Cat Rd./Chinden intersection
in accord with ACHD requirements and should be interconnected with the signals at Tree Farm Way
and SH-16. An additional eastbound and westbound thru lane is required as part of the overall US 20-
26/Chinden widening at the Ten Mile/Chinden intersection with the eastbound lane configuration on
Chinden to include two thru lanes – one left and one dedicated right turn lane. An additional
westbound left turn lane is required with lane configurations on Chinden including one combined
thru/right turn lane, one thru lane and two left turn lanes. A STARS agreement is in process for these
improvements.
The applicant has requested a variance from the City for the proposed accesses via US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd as the UDC prohibits new accesses via the state highway. Staff is very concerned
that these accesses will critically impact the mobility of the SH 20-26/Chinden transportation
corridor long term if approved by City Council.
No improvements or additional right-of-way (ROW) dedication are proposed or required by ACHD
for the existing W. Lost Rapids Drive. A traffic signal at the Lost Rapids/Ten Mile intersection is
proposed by the applicant.
The applicant proposes to utilize the STAR agreement to widen Ten Mile Road to 5 lanes between
Chinden Blvd. and Milano Drive to include bike lanes, planter strips and detached sidewalks, which
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 158 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 6
will require the dedication of an additional 48 feet of ROW from the centerline of Ten Mile Rd. This
will move up ACHD’s roadway widening project scheduled for 2022.
Conceptual Development Plan: A concept plan (and narrative) was submitted that depicts/describes
how this site is proposed to develop with a mix of commercial, retail and office uses and a fuel sales
facility at the intersection of US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road. A very large box store
(168,652+/- square feet) is proposed for Costco Wholesale internal to the development to the south
and west of the commercial, retail, office pads; multi-family residential is proposed to the south of the
Costco site and west of the commercial pads along Ten Mile Rd.; and single-family attached and
detached residential uses are proposed directly west of and abutting the commercial site.
GOALS, OBJECTIVES, & ACTION ITEMS: 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):
“Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, medium-high and high-density
single-family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the
purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities.” (3.07.01E)
A variety of residential categories are proposed in this development consisting of single-
family attached and detached homes, and townhome and garden style apartments. Staff is
unaware how “affordable” the units will be.
“Coordinate with ACHD, ITD, COMPASS, and other agencies to determine future
infrastructure plans, transportation corridors, highway alignments, etc. and allow only
compatible adjacent land uses, appropriate site designs and traffic patterns.” (3.06.02H)
ACHD, ITD, and COMPASS have all been provided an opportunity to review and comment
on the proposed application. ITD and ACHD have both held several additional meetings to
review and discuss the proposed application. Agency staffs continue to discuss what
“appropriate” and “compatible” site design and traffic patterns entail. Staff recommends the
Commission and Council consider any additional comments or conditions that are provided
by ACHD, ITD or COMPASS.
“Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D)
The proposed project would provide additional shopping opportunities for existing and future
residents. However, staff is concerned that the concept plan does not provide any
pedestrian connections between residential and commercial uses; therefore, staff
recommends pedestrian connections are provided. The proposed location is not within a
current designated employment area.
“Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent
parcels.” (3.06.01F)
There are no existing residential properties that abut this site; the closest residential
properties are separated from the site by collector and arterial roadways and associated
street buffers. The applicant’s narrative states that no deliveries will take place between the
hours of 10:00 pm and 5:00 am; commercial truck deliveries will be restricted away from
residential uses; and site lighting will be reduced within one hour of closing and lighting will
be designed so that it is 0.0 foot candles at property lines.
Note: Many letters of testimony have been received by the City from adjacent property
owners in response to the proposed development.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 159 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 7
“Plan for and encourage services like health care, daycare, grocery stores and recreational
areas to be built within walking distance of residential dwellings.” (2.01.01C)
The proposed Costco Wholesale store will provide grocery as well as other household
products in close proximity to residential dwellings; however, the concept plan does not take
into account any pedestrian or vehicular interconnectivity between the residential and
commercial portions of the development. The plan should be revised to provide for
interconnectivity between the uses.
“Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve transportation
corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and to
facilitate access management planning.” (3.01.01J)
City Staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation agencies
(ACHD and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future
US Highway 20/26 widening projects. The applicant is in the process of entering into a STAR
agreement with ITD to make some off-site improvements to US 20/26. These improvements
would widen the highway to 4-travel lanes and improve impacted intersections in conjunction
with ITD’s project to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The Commission and Council
should consider ACHD’s and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and
circulation for this site.
The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The
submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including one full
access, and one access point to Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is
a point of conflict that can impact roadway functionality. Costco stores can be busy and
congestion at facilities in both Boise and Nampa spill over onto adjacent roadways (none of
which are State facilities). Traffic waiting to exit the site at the signal on Cole Road at the
Boise facility backs up to the point of blocking vehicles from exiting parking stalls. This slows
vehicles entering the site. Staff recommends that site access be designed to prioritize and
encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility.
“Support land uses that do not harm natural systems and resources.” (3.06.01H)
The existing land is farmed and there are no natural systems which remain to be protected.
“Except in North Meridian and the Ten Mile Specific Area, where a specific collector system
is planned, realize continuous collectors at regular intervals around the north-south and east-
west half-mile lines within the undeveloped sections of Meridian's Area of City Impact at the
time of new development. Such collectors should be the primary designated bike lane routes
in lieu of arterial streets, whenever possible.” (3.03.03E)
Lost Rapids is an existing collector roadway that connects into Tree Farm Way to the north,
across US 20-26/Chinden Blvd, and extends to the east across Ten Mile Rd into Lochsa Falls
Subdivision.
“Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions
together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system.”
(3.03.03B)
There are no pedestrian walkways depicted on the concept plan for interconnectivity between
the commercial site and the residential portions of the site; the plan should be revised to
include pedestrian access connectors.
“Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods such as
cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage/backage roads.” (3.03.02N)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 160 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 8
There is only one existing farm access road which bisects the existing farm fields, half-way
between Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids Drive. There are no existing public access points on
either the State facility or Ten Mile Road. The entire property has access from an improved
collector roadway to the west and south of the site which may act and function as a backage
road.
“Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as
offices and other low intensity uses.” (3.05.03A)
The proposed concept plan does not depict any transitional areas other than landscaping to
buffer the residential and commercial uses. The Costco building (and loading area), the most
intense commercial use on the site, directly abuts the single-family residential portion of the
site. The lower intensity commercial uses (i.e. office and retail pads) are proposed on the
periphery of the development adjacent to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.
instead of as a buffer between the residential and higher intense commercial use (see Exhibit
A.3). Staff recommends the concept plan is revised to provide transitional areas as noted,
specifically between the Costco building and single-family residential area.
The high-density residential area as well as the street buffer and collector street (W. Lost
Rapids Dr.) does buffer impacts from the Costco site on the adjacent future single-family
residential properties to the south of Lost Rapids.
“Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation
and development requests, and the impacts on services.” (3.04.01H)
Public Works, Police, and Fire were all invited to pre-application and project review
meetings for this project. Their comments and conditions, if provided, are included in Exhibit
B of this report.
“Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City
Impact.” (3.05.01J)
This area is planned for some commercial uses and the proposed site plan would expand
resident and stakeholder access to closer commercial and retail opportunities.
“Minimize noise, odor, air pollution, and visual pollution in industrial and commercial
development adjacent to residential areas.” (3.06.01B)
The proposed Master Plan included in Exhibit A.3 depicts dense landscaping to buffer the
abutting residential uses from the commercial uses.
“Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time
of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.” (3.01.01F)
This property is contiguous to land that has already been annexed into the City. Urban
services can be provided to this property upon development.
“Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic impacts,
school enrollment, parks, etc).” (3.01.01B)
ACHD was provided with a traffic impact study and has included analysis in their report. The
application was forwarded on to partner agencies and other City Departments for analysis of
impacts to services; some of their comments are included in Exhibit B.
“Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income levels.
(3.07.01D)
The adopted future land use designations allow for a variety of housing types that may be
attractive to all income levels. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone portions of the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 161 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 9
site as R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential) and R-40 (High Density Residential).The
proposed residential is within the specified area and range described in the Comprehensive
Plan, but the overall concept plan lacks many of the mixed use elements necessary for it to
be integrated successfully as a mixed use project. See the General Mixed Use text analysis
below.
“Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-use
decisions.” (3.03.02G)
The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with
a typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early
improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority
Corridor Summary.
“As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length
but especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only
two travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains
unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high
traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2
on ITD’s list of high-accident locations.
By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase
substantially.
o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from
12,000 in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040.
o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013
to 28,000 in 2040.
This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in
Garden City.
o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase
80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040.
This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26.
o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to
more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.”
“Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K)
With the exception of Chinden Blvd (which is an ITD facility), the arterial and collector
roadways shown on ACHD’s street map are already improved or scheduled for widening.
“Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire, police,
etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and
development agreements.” (3.04.01G)
The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the
City. To ensure public infrastructure is adequate to serve the development and control the
timing for said improvements, staff recommends that a development agreement be required
with annexation of the project.
“Evaluate development proposals based on physical, social, economic, environmental, and
aesthetic criteria.” (3.01.01G)
The proposed site plan indicates large landscape buffers and generally appealing
architectural designs. Off-site impacts such as trucks and lighting are described or shown as
being reduced, and the high density residential is on a major transportation corridor.
However, it is unclear how the proposed site development furthers inclusive mixed use
design elements, or how the proposed FLUM designation and site plan is better for the
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 162 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 10
neighbors and City than a development with more neighborhood and community accessible
services.
“Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets” (3.06.02D)
The proposed concept plan and application requests one direct access via N. Ten Mile Road,
an arterial street, located approximately half-way between W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector
street, and Chinden Blvd, a State highway and a mobility corridor. Another access is
proposed via W. Lost Rapids Dr. along the southern boundary of the site. Local street access
is not available for this site.
“Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential developments
as part of the development plan.” (3.05.01E)
Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of Costco, with the small-
scale neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from existing and
proposed neighborhoods. This layout is inconsistent with the intent of Mixed Use designation,
Figure 3-5, and the purpose of backage and collector type roadways.
“Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other
permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access
thoroughfares.” (3.07.02L)
The proposed high-density residential is near two parks (Keith Bird Legacy and Heroes’
Park) and a major access thoroughfare (US 20-26).
“Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family arrangements)
and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in a variety of
locations suitable for residential development.” (3.07.03B)
The proposed site plan would add to Meridian’s diversity of housing with medium and high
density residential uses in close proximity to a major transportation corridor. Staff is
unaware if the units will be owner occupied or rentals.
“Integrate land use and transportation planning to ensure that they mutually support the
communities' goals and desires.” (7.01.01F)
City and transportation agencies have met multiple times to discuss the subject project. With
some changes to the proposal, staff believes the project could support the communities’ goals
and desires.
“Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit
development.” (6.02.02H)
The applicant should coordinate with Valley Regional Transit to determine if an ADA bus
stop is needed at this location.
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed Use
areas: (Staff’s analysis in italics)
• Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.
A gross density of 5 to 8 units per acre is anticipated to develop in the R-15 area with 18 to
24 units per acre in the R-40 area.
• Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be
encouraged, especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination
centers and when the project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 163 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 11
A mix of mostly single-story attached and detached units are proposed to the west of the
commercial area between the collector street (i.e. N. Tree Farm Way/W. Lost Rapids Dr.)
and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.; and 2-story townhome style and 3-story garden style
apartments are proposed to the south of the commercial area adjacent to the collector street.
While this project is adjacent to US 20-26, it is not an “employment center”; Costco is the
only store with a regional draw to the development. An employment center in this general
area is contemplated for the property located near the northwest corner of W. McMillan
and N. Ten Mile Roads; a half-mile south of the proposed development.
• A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.
A concept plan was submitted for the entire site with this application; however, the plan does
not demonstrate consistency with development goals and objectives of the MU-R designation
as submitted. Staff has included recommendations for revisions to the plan that would be
consistent with the MU-R designation in Exhibit B as discussed below in Section IX.
• In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not
residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area,
such as a plaza or green space.
The concept plan for the commercial area does not include any form of common area. Staff
recommends the plan is revised to incorporate common usable area within the commercial
portion of the development as noted.
• The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between
commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.
There is no existing residential development directly adjacent to the commercial portion of
the site. However, single-family and multi-family residential uses are proposed directly
adjacent to the commercial portion of the development to the west and south. A dense
landscape buffer with berms is depicted on the Master Plan between the uses and is required
(see Exhibit A.3).
• A mixed-use project should include at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial
(includes retail, restaurants, etc.), office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks,
entertainment venues, etc.), and industrial]. Exceptions may be granted for smaller sites on a
case-by-case basis.
The proposed concept plan depicts a Costco, future commercial subdivision and two types of
residential uses. The application narrative states office uses are part of the development plan
but does not specify which lots/pads will contain those uses. A mix of at least three types of
land uses is required to be provided.
• Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic
buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.
None of these types of uses are proposed within this development; however, several of these
uses exist in close proximity to this site, as follows: a 7.5 acre City Park (Keith Bird) exists
directly across the street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.) to the south; another City Park (Hero’s) exists
to the southeast kitty corner to this site across Ten Mile Rd.; schools exists a ½ mile to the
east at the southwest corner of Chinden Blvd. and N. Long Lake Way and on Everest Ln., east
of Long Lake Way; a fire station exists approximately 2 miles to the south on Ten Mile Rd.; a
church exists directly to the south at the southwest corner of Lost Rapids Dr. & Ten Mile Rd.;
and an assisted living facility exists 1.5 mile to the east on Chinden Blvd.
While these uses/facilities are near the site, they are not integrated into the proposed
development as desired. All required open space and amenities are centralized within their
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 164 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 12
respective developments (i.e. the single-family and multi-family portions) without any
shared facilities nearer to or within the commercial area.
• Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not
limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are
expected; outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.
The concept plan does not depict any public and/or quasi-public spaces/places within this
development. Staff recommends the plan is revised accordingly to include public and/or
quasi-public spaces/places within the development.
• All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by
both vehicles and pedestrians.
The overall site is separated from adjacent developments by public streets (i.e. US 20-
26/Chinden, N. Ten Mile Rd., and W. Lost Rapids Dr.) that will provide access to the
development. There is no interconnectivity, vehicular or pedestrian, proposed between the
single-family residential, multi-family residential and the commercial portions of the site.
Staff recommends the plan is revised to include some form of interconnectivity between the
residential and commercial portions of the site.
• Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are
required within the Unified Development Code.
There is an existing collector street (W. Lost Rapids Dr.) that runs along the southern
boundary of the site consistent with the Master Street Map; no other streets are depicted on
the Map for this site.
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas:
• Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all
Mixed-Use areas. See analysis above.
• Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities
ranging from 6 to 40 units/acre.
The concept plan depicts 58% (45.5 acres) of the total project area with residential uses.
Densities in the single-family portion of the development are anticipated to range from 5- to
8-units/acre with densities in the multi-family portion ranging from 18- to 24-units/acre.
• Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.
Retail, commercial and office uses are proposed to comprise 42% (or 32.83 acres) of the
development area per the concept plan included in Exhibit A.3 and the applicant’s narrative;
therefore, the retail portion alone will be under 50%.
• There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as
office, clean industry, or entertainment users.
There are no clean industry or entertainment users proposed at this time; this provision is
noted for the office uses.
Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development,
the developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed
50%) as provided for on Pg. 31 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The concept plan does not include any public and/or quasi-public uses to support the
development nor is it discussed in the applicant’s narrative. Staff recommends the plan is
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 165 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 13
revised to include public/quasi-public uses as desired in mixed use and MU-R designated
areas.
VIII. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (UDC)
A. Purpose Statement of Zoning District(s):
1. The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities
consistent with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Residential districts are distinguished by
the dimensional standards of the corresponding zone and housing types that can be
accommodated (UDC 11-2A-1).
2. The purpose of the commercial districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the
community in accordance with the Meridian comprehensive plan. Six (6) districts are
designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the
district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in
proximity to streets and highways (UDC 11-2B-1).
Allowed uses in the C-G district are of the largest scale and broadest mix of retail, office,
service and light industrial uses and are usually located in close proximity and/or with access
to interstate or arterial intersections.
B. Schedule of Use:
1. UDC Table 11-2A-7 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and
prohibited (-) uses in the R-15 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited.
2. UDC Table 11-2A-8 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and
prohibited (-) uses in the R-40 zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited.
3. UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the principal permitted (P), accessory (A), conditional (C), and
prohibited (-) uses in the C-G zoning district. Any use not explicitly listed is prohibited.
C. Dimensional Standards: Development of the site should be consistent with the dimensional
standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-7 for the R-15 zoning district; UDC Table 11-2A-8 for the
R-40 zoning district; and 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district.
D. Landscaping: Landscaping is required within street buffers in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-7C.
E. Off-Street Parking: NA (not required or reviewed with the subject application)
IX. ANALYSIS
Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation:
NOTE: A LOT of public testimony has been received in response to this application; please see
the public record.
A. Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (CPAM): (Applies to the overall site)
An amendment to the Future Land Use Map contained in the Comprehensive Plan is proposed to
change the land use designation on a combined 78.33 acres of land from the Medium Density
Residential (MDR) (61.83 acres) and the Mixed Use – Community (MU-C) (16.50 acres) to
Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) is requested (see Section VII above and Exhibit A.2).
While the property is proposed to be designated entirely MU-R, the concept plan shows two, if
not three, distinct separate projects as follows: medium density residential in accord with the
current FLUM on the western portion of the site; commercial on the northern portion of the site;
and high density residential on the southern portion of the site. There is no pedestrian
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 166 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 14
connectivity between any of these projects and only a driveway access is proposed along the east
side of the multi-family project to/from the commercial property via the collector street (W. Lost
Rapids Dr.). No integration is shown between the commercial and residential uses, which
essentially creates a predominantly single-use development with Costco as the primary anchor
with smaller commercial/office uses and separate residential areas, which is not the intent of the
MU-R designation.
The MU-R diagram in Section VII above depicts a big box retail store transitioning to high
density residential or office uses, a local/collector street and then single-family residential uses.
This provides a buffer spatially as well as use-wise between the higher intense commercial uses
and medium density (single-family) residential uses. The proposed concept plan depicts the most
intense commercial use (i.e. the 168,652 square foot Costco building) directly abutting single-
family homes with only landscaping as a buffer, which is not a transition in uses and is not
consistent with the MU-R designation.
The fuel sales facility associated with Costco is proposed at the Chinden/Ten Mile intersection,
an entryway corridor into the City, at the northeast corner of the development. Due to the lack of
access in the corner of the development, Staff is concerned this will create traffic conflicts and
congestion and possibly blockage of drive aisles in and out of the facility at this location.
Additionally, staff would like to see a beautification effort in the form of a landscaped
design/entryway feature at the corner of the site due to it being an entryway corridor into the City.
Traffic circulation within the site as well as entering/exiting the site via Lost Rapids is also likely
to be a problem. The driveway access via Lost Rapids leading to/from the commercial portion of
the development is only 330’+/- from the centerline of the Ten Mile/Lost Rapids intersection,
which will likely create conflicts with vehicles trying to merge into traffic on Lost Rapids with
vehicles waiting to get onto Ten Mile at the future signal.
The application does not clearly indicate why the City would be better served by an MU-R
instead of an MU-C development in this area, other than that the size of the Costco building isn’t
allowed in the MU-C designation; or why this project can’t be located within an area already
designated MU-R such as closer to the SH-16/US 20-26 intersection. Although the application
demonstrates that north Meridian (and all of northern Ada and Canyon counties) is “underserved”
and distant from existing Costco sites in Nampa and Boise, it doesn’t explain how the community
would be better served by a regional project than a community sized project as currently
envisioned for this area. By proposing a Costco with unique traffic and circulation patterns on a
smaller commercial portion of a mixed use designated site, connectivity and integration
requirements are difficult.
To address the above-noted concerns, Staff recommends significant changes are made to the
concept plan in order for the development to be consistent with the requested MU-R
designation, as follows:
Rearrange the site layout so that there is a transition in intensity of uses [e.g. single-
family attached/detached residential to multi-family residential to
commercial/retail/office to the most intense commercial (i.e. Costco)]. Most intense
commercial uses should be located adjacent to the state highway (US 20-26/Chinden) and
arterial street (Ten Mile), rather than abutting residential areas, especially low-density
residential areas.
Shift the fuel sales facility off the corner to the south near the driveway via Ten Mile Rd.;
or, to the west near one of the driveways via US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. (if the driveway(s)
are approved by Council and ITD).
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 167 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 15
Include a landscaped design/entryway feature at the northeast corner of the site adjacent
to the US 20-26/Ten Mile intersection for beautification purposes at the City’s entryway
corridor.
Shift the driveway access to/from the site via Lost Rapids further to the west away from
the Ten Mile/Lost Rapids intersection to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection.
Integrate the commercial with the residential portions of the development through the
provision of pathways and/or vehicular connections and changes to the site layout that
may include re-positioning of buildings so that the rears of buildings aren’t facing
abutting uses.
In the commercial/office portion of the development, the buildings should be arranged to
create some form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.
Include supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places as
desired in MU-R designated areas (see Comprehensive Plan, page 28).
Site access should be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost
Rapids, rather than a State facility (i.e. US 20-26).
A pedestrian circulation plan should be submitted demonstrating pedestrian
interconnectivity within the overall site.
Without these changes, staff is of the opinion the proposed development is more consistent
with the Commercial (which includes multi-family residential) and existing Medium
Density Residential designations than the proposed Mixed Use - Regional designation and
should be designated accordingly (see Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, pages 21-22
for more information).
B. Annexation & Zoning (AZ): (Applies to the overall site)
Annexation and zoning of 78.33 acres of land with R-15 (39.01 acres), R-40 (6.50 acres), and C-
G (32.83 acres) zoning districts is requested consistent with the proposed MU-R FLUM
designation.
The legal description submitted with the application, included in Exhibit C, shows the boundaries
of the property proposed to be annexed and zoned. The property is contiguous to land that has
been annexed into the City and is within the Area of City Impact boundary.
Conceptual Development Plan: The applicant has submitted a conceptual development plan,
included in Exhibit A.3, which depicts a 168,652 square foot big box (Costco Wholesale) interior
to the development; a fuel sales facility at the northeast corner of the site at the intersection of N.
Ten Mile Rd. and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.); (10) future commercial, retail, restaurant,
professional and office pads located at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd.; (6) townhouse-style multi-family structures containing 49+/-
units, (3) garden-style multi-family structures containing 60+/- units, and a clubhouse and
swimming pool at the southeast boundary of the site adjacent to W. Lost Rapids Dr., south of the
Costco site; and single-family attached and detached age-qualified units on the western portion
of the site.
Conceptual Building Elevations: Conceptual building elevations (photos and renderings) were
submitted that depict the general style of development proposed for the single-family attached
and detached, multi-family and commercial structures as shown in Exhibit A.7.
Except for the Costco Wholesale building, the end-users in the commercial portion of the
development are not known at this time; therefore, detailed building elevations will be submitted
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 168 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 16
in the future as each building develops and be reviewed through the design review process. As
noted above in Section VII, non-residential buildings should be proportional to and blend in
with adjacent residential buildings; f uture building elevations submitted for design review
should demonstrate compliance with this requirement.
All structures, except single-family residential detached homes, are required to comply with the
design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and in the Architectural Standards Manual. To ensure
compliance, a design Review application is required to be submitted to the Planning Division and
approved prior to application for building permits. None of the proposed concept elevations are
approved with this application.
A Certificate of Zoning Compliance application is also required to be submitted and approved for
all new uses on the site, except for single-family residential detached homes, to ensure the use
and site design is consistent with UDC standards.
The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. To ensure the site develops as proposed and recommended
by staff with this application and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends
a DA is required with the annexation containing the provisions included in Exhibit B.
Because there are to be two different property owners/developers for this site, staff
recommends two separate DA’s are required that contain provisions for each portion of the
development area.
C. Preliminary Plat (PP): (Only applies to the C-G and R-40 zoned portion of the site – the single-
family residential portion of the site is not proposed to be platted at this time.)
NOTE: if the concept plan is revised per staff’s recommendation above, this will require
modifications to the plat to coincide with the concept plan.
The applicant proposes a preliminary plat consisting of (1) residential building lot, (13)
commercial building lots, and (1) other lot for dedication of right-of-way on 36.2 acres of land in
the proposed R-40 and C-G zoning districts. Although ultimate build-out of this project will be
market-driven, the applicant intends to plat the subdivision in one phase.
Commercial, retail and office uses are proposed to develop within the C-G zoned portion of the
site adjacent to US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road; housing within the R-40
zoned portion of the site adjacent to W. Lost Rapids Dr. is proposed to consist of townhome and
garden style multi-family units with expected densities between 20 and 24 units per acre.
The applicant requests that they be allowed two (2) building permits for the construction of
the Costco store and fuel sales facility prior to recordation of the subdivision plat. Staff is
amenable to this request.
Existing Structures: There are no existing structures on this site.
Dimensional Standards: The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply
with the dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2B-3 for the C-G zoning district and 11-
2A-8 for the R-40 zoning district.
Staff has reviewed the proposed plat and finds that all of the proposed lots comply with the
minimum standards. The maximum building height is 65 feet in the C-G district; and 60 feet in
the R-40 district.
Access: Access to streets is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-3 and 11-
3H-4. Access is proposed as discussed in Section VII above per the concept plan in Exhibit A.3.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 169 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 17
The UDC requires access to be taken from a local street when available; however, there is no
local street access available to this site. One (1) access is proposed via N. Ten Mile Rd., an
arterial street between Lost Rapids and Chinden Blvd.; two (2) accesses are proposed via US 20-
26/W. Chinden Blvd., a state highway; and two (2) accesses are proposed via Lost Rapids Dr., a
collector street. New approaches directly accessing a state highway are prohibited; the applicant
requests a variance to this standard (see analysis below in Section D).
The applicant’s narrative states that primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other
local vendors will be from the driveway access via Ten Mile Road. A driveway via Lost Rapids
Dr. is also available when access via the traffic signal at Ten Mile/Lost Rapids is needed. A self-
imposed restriction is proposed by the applicant for a “no thru truck traffic” sign to be installed
between the Tree Farm Way intersection and the Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access.
A cross-access/ingress-egress easement and driveways are required to be provided between
all of the proposed lots in the subdivision and should be depicted on the plat.
Improvements to US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. and Ten Mile Road are planned as follows:
Phase 1: Chinden is to be widened to 4 lanes with signal/intersection upgrades from Tree
Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); Ten Mile widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80
of a mile); and signals at Black Cat Rd. and Lost Rapids Dr. prior to Costco opening.
Phase 2: Chinden widened to 4 lanes from Tree Farm to SH 16 (1.44 miles) within 2
years of Costco opening.
In addition, Costco and the other commercial uses and residential units will pay impact fees
in excess of $2 million to ACHD for local street system improvements.
The street sections on Sheet C2.0 of the plat included in Exhibit A.4 depict Chinden widened to 4
travel lanes with 2 turn lanes within 140 feet of right-of-way; and N. Ten Mile Road widened to 5
lanes.
Traffic Impact Study (TIS): A TIS was prepared for this development and submitted to ITD and
ACHD for review with this application. Staff has not yet received comments from ACHD on this
application. A letter was received from ITD in response to the TIS, included in Exhibit B.9.
The letter states that the westernmost access via US 20-26 (1,160’ west of the US 20-26/Ten Mile
intersection) will be allowed as a temporary right-in/right-out/left-in until such time as the
highway is widened to 3 lanes in the eastbound direction, then, if not before, it will be limited to
right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane will be required. The driveway nearest the
intersection (545’ east of the previous access and 615’ west of the intersection) will be allowed as
a right-in/right-out; a 550’ long deceleration lane (including taper) is required, however, due to
the distance restriction between accesses, ITD may allow for a 10% decrease of the standard
requirement.
Landscaping: Landscaping is required to be provided with development in accord with the
standards listed in UDC 11-3B.
Street buffers are required to be provided along all streets as set forth in UDC Table 11-2B-3 and
landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C. A 35-foot wide street buffer is required
along both US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Rd., both entryway corridors; and a 20-
foot wide street buffer is required along W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector street. Staff
recommends the entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road and SH
20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. for the subdivision is constructed with the first phase of
development. All commercial street buffers are required to be on a common lot or on a
permanent dedicated buffer, maintained by the property owner or business owners’ association.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 170 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 18
All residential street buffers are required to be on a common lot maintained by a homeowner’s
association.
A 25-foot wide buffer to residential uses is required to be provided with development on the C-G
zoned portion of the site in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C. The concept plan
depicts a buffer with dense landscaping between the commercial and residential portions of the
site. The buffers should facilitate pedestrian access from the residential to the commercial
development in accord with UDC 11-3B-9C.3.
Parking lot landscaping will be required internally within the site in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-8C with development.
Note: Landscaping associated with internal parking areas and residential common areas will be
reviewed with future subdivision, Conditional Use Permit and/or Certificate of Zoning
Compliance applications; these areas should be shown on the plan in a lighter line type.
Open Space & Site Amenities: Qualified open space and site amenities are required to be
provided in the multi-family (R-40 zoned) portion of the development (Lot 1, Block 1) in accord
with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 and 11-4-3-27C & D. A conditional use permit is
required to be submitted for approval of the multi-family development in the R-40 district;
compliance with these standards will be evaluated at that time.
Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required to be provided with development in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3A-17. Detached sidewalks are required along N. Ten Mile Rd. & US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd., both arterial streets; and along W. Lost Rapids Dr., a collector Street.
Pathways: The UDC (11-3H-4C.4) requires a 10-foot wide multi-use pathway to be constructed
in a public use easement within the street buffer along the frontage of this site on US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd.
The applicant should coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager
(208-888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway and the public use easement; the
easement should be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the
City Engineer. The pathway along US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. satisfies the requirement for a
detached sidewalk.
Waterways: There are no major waterways that cross this site. All ditches that cross this site
should be piped as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6.
Fencing: All fencing is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
Utilities: Street lights are required to be installed along public streets adjacent to the
development in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. All
development is required to connect to the City water and sewer system unless otherwise approved
by the City Engineer in accord with UDC 11-3A-21. Adequate fire protection shall be required in
accord with the appropriate fire district standards.
Pressurized Irrigation: An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided
for the development in accord with UDC 11-3A-15 as proposed and will be served by Settler’s
Irrigation district.
Storm Drainage: An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord
with the City’s adopted standards, specifications, and ordinances, per UDC 11-3A-18.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 171 of 227
Lost Rapids – CPAM, AZ, PP, VAR H-2018-0004 PAGE 19
D. Variance (VAR): (Only applies to the C-G zoned portion of the site adjacent to US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd.)
The applicant requests a variance to UDC 11-3H-4B.2, which prohibits new approaches directly
accessing a state highway (i.e. SH 20/26). The applicant requests approval of (2) accesses via US
20-26 as shown on the preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4.
A letter received from ITD dated October 18, 2017, included in Exhibit B, states that they will
allow the two (2) proposed accesses via SH 20-26 with the improvements and spacing outlined in
the letter.
The UDC (11-5B-4) allows requests for a variance for the placement and/or number of access
points to state highways. In order to grant a variance, the Council is required to make 3 findings:
1) the variance can’t grant a right or special privilege that isn’t otherwise allowed in the district;
2) the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and 3) the
variance can’t be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare (see Exhibit D).
Because staff can’t make all of the required findings listed in Exhibit D, staff is recommending
denial of the proposed variance application.
In summary, Staff recommends approval of the proposed CPAM and AZ applications with the
requirement of a development agreement(s) that includes the provisions listed in Exhibit B with
revisions to the concept plan consistent with the MU-R designation; approval of the PP
application with the conditions contained in Exhibit B; and denial of the VAR application in
accord with the Findings in Exhibit D.
X. EXHIBITS
A. Drawings/Other
1. Vicinity/Zoning Map
2. Existing & Proposed Future Land Use Map
3. Overall Conceptual Development Plan (dated: 1/12/2018) & Master Plan
4. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/12/2018)
5. Landscape Plan (dated: 1/12/2018)
6. Conceptual Site Plan for Multi-Family Residential &
7. Conceptual Building Elevations (Photos & Renderings)
B. Agency and Department Comments and Conditions
C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 172 of 227
- 2 -
A. Drawings/Other
Exhibit A.1: Vicinity/Zoning Map
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 173 of 227
- 3 -
Exhibit A.2: Existing & Proposed Future Land Use Map
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 174 of 227
- 4 -
Exhibit A.3: Overall Conceptual Development Plan (dated: 1/12/2018) & Master Plan
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 175 of 227
- 5 -
Exhibit A.4: Preliminary Plat (dated: 1/12/18)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 176 of 227
- 6 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 177 of 227
- 7 -
Exhibit A.5: Landscape Plan (dated: 1/12/018)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 178 of 227
- 8 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 179 of 227
- 9 -
Exhibit A.6: Conceptual Site Plan for Multi-Family Development (dated: 9/5/2017)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 180 of 227
- 10 -
Exhibit A.7: Conceptual Building Elevations (Photos & Renderings)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 181 of 227
- 11 -
Single-Family Attached/Detached Units:
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 182 of 227
- 12 -
Commercial:
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 183 of 227
- 13 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 184 of 227
- 14 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 185 of 227
- 15 -
B. EXHIBIT B - AGENCY AND DEPARTMENT COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS
1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Staff recommends the conceptual development plans in Exhibit A.3 & A.6 are revised prior to
Commission action on this application to address inconsistencies with development in the MU-R
designation as discussed in Sections VII and IX above, as follows:
a. Rearrange the site layout so that there is a transition in intensity of uses [e.g. single-family
attached/detached residential to multi-family residential to commercial/retail/office to the most
intense commercial (i.e. Costco)]. Most intense commercial uses should be located adjacent to the
state highway (US 20-26/Chinden) and arterial street (Ten Mile), rather than abutting residential
areas, especially low-density residential areas.
b. Shift the fuel sales facility off the corner to the south near the driveway via Ten Mile Rd.; or, to the
west near one of the driveways via US 20-26/Chinden Blvd. (if the driveway(s) are approved by
Council and ITD).
c. Include a landscaped design/entryway feature at the northeast corner of the site adjacent to the US 20-
26/Ten Mile intersection for beautification purposes at the City’s entryway corridor.
d. Shift the driveway access to/from the site via Lost Rapids further to the west away from the Ten
Mile/Lost Rapids intersection to alleviate traffic congestion at the intersection.
e. Integrate the commercial with the residential portions of the development through the provision of
pathways and/or vehicular connections and changes to the site layout that may include re-positioning
of buildings so that the rears of buildings aren’t facing abutting uses.
f. In the commercial/office portion of the development, the buildings should be arranged to create some
form of common, usable area, such as a plaza or green space.
g. Include supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places as desired in MU-R
designated areas (see Comprehensive Plan, page 28).
h. Site access should be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and Lost Rapids,
rather than a State facility (i.e. US 20-26).
i. A pedestrian circulation plan should be submitted demonstrating pedestrian interconnectivity within
the overall site.
1.1 A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property. Prior to the
annexation ordinance approval, a DA shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, the property
owner(s) at the time of annexation ordinance adoption, and the developer(s).
Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the applicant to the Planning Division prior to
commencement of the DA(s). The DA(s) shall be signed by the property owner(s) and returned to the
Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council granting annexation.
a. The DA for the property owned by Brighton Corporation (the R-15 zoned property) shall, at
minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan
and building elevations included in Exhibit A and the conditions included in Exhibit B of the staff
report.
2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City
of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 186 of 227
- 16 -
3. Noise abatement in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3H-4D shall be provided for
residential uses adjoining US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.
4. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided within the development in accord with
the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 for residential developments.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits on the subject property, the property shall be
subdivided.
6. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the road widening
improvements required by the Idaho Transportation Department associated with this development
shall be completed.
b. The DA for the property owned by GFI – Meridian Investments II, LLC (the C-G and R-40
zoned property) shall, at minimum, incorporate the following provisions:
1. Future development of this site shall substantially comply with the conceptual development plan,
preliminary plat, landscape plan and conceptual building elevations included in Exhibit A and the
conditions contained herein.
2. Future development shall comply with the design standards listed in UDC 11-3A-19 and the City
of Meridian Architectural Standards Manual.
3. A mix of uses at least three types of land uses [i.e. commercial (includes retail, restaurants, etc.),
office, residential, civic (includes public open space, parks, entertainment venues, etc.), and
industrial] shall be provided within this development as proposed. Note: The medium density
residential uses on the western portion of the development area included in a separate
development agreement will count as one of the land use types (i.e. residential).
4. Up to two (2) building permits for the Costco Wholesale and associated fuel sales facility
structures are allowed to be issued on the subject property prior to recordation of the subdivision
plat.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permits on this site, a property boundary adjustment application
shall be approved and a Record of Survey recorded for the reconfiguration of existing parcels to
coincide with the boundary of the preliminary plat.
6. Provide a detached 10-foot wide multi-use pathway within the street buffer along US 20-26/W.
Chinden Blvd. as set forth in UDC 11-3H-4C.4. A 14-foot wide public pedestrian easement is
required to be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal of the final plat for City
Engineer signature and will be subsequently approved by City Council and recorded. The
applicant shall coordinate with Kim Warren, Park’s Department Pathways Project Manager (208-
888-3579), regarding specifications for the pathway and easement.
7. The street buffer landscaping and multi-use pathway/sidewalk along the entire frontage of US 20-
26/Chinden Blvd. and N. Ten Mile Road shall be constructed with the first phase of development.
8. Business hours of operation in the C-G zoning district are limited from 6:00 am to 11:00 pm
when the property abuts a residential use or district; extended hours of operation may be
requested through a conditional use permit as set forth in UDC 11-2B-3A.4.
9. Qualified open space and site amenities shall be provided within the multi-family portion of the
development in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 for residential developments
and 11-4-3-27 for multi-family developments.
10. A conditional use permit is required for a multi-family development in the R-40 zoning district as
set forth in UDC Table 11-2A-2; compliance with the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-
3-27, Multi-Family Development, is required.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 187 of 227
- 17 -
11. A buffer planted with dense landscaping consistent with the Master Plan in Exhibit A.3 is
required on the commercial portion of the development to the residential uses as set forth in UDC
Table 11-2B-3 in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-9C.
12. A maximum gross density of 24 residential units per acre is allowed to develop within the multi-
family residential portion this site.
13. As committed to by the Applicant/Developer in response to neighborhood concerns, the
following restrictions shall apply:
a. The primary service access for Costco delivery trucks and other local vendors shall be from
the driveway access via N. Ten Mile Road, approximately 660 feet north of W. Lost Rapids
Drive. The driveway access via W. Lost Rapids Drive driveway, approximately 350 feet west
of N. Ten Mile Road, may be used when access to the Lost Rapids/Ten Mile traffic signal is
needed. Businesses within the development shall notify their delivery providers of this access
preference.
b. A “no thru truck traffic” sign shall be installed between the N. Tree Farm Way intersection
and the W. Lost Rapids Dr. service driveway access.
c. No deliveries shall take place for Costco between the hours of 10:00 pm and 5:00 am.
d. Parking lot lighting shall be designed for 0.0 foot-candles at the property line in accord with
UDC 11-3A-11C.
e. Lighting on the site shall be reduced to the level necessary only for public safety and security
purposes within one (1) hour of closing.
14. The Applicant/Developer shall coordinate with Valley Ride Transportation (VRT) to determine if
an ADA bus stop is needed on this site; written documentation from VRT should be submitted.
15. Prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy within this development, the following
improvements shall be completed: SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to 4 lanes with
signal/intersection upgrades from Tree Farm to Linder (1.5 miles); N. Ten Mile Rd. shall be
widened to 4 lanes from Chinden to Walmart (0.80 of a mile); and signals shall be installed at N.
Black Cat Rd. and W. Lost Rapids Dr.
16. Within two (2) years of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Costco Wholesale
building, SH 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd. shall be widened to four (4) lanes from N. Tree Farm Way
to SH-16 (1.44 miles).
1.2 Site Specific Conditions – Preliminary Plat
1.2.1 The preliminary plat included in Exhibit A.4, dated 1/12/2018, shall be revised as follows:
a. Depict a cross-access/ingress-egress easement between all lots within the subdivision.
b. Note #5: “Lot 14 15 is a non-buildable lot . . .”
c. Under Preliminary Plat Data, Zoning, Proposed Zoning, C-G (Lots 2-1415)
d. Depict the street buffers within the residential (R-40 zoned) portion of the development within a
common lot maintained by the homeowner’s association; and the commercial (C-G zoned) portion of
the development within a common lot or on a permanent dedicated buffer maintained by the property
owner or business owners’ association in accord with UDC 11 -3B-7C.2.
1.2.2 The landscape plan included in Exhibit A.5, dated 1/12/2018, shall be revised as follows:
a. All internal landscaping and the site plan should be shown in a lighter line type; only street buffer
improvements should be shown.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 188 of 227
- 18 -
1.2.3 The entire street buffer and pathway/sidewalk along N. Ten Mile Road and US 20-26/W. Chinden Blvd.
shall be constructed with the first phase of development.
1.2.4 The applicant shall coordinate with Valley Regional Transit to determine if an ADA bus stop is needed at
this location.
1.2.5 All fencing shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-7.
1.3 General Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat
1.3.1 Comply with all bulk, use, and development standards of the applicable district listed in UDC Chapter 2
District regulations.
1.3.2 Comply with the provisions for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and/or drainage courses, as set forth in
UDC 11-3A-6.
1.3.3 Install lighting consistent with the provisions as set forth in UDC 11-3A-11.
1.3.4 Provide a pressurized irrigation system consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-15, UDC
11-3B-6 and MCC 9-1-28.
1.3.5 Comply with the sidewalk standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17.
1.3.6 Install all utilities consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-21 and 11-3B-5J.
1.3.7 Construct all off-street parking areas consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-5I, 11-3B-
8C, and Chapter 3 Article C.
1.3.8 Construct the required landscape buffers consistent with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-7C
(streets).
1.3.9 Construct storm water integration facilities that meet the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3B-11C.
1.3.10 Protect any existing trees on the subject property that are greater than four-inch caliper and/or mitigate for
the loss of such trees as set forth in UDC 11-3B-10.
1.3.11 Provide bicycle parking spaces as set forth in UDC 11-3C-6G consistent with the design standards as set
forth in UDC 11-3C-5C.
1.3.12 Comply with the outdoor service and equipment area standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-12.
1.3.13 Construct all required landscape areas used for storm water integration consistent with the standards as set
forth in UDC 11-3B-11C.
1.3.14 Comply with the structure and site design standards, as set forth in UDC 11-3A-19 and the design
standards listed in the Architectural Standards Manual.
1.3.15 Comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3A-3 with regard to maintaining the clear vision triangle.
1.3.16 Low pressure sodium lighting shall be prohibited as an exterior lighting source on the site.
1.3.17 All fencing constructed on the site shall comply with the standards as set forth in UDC 11-3A-7.
1.4 Ongoing Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat
1.4.1 The applicant and/or property owner shall have an ongoing obligation to prune all trees to a minimum
height of six feet above the ground or sidewalk surface to afford greater visibility of the area.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 189 of 227
- 19 -
1.5 Process Conditions of Approval – Preliminary Plat
1.5.1 No signs are approved with this application. Prior to installing any signs on the property, the applicant
shall submit a sign permit application consistent with the standards in UDC Chapter 3 Article D and
receive approval for such signs.
1.5.2 The applicant shall submit and obtain approval of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design Review
application from the Planning Division, prior to submittal of any building permit applications for the
single-family attached, multi-family and commercial structures.
2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
2.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval
2.1.1 The 12-inch diameter water main in N. Ten Mile Road will need to be extended north to the point where
it changes direction and enters the site. From that transition point into the site, the mainline size shall
drop down to an 8-inch diameter. This project will be served from water pressure zone 2. The existing
water mainline stub into the property west of the PRV located in W. Lost Rapids shall either be
abandoned per meridian Public Works standards, or preserved as an emergency interconnect between
pressure zone 1 and 2.
2.1.2 The conceptual engineering submitted with this application do not show any of the proposed routing of
sanitary sewer or water through the multi-family portion of the development. Applicant shall be required
to complete a looped system through the area to connect to the mainline along the back of Costco.
2.1.3 A street light plan will need to be included in the final plat and/or building permit application. Street light
plan requirements are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of
the standards can be found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272
2.2 General Conditions of Approval
2.2.1 Applicant shall coordinate water and sewer main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and
execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service outside of a public
right-of-way. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is
less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public
Works Departments Standard Specifications.
2.2.2 Per Meridian City Code (MCC), the applicant shall be responsible to install sewer and water mains to and
through this development. Applicant may be eligible for a reimbursement agreement for infrastructure
enhancement per MCC 8-6-5.
2.2.3 The applicant shall provide easement(s) for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way
(include all water services and hydrants). The easement widths shall be 20-feet wide for a single utility,
or 30-feet wide for two. The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside
the plat process using the City of Meridian’s standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted
on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public
Works), a legal description prepared by an Idaho Licensed Professional Land Surveyor, which must
include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2” x 11” map with bearings and
distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a
Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. All
easements must be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to development plan approval.
2.2.4 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of
water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the
primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary
water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible
for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to prior to receiving development plan
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 190 of 227
- 20 -
approval.
2.2.5 All existing structures that are required to be removed shall be prior to signature on the final plat by the
City Engineer. Any structures that are allowed to remain shall be subject to evaluation and possible
reassignment of street addressing to be in compliance with MCC.
2.2.6 All irrigation ditches, canals, laterals, or drains, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or
laying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. In
performing such work, the applicant shall comply with Idaho Code 42-1207 and any other applicable law
or regulation.
2.2.7 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City
Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9 4 8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-
5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as
landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at
(208)334-2190.
2.2.8 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section
9-1-4 and 9 4 8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-
5211.
2.2.9 Street signs are to be in place, sanitary sewer and water system shall be approved and activated, road base
approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded,
prior to applying for building permits.
2.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing,
landscaping, amenities, etc., prior to signature on the final plat.
2.2.11 All improvements related to public life, safety and health shall be completed prior to occupancy of the
structures. Where approved by the City Engineer, an owner may post a performance surety for such
improvements in order to obtain City Engineer signature on the final plat as set forth in UDC 11-5C-3B.
2.2.12 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection
fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to the issuance of a plan approval letter.
2.2.13 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features c omply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act.
2.2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may
be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
2.2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads
receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material.
2.2.18 The design engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of
3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom
elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above.
2.2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage
facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or ACHD. The
design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the
approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for
any structures within the project.
2.2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 191 of 227
- 21 -
of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the
issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project.
2.2.21 A street light plan will need to be included in the civil construction plans. Street light plan requirements
are listed in section 6-5 of the Improvement Standards for Street Lighting. A copy of the standards can be
found at http://www.meridiancity.org/public_works.aspx?id=272.
2.2.22 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a performance surety in the amount of 125%
of the total construction cost for all incomplete sewer, water and reuse infrastructure prior to final plat
signature. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The
surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must
file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website.
Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-2211.
2.2.23 The City of Meridian requires that the owner post to the City a warranty surety in the amount of 20% of
the total construction cost for all completed sewer, water and reuse infrastructure for duration of two
years. This surety will be verified by a line item cost estimate provided by the owner to the City. The
surety can be posted in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit, cash deposit or bond. Applicant must
file an application for surety, which can be found on the Community Development Department website.
Please contact Land Development Service for more information at 887-221.
3. POLICE DEPARTMENT
3.1 Pedestrian connectivity should be provided between the residential developments and the commercial
development.
3.2 Security and safety lighting should be provided within the multi-family portion of the development on all
the micro pathways between the buildings and to the parking lots and open space/play areas.
3.3 The loading dock area for the Costco shall be screened for both sight and sound; or, enclosed.
4. FIRE DEPARTMENT
4.1 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department in
accordance with International Fire Code Section (IFC) 508.5.4 as follows:
a. Fire hydrants shall have a Storz LDH connection in place of the the 4 ½” outlet. The Storz
connection may be integrated into the hydrant or an approved adapter may be used on the 4 1/2" outlet.
b. Fire hydrants shall have the Storz outlet face the main street or parking lot drive aisle.
c. Fire hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits.
d. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10’.
e. Fire hydrants shall be placed 18” above finished grade to the center of the Storz outlet.
f. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the Meridian Water Dept. Standards.
g. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to
existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project.
4.2 In accordance with International Fire Code Section 503.2.5 and Appendix D, any
roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be
required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a
temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no
outlet.
4.3 All entrances, internal roads, drive aisles, and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28’
inside and 48’ outside, per International Fire Code Section 503.2.4.
4.4 Provide signage (“No Parking Fire Lane”) for all fire lanes in accordance with International Fire Code
Sections 503.4 & D103.6.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 192 of 227
- 22 -
4.5 Ensure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation as set forth in
International Fire Code Section 304.1.2.
4.6 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs, and access roads with an all-weather surface
are required to be installed before combustible construction material is brought onto the site, as set forth in
International Fire Code Section (IFC) 501.4 and Meridian amendment to IFC 10-4-2J.
4.7 To increase emergency access to the site a minimum of two points of access will be required for any
portion of the project which serves more than 30 homes, as set forth in International Fire Code Section
D107.1. The two entrances should be separated by no less than ½ the diagonal measurement of the full
development as set forth in International Fire Code Section D104.3. The applicant shall provide a stub
street to the property to the (west/east/north/south).
4.8 Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with International Fire
Code Appendix B to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per
Appendix C.
4.9 Maintain a separation of 5’ from the building to the dumpster enclosure as set forth in
International Fire Code Section 304.3.3.
4.10 Provide a Fire Department Key box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy as
set forth in International Fire Code Section 506.
4.11 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level as set forth
in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian Amendment 10-4-1.
4.12 The applicant shall work with Public Works and Planning Department staff to provide an
address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian
sign ordinance and is placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or
road fronting the property, as set forth in International Fire Code Section 505.1 and Meridian
Amendment 104-4-1.
4.13 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150’ of a paved
surface as measured around the perimeter of the building as set forth in International Fire
Code Section 503.1.1.
4.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units shall be required to be fire sprinkled as set forth
in International Fire Code Section 903.2.8.
4.15 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100’ of all fire department connections as set forth in local amendment to
the International Fire Code 10-4-1.
4.16 The Fire Department will require Fire Department locking Connection caps on all FDC inlets. IFC
102.9.
4.17 Buildings over 30’ in height are required to have access roads in accordance with the
International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105.
4.18 Emergency response routes and fire lanes shall not be allowed to have traffic calming devices
installed without prior approval of the Fire Code Official. National Fire Protection IFC 503.4.1.
4.19 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm)
or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure.
The access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of
the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line as
set forth in International Fire Code Appendix D104.1.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 193 of 227
- 23 -
4.20 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL - Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of
more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire
apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the
property or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses as set forth in
International Fire Code Appendix D104.2.
Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2)
that have a single approved fire apparatus access road and all buildings are equipped throughout
with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required)
4.21 As set forth in International Fire Code Section 504.1, multi-family and commercial projects
shall be required to provide an additional sixty inch (60”) wide access point to the building from
the fire lane to allow for the movement of manual fire suppression equipment and gurney
operations. The unobstructed breaks in the parking stalls shall be provided so that building
access is provided in such a manner that the most remote part of a building can be reached with a
length of 150' fire hose as measured around the perimeter of the building from the fire lane. Code
compliant handicap parking stalls may be included to assist meeting this requirement. Contact the
Meridian Fire Department for details.
5. REPUBLIC SERVICES
5.1 Please coordinate trash enclosure design and locations with Bob Olson, Republic Services (208-345-1265
office, or 208-371-1745 cell; or, email: ROlson@republicservices.com ) prior to submittal of a Certificate
of Zoning Compliance application. Also, provide provisions for recycling.
6. PARKS DEPARTMENT
6.1 The Park’s Department has no comments on this application at this time.
7. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS
Comprehensive Plan Analysis
The following analysis for the Lost Rapids application is based on adherence of the proposed site concept
plan and narrative with the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Included are general comments and
analysis based on the text and policy statements of the Comprehensive Plan.
General Comments:
The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Ten Mile Road and Chinden Blvd (US-20/26),
is 2-miles east of US-16, and 5-miles north of Interstate 84. Ten Mile Road, between Chinden and I-84, is
improved with 2-lanes between Chinden and Ustick and 5-lanes south of Ustick to I-84.
The future land use designations for the subject site are Medium Density Residential and Mixed Use
Community. These two land uses allow for and encourage a transition of residential densities with
supportive commercial opportunities. The application proposes changing the Medium Density Residential
and Mixed Use Community future land use designation to the Mixed Use Regional designation for all 70
acres.
While the property is proposed to be mixed use regional, the conceptual site plan shows two distinct,
separate projects. One is medium density residential (west side), as the Future Land Use Map currently
shows and allows, and the other is commercial with some high density residential (north and south
respectively). There are no connections made between these two projects, either pedestrian or automotive,
and no integration or “mix” of uses are shown or described. Staff recommends better integration of the
various land use types (single-family, commercial and multi-family) proposed.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 194 of 227
- 24 -
Analysis Specific to Text:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following description for the Mixed Use Community designation,
the current designation for a portion of this property.
The purpose of this designation is to allocate areas where community-serving uses and dwellings are
seamlessly integrated into the urban fabric. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses, including
residential, and to avoid mainly single-use and strip commercial type buildings. Non-residential
buildings in these areas have a tendency to be larger than in Mixed Use—Neighborhood areas, but
not as large as in Mixed Use – Regional areas. Goods and services in these areas tend to be of the
variety that people will mainly travel by car to, but also walk or bike to (up to three or four miles).
Employment opportunities for those living in and around the neighborhood are encouraged.
Medium Density Residential which allows for residential densities ranging between 3 and 8 units per acre
works well adjacent to Mixed Use Community, which has a target residential density of 6 to 15 units per
acre. These two land use types can be seamlessly integrated and allow for full compliance with the
specific policies of Mixed Use General and Mixed Use Community policies.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following description for the Mixed Use Regional future land use,
the designation proposed by the Applicant.
The purpose of this designation is to provide a mix of employment, retail, and residential dwellings
and public uses near major arterial intersections. The intent is to integrate a variety of uses together,
including residential, and to avoid predominantly single use developments such as a regional retail
center with only restaurants and other commercial uses. Developments should be anchored by uses
that have a regional draw with the appropriate supporting uses. For example, an employment center
should have support retail uses; a retail center should have supporting residential uses as well as
supportive neighborhood and community services. The standards for the MU-R designation provide
an incentive for larger public and quasi-public uses where they provide a meaningful and
appropriate mix to the development. The developments are encouraged to be designed according to
the conceptual MU-R plan depicted in Figure 3-5.
The application does not clearly indicate why the City would be better served by Mixed Use Regional or
more specifically by a Costco at the subject location, rather than within an already adopted Mixed Use
Regional location located closer to the Highway 16 and US-20/26 intersection. The application does show
north Meridian (and all of northern Ada and Canyon counties) as being “underserved” and distant from
existing Costco sites in Nampa and Boise, but neither this or prior studies explain why the community is
better served by a regional project than a community sized project currently envisioned. By proposing a
Costco with unique traffic and circulation patterns on a smaller commercial portion of the site,
connectivity and integration requirements are difficult. This isn’t to suggest that Costco is bad, quite the
contrary, only that size and configuration of very distinct and separate developments presents some
formidable challenges for a site with Costco, and within a mixed use designation.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 195 of 227
- 25 -
Figure 3-5 from the Comprehensive Plan
With regard to proposed residential components, the bulk of the single-family product (west side) is
described as between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the adopted Medium Density
Residential (MDR) land use. The requested R-15 zoning designation is atypical for MDR, but the
applicant describes it as an age-restricted product type with specific lot dimensional needs. This portion
of the proposed application may be consistent with the adopted future land use. It may also be consistent
with the Mixed Use Regional designation, provided significant improvements are made to the interrelated
connectivity improvements of the larger site. The application does not however indicate why high density
residential (in excess of what would be allowed under MU-C) is proposed to the south. There is currently
no major employment in the area and Costco is the only regional use proposed with the application. All
other minor pad sites would likely be allowed within the MU-C designation (though a different
configuration would be preferred) and do not constitute an employment area as described by the
Comprehensive Plan. It could simply be that the application is proposing higher density residential
because of density targets within the proposed Mixed Use Regional designation, but the minimum density
range is only six dwelling units per acre.
The proposed application does not show or describe any integrated public or quasi-public open space,
community serving facilities such as churches, schools, or parks, the retail and services are separated and
only indirectly accessible to proposed residential, and the commercial areas do not show or describe any
type of plaza or gathering areas. The open space in the proposed residential areas (R-15 and R-40)
contributes to the required open space for those designations, but is not centralized or designed to
integrate the various uses. The proposed uses are all shown in distinct areas, separated by drive aisles,
streets, and tall impassable berms and fencing. Only indirect public sidewalks facilitate access between
different uses at the perimeter. There are no pedestrian focused areas or pathway connections to comingle
neighborhood serving type uses and the community.
As previously stated, a Mixed Use development by the City’s standards is not simply several types of
uses. All of the missing elements discussed within the context of the mixed use text are intended to
interrelate and activate different uses. Without many of these tenants, the basic principles of the City’s
mixed use standards are not met. What is proposed is really no different than what may occur within a
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 196 of 227
- 26 -
traditional Medium Density Residential project adjacent to a Commercial project. While some of the
desired element opportunities, such as a church and public park are near the site, neither are integrated
into the fabric of any portion of the proposed mixed use area, nor are smaller or similar opportunities
described or shown to interrelate the proposed uses. All of these missing elements would help to justify
having higher density residential because they would better integrate the varying uses. Without these it’s
unclear why high density is appropriate, at least with regards to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and
more specifically to the mixed use standards.
The application narrative also states and implies that commercial development along a State Highway
should be regional in scale and that direct access is the best approach. While this may be what is in the
best interest of a potential user(s), and is easily understood, this is not suggested or supported by
Comprehensive Plan text or policies, or by City code. In fact, this is not necessarily typical of
development in other areas. A Costco in Tigard, OR for example is adjacent to the intersection of a State
freeway and highway, but does not take access from either. Instead it faces an internal collector roadway
connecting to the adjacent highway. Costco’s “back” is to the state facilities and it faces the collector
roadway. Similarly the Winco across the street from the Tigard Costco facility also faces the collector
roadway. Several Costco stores near the Portland International Airport, Aloha, Clackamas, Hillsboro, and
Willsonville similarly either do not take direct access from mobility highways, instead fronting
frontage/backage roads or “local” arterials, or are not located on any similar state mobility corridor.
Costco facilities in Nampa and Boise are both located near to, but off of, State facilities, instead taking
access from roadways with drastically fewer vehicles than existing and planned traffic on US-20/26. That
these other facilities do not take direct access is important because local congestion, into and out of the
site, does not directly impact the State facilities. A primary entryway drive aisle backed up and onto a
State facility could hinder regional traffic. Given the peak hour congestion at other Costco sites, a
scenario such as this does not seem far-fetched. In fact, the adjacent roadways to both of these existing
Costco sites bear these types of problems.
The Applicant’s narrative also suggests that it is in the communities’ best interest that access to Chinden
be provided, to alleviate and prevent auto traffic impacts on the existing neighborhood. The application
states that,
…this project will generate a substantial amount of patron and delivery truck traffic that would be
detrimental to the surrounding neighborhoods should it be forced out onto the local and collector
streets alone. Critical to this project's success, and to that of Costco specifically, is the ability to
provide egress/ingress to/from Chinden Boulevard through two dedicated access points.
The application also states however that deliveries will be limited, with no traffic between 10:00 PM and
5:00 AM. It also appears that access to Lost Rapids near to Ten Mile could be designed in a way to
accommodate heavy truck traffic, minimizing impacts to existing residential regardless of hours. Lost
Rapids is a collector roadway and intended to serve more than just local residential traffic, and Staff
believes any necessary capacity improvements could be made to Lost Rapids to bear additional traffic
burdens without creating new points of conflict and congestion on the State system. The State facility is
arguably more important than local roadway impacts, not just for the locals using it to commute, but for
all regional users. Again, Costco has a proven record both locally and within other metropolitan areas of
operating both off of and without any direct access to mobility highways. Clearer justification or rationale
beyond that they want it should be provided to justify it as being in the City’s best interest. It is generally
understood that it would benefit their operations and business, but regardless of any widening that may be
done to US-20/26, any additional access will create points of conflict and reduce level of service. While
stating that ITD approved a traffic study is an accomplishment and an important step for the proposed
application, this does not mean that it’s in Meridian best interest. The applicant is also proposing to enter
into a STARS agreement with ITD but it is Meridian staff’s understanding that the agreement has not yet
been finalized. Essentially, the applicant is proposing to improve US 20/26 to four lanes between Linder
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 197 of 227
- 27 -
and Lost Rapids before Costco opens and then improve the highway to four lanes further west, to SH-16
within two years.
Staff is not stating or implying that a future land use amendment may be inappropriate or outside of the
City’s best interest, only that the site layout as depicted and described is not typical of all Costco stores;
that no justification of need for direct or primary access to mobility highway is described relative to City
policies; and that the mixed use concept shown does not generally align with text of the Comprehensive
Plan.
General Mixed Use Text Analysist
Per the Comprehensive Plan, while reviewing development applications, the following items will be
considered in all Mixed Use areas:
o Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.
Proposed residential densities described by the application and within or near to the proposed
mixed use designation are between 20 and 24 units per acre. The medium density residential
portion of the site is described as being between 5 and 8 dwelling units per acre.
o Where feasible, higher density and/or multi-family residential development will be encouraged,
especially for projects with the potential to serve as employment destination centers and when the
project is adjacent to US 20/26, SH-55, SH-16 or SH-69.
The subject application is located adjacent to US 20/26. However, this area is not an employment
destination today such as Silverstone, El Dorado, the Ten Mile Interchange Specific Area Plan,
the Pine corridor near Eagle Rd, or the St Luke’s & Portico area, but there is potential for there
to be employment centers in the future.
o A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed use area should be included in the application.
A conceptual site plan has been provided with the Lost Rapids application for the entire area.
o In developments where multiple commercial and/or office buildings are proposed (not
residential), the buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable area, such
as a plaza or green space.
The smaller pads sites with the proposed application are not detailed and do not describe
common areas. Future buildings should be arranged to create some form of common, usable
area(s).
o The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between commercial
and existing low- or medium-density residential development.
The proposed application is not immediately adjacent to any existing low or medium density
homes. Adjacent proposed single-family homes are described as being separated by tall berms
and dense vegetation.
o A mixed use project should include at least three types of land uses. Exceptions may be granted
for smaller sites on a case-by-case basis.
The proposed site plan only explicitly describes commercial and residential uses, but two
different types of residential are proposed (single-family and multi-family). No dedicated offices
or services type uses are shown (though they may occur on the pad sites).
o Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic
buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed use developments.
There are no community-serving facilities as defined above integrated into the mixed use
development. A church and park are nearby. All required open space amenities are centralized
within their respective developments without any shared facilities nearer to or within the
commercial areas.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 198 of 227
- 28 -
o Supportive and proportional public and/or quasi-public spaces and places including but not
limited to parks, plazas, outdoor gathering areas, open space, libraries, and schools are expected;
outdoor seating areas at restaurants do not count.
There are no public or quasi-public spaces shown or described as part of the proposed
application.
o All mixed use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by both
vehicles and pedestrians.
There are only in-direct connections to existing and proposed neighborhoods. The proposed
future neighborhood to the west has no direct access, pedestrian or automotive, to the
commercial uses. However, Lost Rapids Drive is a collector that allows Bainbridge access
without having to get on the arterial roadway network.
o Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are required
within the Unified Development Code.
There is an existing collector roadway, Lost Rapids, adjacent to the proposed site and complies
with ACHD’s Master Street Map.
Mixed Use Regional Text Analysis
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R areas:
o Development should generally comply with the general guidelines for development in all Mixed
Use areas.
See General Mixed Use Text Analysis.
o Residential uses should comprise a minimum of 10% of the development area at densities ranging
from six to 40 units/acre.
Within the proposed application, residential densities are described by the application as being
between 5 to 8 and 20 to 24 units per acres and comprise 87 of the mixed use regional area. 58%
of the site is proposed as residential.
o Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.
Within the proposed mixed use area, retail uses are approximately 42% of the area. Some of the
smaller pad sites may be office or service uses.
o There is neither a minimum nor maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as office,
clean industry, or entertainment uses.
No non-retail commercial uses are shown, except that some office may occupy pad sites.
o Where the development proposes public and quasi-public uses to support the development, the
developer may be eligible for additional area for retail development (beyond the allowed 50%),
based on the ratios below:
The development does not show or describe any public or quasi-public uses integrated within the
mixed use area. The developer is showing approximately 42% of the site as being retail, which is
less than the maximum 50% area.
o For land that is designated for a public use, such as a library or school, the developer is eligible
for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if there is a five-acre library site, the project would be eligible for
ten additional acres of retail development.
No public uses are shown or proposed.
o For active open space or passive recreation areas, such as a park, tot-lot or playfield, the
developer is eligible for a 2:1 bonus. That is to say, if the park is 10 acres in area, the site would
be eligible for 20 additional acres of retail development.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 199 of 227
- 29 -
No public or quasi-public open space or passive recreation areas are shown or described. The
only qualified open space shown private as part of the individual residential components.
Analysis Specific to the Policy Statements:
o 3.01.01B, “Evaluate comprehensive impact of growth in all land use decisions (e.g., traffic
impacts, school enrollment, parks, etc).”
ACHD was provided with a traffic impact study, but as of the writing of this report, the analysis
was not complete. The application was forwarded on to partner agencies and other City
Departments for analysis of impacts to services.
o 3.01.01F, “Permit new development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the
time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City.”
The proposed project is located in an area where development has and is already occurring, and
City services are all readily available in the vicinity.
o 3.01.01G, “Evaluate development proposals based on physical, social, economic, environmental,
and aesthetic criteria.”
The proposed site plan indicates large landscape buffers and generally appealing architectural
designs. Offsite impacts such as trucks and lighting are described or shown as being reduced,
and the high density residential is on a major transportation corridor. It is unclear however how
the proposed site development furthers inclusive mixed use design elements, or how the proposed
future land use designation and site plan is better for the neighbors and City than a development
with more neighborhood and community accessible services.
o 3.01.01J, “Work with transportation agencies and private property owners to preserve
transportation corridors, future transit routes and infrastructure, road and highway extensions, and
to facilitate access management planning.”
City Staff has been coordinating with both the applicant and the transportation agencies (ACHD
and ITD) on this project. The proposed project will preserve right-of-way for future US Highway
20/26 widening projects. In fact, the applicant is proposing to enter into a STAR agreement with
ITD to make some off-site improvements to US 20/26. These improvements would widen the
highway to 4-travel lanes and improve impacted intersections in conjunction with ITD’s project
to widen the corridor from Eagle Road. The Commission and Council should consider ACHD’s
and ITD’s comments when determining appropriate access and circulation for this site.
The City has policies limiting access points to arterial roadways and State highways. The
submitted site plan shows two direct access points to a State Highway, including one full access,
and one access point to Ten Mile Road, an arterial street. Every additional access is a point of
conflict that can impact roadway functionality. Costcos can be busy and congestion at facilities in
both Boise and Nampa spill over onto adjacent roadways (none of which are State facilities).
Traffic waiting to exit out onto the signal at Cole at the Boise facility, backs up to the point of
blocking vehicles from exiting parking stalls. This slows vehicles entering into the site. Staff
recommends that site access be designed to prioritize and encourage access from Ten Mile and
Lost Rapids, rather than a State facility.
o 3.03.02G, “Consider the adopted COMPASS regional long-range transportation plan in all land-
use decisions.”
The Communities in Motion (CIM) 2040 Plan identifies US 20/26 as a priority corridor with a
typology of expressway. It is currently listed as an “unfunded” priority, though some early
improvements are pending. The following is a summary from the CIM US 20/26 Priority Corridor
Summary.
“As a major mobility highway, US 20/26 is experiencing congestion along much of its length but
especially between Linder Road and State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), a stretch with only two
travel lanes. US 20/26 has been a regional priority for a number of years but it remains
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 200 of 227
- 30 -
unfunded, causing traffic to divert to other routes such as McMillan Road. In addition to high
traffic levels on this road, the intersection with State Highway 55 (Eagle Road) is ranked #2 on
ITD’s list of high-accident locations.
By 2040, daily traffic between Middleton Road and State Highway 55 is expected to increase
substantially.
o From Middleton Road to Star Road, traffic is projected to more than double, from 12,000
in 2013 to 30,000 in 2040.
o From Star Road to Linder Road, traffic is projected to double, from 14,000 in 2013 to
28,000 in 2040.
This would be similar to current traffic on US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard) in Garden
City.
o From Linder Road to State Highway 55 (Eagle Road), traffic is projected to increase
80%, from 21,000 in 2013 to 38,000 in 2040.
This would be similar to current traffic on Eagle Road north of US 20/26.
o Rush hour driving time between Middleton Road and Glenwood Street is expected to
more than double, from 25 minutes in 2013 to 60 minutes in 2040.”
o 3.03.02N, “Reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets by using methods
such as cross-access agreements, access management, and frontage / backage roads.”
There is only one existing farm access road which bisects the existing farm fields, half-way
between Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids Drive. There are no existing public access points on
either the State facility or Ten Mile Road. The entire property has access from an improved
collector roadway to the west and south of the site which may act and function as a backage
road.
o 3.03.03E, “Except in North Meridian and the Ten Mile Specific Area, where a specific collector
system is planned, realize continuous collectors at regular intervals around the north-south and
east-west half-mile lines within the undeveloped sections of Meridian's Area of City Impact at the
time of new development. Such collectors should be the primary designated bike lane routes in
lieu of arterial streets, whenever possible.”
Lost Rapids is an existing collector roadway that connects into Tree Farm Way to the north,
across Chinden Blvd, and extends to the east across Ten Mile Rd into Lochsa Falls.
o 3.03.04K, “Consider ACHD's MSM (Master Street Map) in all land use decisions”
With the exception of Chinden Blvd (which is an ITD facility), the arterial and collector
roadways shown on ACHD’s street map are already improved or scheduled for widening.
o 3.04.01G, “Protect citizen investments in existing public facilities (water, sewer, streets, fire,
police, etc.) by encouraging controlled growth through development application reviews and
development agreements.”
The proposed project is surrounded by urban development and would be well served by the City.
o 3.04.01H, “Coordinate with public works, police, and fire departments on proposed annexation
and development requests, and the impacts on services.”
Public Works, Police, and Fire were all invited to pre-application and project review meetings.
Further, they are invited as part of a comments meeting. Their comments and conditions, if
provided, are included as part of the staff report.
o 3.05.01E, “Locate small-scale neighborhood commercial areas within planned residential
developments as part of the development plan.”
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 201 of 227
- 31 -
Future and existing residential areas are located on the backside of Costco, with the small-scale
neighborhood serving type pad sites generally located furthest from existing and proposed
neighborhoods. This layout is inconsistent with the intent of Mixed Use designation, Figure 3-5,
and the purpose of backage and collector type roadways.
o 3.05.01J, “Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Area of City
Impact.”
This area is planned for some commercial uses and the proposed site plan would expand resident
and stakeholder access to closer commercial and retail opportunities.
o 3.05.03A, “Identify transitional areas to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses
such as offices and other low intensity uses.”
Potential low intensity users are located away from existing and proposed residential areas and
do not provide a buffer. The high density residential does buffer Costco impacts from existing
residential, which is similarly buffered from the existing low density residential by a collector
roadway with wide landscape buffers.
o 3.06.01F, “Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on
adjacent parcels.”
The nearest existing residential developments are separated by collector and arterial roadways.
Additional landscaping will separate proposed residential uses from commercial uses (Costco).
The application narrative indicates that no deliveries will take place between 10:00 PM and 5:00
am, that commercial truck deliveries will be restricted away from residential, and that all lighting
will be shielded and 0.0 foot candles at property lines.
o 3.06.01H, “Support land uses that do not harm natural systems and resources.”
The existing land is farmed and there are no natural systems which remain to be protected.
o 3.06.02D, “Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets”
The proposed site plan and application requests direct access to Ten Mile Road located roughly
half-way between Lost Rapid, a collector roadway s and Chinden Blvd, a State highway and a
mobility corridor.
o 3.06.02H, “Coordinate with ACHD, ITD, COMPASS, and other agencies to determine future
infrastructure plans, transportation corridors, highway alignments, etc. and allow only compatible
adjacent land uses, appropriate site designs and traffic patterns.”
ACHD, ITD, and COMPASS have all been provided an opportunity to review and comment on
the proposed application. ITD and ACHD have both held several additional meetings to review
and discuss the proposed application. Agency staffs continue to discuss what “appropriate” and
“compatible” site design and traffic patterns entail. Staff recommends the Commission and
Council consider any additional comments or conditions that are provided by ACHD, ITD or
COMPASS.
o 3.07.01D, “Adopt land use designations that will allow for housing opportunities for all income
levels.””
The adopted future land use designations allow for a variety of housing types that may be
attractive to all income levels. The applicant is proposing to annex and zone portions of the site
as R-15 (Medium-high Density Residential) and R-40 (High Density Residential).The proposed
residential is within the specified area and range described in the Comprehensive Plan, but the
overall concept plan lacks many of the mixed use elements necessary for it to be integrated
successfully as a mixed use project. See the General Mixed Use text analysis.
o 3.07.02D, “Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers”
The proposed project would provide additional shopping opportunities for existing and proposed
residents. However, Staff is concerned that the site plan does not provide adequate pedestrian
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 202 of 227
- 32 -
connections between residential and retail uses. This proposed location is not within a current
employment area.
o 3.07.02L, “Locate high-density development, where possible, near open space corridors or other
permanent major open space and park facilities, Old Town, and near major access thoroughfares.”
The proposed high-density residential is near two parks (Keith Bird Legacy and Heroes’ Park)
and a major access thoroughfare (US-20/26).
o 3.07.03B, “Provide for a wide diversity of housing types (single-family and multi-family
arrangements) and choices between ownership and rental dwelling units for all income groups in
a variety of locations suitable for residential development.”
The proposed site plan would add to Meridian’s diversity of housing, and provides for high
density residential in close proximity to a major transportation corridor. The density of
residential was not however justified well, particularly in light of the applications compliance
with the mixed use standard and that it would exceed densities allowances within the adopted
MU-C land use.
o 7.01.01F, “Integrate land use and transportation planning to ensure that they mutually support the
communities' goals and desires.”
City and transportation agencies have met multiple times to discuss the subject project. With
some changes to the proposal, staff believes the project could support the communities’ goals and
desires.
Summary Comments and Recommendation:
In summary, the proposed application and concept plan is not generally consistent with either of the
proposed future land use designations. The major and only envisioned anchor, Costco, is entirely auto
centric and there is limited opportunities given the store size and remaining commercial area to meet the
intent of any mixed use designation. The proposed configuration, centralized on the site and facing
Chinden, is not ideal for the existing and proposed community. Rather than using the collector as a
backage road and integrating less intense retail and office type uses adjacent the existing neighborhood,
the collector is used as secondary access. Given the size of the commercial area left after Costco, and
unless commercial portions of the site are rotated 180-degrees to be inclusive with the existing
neighborhoods, it is unlikely that any number of small adjustments will allow the proposed development
to comply with the mixed use designation. Further, the centralized location and orientation of Costco
makes interconnectivity between residential and commercial and neighborhood serving portions of the
site difficult.
As the sole anchor and largest portion of the commercial area, a simple Commercial future land use
designation may be a more appropriate designation for this corner. Other changes should still be
considered to better integrate and protect any proposed residential from traffic conflicts, such as cut-
through driving, and to protect the State facility from internal drive aisle congestion. Lessons learned
from Eagle Road should also be considered with regard to access of State facilities, and the impacts and
driving behaviors that occur as a result. Access to Chinden may be appropriate, but the emphasis should
be elsewhere and less directly into parking areas. Consider opportunities for better connecting the
proposed residential areas to both Costco (with a great food center), and the satellite pads, which may
have more neighborhood serving uses. More efforts should be explored to improve pathway connections
and dedicated pedestrian environments so that existing and proposed residential may access the site
without having to drive. To comply with mixed use requirements, more substantial site layout revisions
would be necessary.
Lessons learned from Eagle Road should also be considered with regard to access to a State facilities, and
the impacts and driving behaviors that occur as a result.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 203 of 227
- 33 -
8. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD)
There are no site specific conditions of approval associated with the Comprehensive Plan Map
Amendment and Annexation & Zoning applications.
8.1 Site Specific Conditions of Approval (Preliminary Plat)
8.1.1 Comply with requirements of ITD and City of Meridian for the Chinden Boulevard/US 20-26 frontage.
8.1.2 Enter into a Cooperative Development Agreement (CDA) with ACHD for the widening of Ten Mile Road
to 5 lanes between Chinden Boulevard and Milano Drive, prior to ACHD’s signature on the first final
plat.
8.1.3 The Cooperative Development Agreement should include the roadway construction, contract
requirements, as well as allocation of costs. ACHD will only provide reimbursement for the costs of
permanent roadway improvements consistent with the IFYWP and CIP. Interim improvements are not
eligible for reimbursement and all costs would be the responsibility of the applicant.
8.1.4 In order to ensure the roadway will be improved when warranted, the following items must be in place
prior plans acceptance for the final plat necessitating the improvements.
Cooperative Development Agreement;
Financial surety provided by the applicant meeting the terms of the Cooperative Development
Agreement;
Dedication of all of the right-of-way necessary to complete the road widening project.
8.1.5 If the STAR Agreement does not occur prior to ACHD's signature on the first final plat enter into a
Cooperative Development Agreement with the District to improve the Chinden Boulevard/Black Cat
Road intersection, as listed in the ACHD's CIP.
The Cooperative Development Agreement shall include the intersection construction, as well as
allocation of costs. ACHD will only provide impact fee credit for impact fee eligible costs of
permanent intersection improvements consistent with CIP.
8.1.6 In order to ensure the Chinden Boulevard/Black Cat Road intersection will be improved when warranted,
the following items must be in place prior plans acceptance for the final plat necessitating the
improvements.
Cooperative Development Agreement;
Financial surety provided by the applicant meeting the terms of the Cooperative Development
Agreement;
Dedication of all of the right-of-way necessary to complete the
intersection project.
8.1.7 If the widening of Ten Mile Road to 5 lanes between Chinden Boulevard and McMillan Road is removed
from the STAR agreement or if the construction of the proposed improvements is not feasible due to of
timing of ACHD roadway construction projects in the area, then the following improvements shall be
constructed.
Dedicate right-of-way to total 48-feet from the centerline of Ten Mile Road.
Construct a 5-foot wide detached concrete sidewalk located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline
of Ten Mile Road abutting the site. Provide a permanent right-of-way easement for detached
sidewalks located outside of the dedicated right-of-way.
Construct a center left turn lane and dedicated right turn lane on Ten Mile Road for the temporary full
access driveway located 660-feet north of Lost Rapids Drive.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 204 of 227
- 34 -
Install a signal at the Ten Mile Road/Lost Rapids Drive intersection. The applicant should be
required to enter into a signal agreement with ACHD for the design, construction, and installation of
the signal. The signal agreement should note that the intersection should be designed to provide a 3 X
4 intersection with three 12-foot wide travel lanes; one receiving lane, one dedicated left turn lane,
and one thru/right lane on the north, south, and east approach, and with four 12 -foot wide travel lanes
on the west approach; one receiving lane, one dedicated left turn lane, one thru lane, and one
dedicated right lane. The applicant is responsible for all costs associated with the hardware, design,
and installation of the signal.
8.1.8 Replace any broken or deteriorated portions of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on Lost Rapids Drive abutting
the site.
8.1.9 Remove the existing center landscape island on Lost Rapids Drive at the Ten Mile Road intersection.
8.1.10 When the multifamily portion of the site develops, install "NO PARKING" signs on Lost Rapids Drive
abutting the site.
8.1.11 Close the existing driveway onto Ten Mile Road from the site located 480-feet south of Chinden
Boulevard.
8.1.12 Construct a 36 to 40-foot wide temporary full access driveway onto Ten Mile Road located 660-feet north
of Lost Rapids Drive, as proposed. Construct the driveway as a curb return type driveway with a 30-foot
radii and pave the driveway its entire width at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of
Ten Mile Road. This driveway may be restricted in the future as traffic conditions warrant as determined
by ACHD.
8.1.13 Construct one driveway onto Lost Rapids Drive located 350-feet west of Ten Mile Road, aligned
centerline to centerline with an existing driveway on the south side Lost Rapids Drive. Construct the
driveway as a curb return type driveway with a 30-foot radii and pave the driveway its entire width at
least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Lost Rapids Drive.
8.1.14 Construct one driveway onto Lost Rapids Drive located 700-feet west of Ten Mile Road, align centerline
to centerline with a public street on the south side Lost Rapids Drive. Construct the driveway as a curb
return type driveway with a 30-foot radii and pave the driveway its entire width at least 30-feet into the
site beyond the edge of pavement of Lost Rapids Drive.
8.1.15 Other than access approved as part of this application, direct lot access to Ten Mile Road and Lost Rapids
Drive is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat.
8.1.16 Payment of impact fees is due prior to issuance of a building permit.
8.1.17 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval.
8.2 Standard Conditions of Approval (Preliminary Plat)
8.2.1 All proposed irrigation facilities shall be located outside of the ACHD right-of-way (including all
easements). Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the ACHD right-of-way
(including all easements).
8.2.2 Private Utilities including sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within the ACHD
right-of-way.
8.2.3 In accordance with District policy, 7203.3, the applicant may be required to update any existing non-
compliant pedestrian improvements abutting the site to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) requirements. The applicant’s engineer should provide documentation of ADA compliance to
District Development Review staff for review.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 205 of 227
- 35 -
8.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the
construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number)
for details.
8.2.5 A license agreement and compliance with the District’s Tree Planter policy is required for all landscaping
proposed within ACHD right-of-way or easement areas.
8.2.6 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by
the developer.
8.2.7 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. The
applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall
be required to call DIGLINE (1-811-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground
within ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event
any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction.
8.2.8 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the
District. Contact the District’s Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details.
8.2.9 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the ACHD Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and
approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Standards unless
specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all
improvement plans.
8.2.10 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of
ACHD prior to District approval for occupancy.
8.2.11 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed
by the applicant or the applicant’s authorized representative and an authorized representative of ACHD.
The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from ACHD.
8.2.12 If the site plan or use should change in the future, ACHD Planning Review will review the site plan and
may require additional improvements to the transportation system at that time. Any change in the planned
use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with
ACHD Policy and Standard Conditions of Approval in place at that time unless a waiver/variance of the
requirements or other legal relief is granted by the ACHD Commission.
9. IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT (ITD)
(See next page)
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 206 of 227
- 36 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 207 of 227
- 37 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 208 of 227
- 38 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 209 of 227
- 39 -
Exhibit C: Legal Description & Exhibit Map for Annexation & Zoning Boundary
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 210 of 227
- 40 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 211 of 227
- 41 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 212 of 227
- 42 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 213 of 227
- 43 -
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 214 of 227
- 44 -
D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the
public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the
Council shall make the following findings:
a. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds that the proposed map amendment from Mixed Use – Community and Medium Density
Residential to entirely Mixed Use – Regional as currently designed is not consistent with elements of
the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Sections VII & IX above.
b. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city.
Staff finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to allow for mixed use regional
type uses will be compatible with future adjacent residential uses if revisions are made to the concept
plan as recommended in Section IX and Exhibit B.
c. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment will be consistent with the Goals, Objectives, and Policies
of the Comprehensive Plan if revisions are made to the conceptual development plan as
recommended by staff in Exhibit B (see Sections VII and IX for detailed analysis).
d. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
e. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
Staff finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing and planned future
residential uses if revisions are made to the conceptual development plan as recommended by Staff.
f. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities.
Staff finds that the proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities in
this portion of the city. Sewer and water services are available to be extended to this site.
g. The proposed map amendment (as applicable) provides a logical juxtaposition of uses that
allows sufficient area to mitigate any anticipated impact associated with the development of
the area.
Staff finds the proposed map amendment with the changes recommended by Staff to the conceptual
development plan will provide a logical juxtaposition of uses.
h. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
For the reasons stated in Sections VII and IX and the subject findings above, Staff finds that the
proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if changes are made to the conceptual
development plan as recommended by Staff.
1. ANNEXATION & ZONING:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall,
at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation, the Council shall
make the following findings:
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 215 of 227
- 45 -
a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts is consistent
with the existing MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designation for this site and should be compatible
with existing and future uses in the area. Therefore, Staff finds the amendment is consistent with the
applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan (see section VII above for more information).
b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
Staff finds that the proposed map amendment to the R-15, R-40 and C-G zoning districts is consistent
with the purpose statements of the commercial and residential districts as detailed in Section VIII
above.
c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare if the site is developed in accord with the conditions of approval in Exhibit B. City utilities
will be extended at the expense of the applicant. Staff recommends that the Commission and
Council consider any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this
finding. Many letters of public testimony have been submitted for this project.
d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any
political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to,
school districts; and,
Staff finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site.
e. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E).
Staff finds the proposed annexation of this property is in the best interest of the City if the applicant
develops the site in accord with the conditions listed in Exhibit B.
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT:
In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-
making body shall make the following findings:
a. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan in
regard to land use if Council approves the requested amendment to the FLUM to MU-R; if the
applicant complies with the conditions included in this report, the conceptual development plan
should be consistent with the transportation and circulation goals. Please see Comprehensive Plan
Policies and Goals, Section VII, of the Staff Report for more information.
b. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
Staff finds that public services will be provided to the subject property upon development. (See
Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.)
c. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City’s
capital improvement program;
Because City water and sewer and any other utilities will be provided by the developer at their own
cost, Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 216 of 227
1
2
3
BAINBRIDGE NORTH – LOST RAPIDS
APPLICATIONS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP
AMENDMENT
ANNEXATION WITH R-15, R-40, AND C-G ZONING
COMMERCIAL / MULTI-FAMILY PRELIMINARY PLAT
4
5
6
7
TE
N
M
I
L
E
CHINDEN
8
August 6, 2002
October 7, 2008
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
9
LANDSCAPE BUFFERS
10
11
12
Costco Membership and Site Selection
Costco Info
•Typical Hours of Operation:
–Warehouse 10:00 am – 9:00 pm (Mon – Fri)
9:30 am – 6:00 pm (Sat)
10:00 am – 6:00 pm (Sun)
–Gas Station 6:00 am – 10:00 pm
•NO Deliveries from 10pm-5am
•250-300 Employees, 125-175 Employees/Shift
•Average wage $22/ hr US warehouses
Costco Parcel
Costco Fuel Facility
Costco Warehouse
Costco’s Site Plan
Costco Parcel
No Commercial Truck Access
on Lost Rapids Dr
Costco Fuel Truck Route
W Chinden Blvd
10
Mi
l
e
R
d
Truck Routes
Costco Gasoline – Internal Circulation
Costco Gasoline – Vehicle Queue
Storage
19
Costco Front Entry Perspective
Costco East Perspective
Costco North Perspective
Costco Site Perspective
Taken from Lost Rapids Dr. SW of Costco warehouse
Pedestrian Connections
Costco Site Lighting
50% reduction in lighting levels after store closes.
Chinden Blvd Chinden Blvd
1
0
M
i
l
e
R
d
1
0
M
i
l
e
R
d
Costco site lighting during store hours. Costco site lighting after store closes.
Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
•TIS approved by ACHD
Commission and accepted
by ITD staff.
•Time periods
–Weekday AM & PM peak
hours
–Saturday midday peak
hour
–Daily
•Proposed improvements
bring intersections and
roadways to an
acceptable level of service
Study Area
Access Locations
•Ten Mile Road (Milano Drive to Chinden Blvd.)
–Widen to 4 lanes with turn lane/raised median (~0.80 miles)
–Signalize Lost Rapids Drive/Ten Mile Road
–Install separate right-turn lane for driveway
•Chinden Blvd. (Linder Road to SH 16)
–Widen to 4 lanes with turn lane/raised median (~2.90 miles)
–Add 2nd westbound left turn and northbound left turn lanes at Ten
Mile Road intersection
–Signal modifications at Tree Farm Way, Ten Mile Road, and Long
Lake Way
–Install separate right-turn lanes at two driveways
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Proposed Transportation Improvements
Estimated Cost and Schedule
•Estimated cost of transportation
improvements
–~$15 million
•Anticipated schedule
–Governmental Approvals 2018
–Design and Right of Way 2018 to 2019
–Anticipated construction 2019 to 2020
–Costco opening 2020
32
Q & A
- 46 -
d. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service
providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACHD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B for more detail.)
e. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
Staff is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the platting of this
property that should be brought to the Commission or Council’s attention. ACHD and ITD consider
road safety issues in their analyses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council consider any
public testimony that may be presented when determining whether or not the proposed subdivision
may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which Staff is unaware.
f. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features.
Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features on this site that need to be
preserved.
4. VARIANCE:
The City Council shall apply the standards listed in Idaho Code 67-6516 and all the findings listed
in Section 11-5B-4.E of the UDC to review the variance request. In order to grant a variance, the
Council shall make the following findings:
a. The variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the
district;
Staff finds granting the proposed accesses via US 20-26/W. Chinden Boulevard would grant a right or
special privilege as the UDC specifically prohibits access via the state highway unless otherwise
approved through a variance.
b. The variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site; and
Staff finds there are no unique characteristics of the site that create an undue hardship that granting a
variance would relieve.
c. The variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.
Staff finds granting the variance for two accesses via Chinden Boulevard, an existing two lane
highway proposed to be widened to four travel lanes with deceleration lanes and turn lanes, will have
long term impacts to the traffic flow of the state highway. However, with improvements made to the
highway as required by ITD with this development, public health safety and welfare should be
preserved.
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 217 of 227
Planning and Zoning Meeting
Meeting Date: March 1, 2018
Agenda Item Number:
Project/File Number: H-2018-0011
Item Title: PUBLIC HEARING 2018 UDC TEXT AMEN
By City of Meridian Planning Division
ENT
Request: A Text Amendment to Certain Sections of the UDC Pertaining to Uses Allowed in
Table 11-2A-2; Standards for Portable Signs; Daycare Facility Specific Use Standards;
Provisions to Allow Multi -Family Private Open Space Standards to be Eligible for Alternative
Compliance AND Modify the Subdivision Street Names Standards to Align with Newly
Adopted Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code
Meeting Notes
rte✓
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 1, 2018
TO: Planning and Zoning Commission
FROM: Bill Parsons, Planning Supervisor
208-884-5533
SUBJECT: H-2018-0011 – 2018 UDC Text Amendment
I. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The Planning Division of the Community Development Department has applied to amend
certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) pertaining to uses allowed in Table
11-2A-2; standards for portable signs; daycare facility specific use standards; provisions to
allow multi-family private open space standards to be eligible for alternative compliance AND
modify the subdivision street names standards to align with newly adopted Title 8, Chapter 2,
Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code.
NOTE: All of the proposed text changes to the UDC are provided in underline and strike-
through format in Exhibit A below for the Commission’s and Council’s review and
consideration.
II. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the UDC based on the analysis
provided in Section VII and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law listed in Exhibit B.
III.PROPOSED MOTION
Approval
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend approval to
the City Council of File Number H-2018-0011 as presented in the staff report for the hearing
date of March 1, 2018 with the following modifications: (add any proposed modifications.)
Denial
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to recommend denial to the
City Council of File Number H-2018-0011 as presented during the hearing on March 1, 2018
for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial.)
Continuance
After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number H-2018-
0011, to (insert specific hearing date), and direct staff to make the following changes: (insert
comments here.)
IV. APPLICATION FACTS
A. Site Address/Location: Citywide
B. Applicant:
Planning Division, Community Development Department
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 1
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 219 of 227
C. Applicant's Statement/Justification: See narrative and Exhibit A for more information.
V. PROCESS FACTS
A. The subject application is for a Unified Development Code Text Amendment as determined by
City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a
public hearing is required before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council on this
matter.
B. Newspaper notifications published on: February 9, 2018 (Commission)
C. A public service announcement was broadcast via email on February 2, 2018 (Commission)
regarding this application.
D. The proposed amendment was shared with the UDC Focus Group and the Building Contractors
Association of Southwest Idaho. Becky McKay and Cornel Larson provided comments on the
subject application. Comments were forwarded on to the City Clerk’s office to be included as part
of the public record.
VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS
Staff finds that the subject Unified Development Code Text Amendment complies with and furthers
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The specific objectives and actions that support the proposed amendment are listed below:
• “Keep current the Unified Development Code and Future Land Use Map to implement the
provisions of this plan.” (7.01.01A)
The proposed UDC amendment is meant to keep the UDC relevant with current development trends
in the City without compromising life, safety or the general welfare of the community. Most of
the changes are general clean-up items however; the private open space standard is being proposed
based on a direction from City Council on a previous land use application.
• “Enforce City Codes.” (3.05.02D)
The proposed amendment represents changes that City Staff finds will make the implementation of
UDC more understandable and enforceable.
VII. ANALYSIS
The proposed update is meant to modify certain sections of the Unified Development Code (UDC) as
follows:
1. Table 11-2A-2 – Proposes to allow daycare groups as a conditional use permit in the R-4 district;
2. UDC 11-3D-8(A)16 – Remove this requirement so all lawfully established uses in the O-T district have
the ability to apply for a portable sign permit. The current code only allows for specific uses in the Old
Town District to obtain a portable sign permit.
3. UDC 11-4-3-9(A)4 – Modify the daycare facility standards to allow the background checks and fire
inspections occur with certificate of occupancy rather than prior to the issuance of the certificate of zoning
compliance.
4. UDC 11-4-3-27(B)3 – Allow the multi-family private open space standards to be eligible for alternative
compliance. This was originally requested by a developer during the TM Creek Apartment project.
However, the applicant’s request included changes to the private open space standards for all apartment
projects and the City believed changes to the private open space standards should reviewed on a case by
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 2
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 220 of 227
case basis and processed as alternative compliance. The change is being processed based on feedback from
the City Council and concurrence from the applicant that initially processed the previous text amendment
for this requirement.
5. Table 11-5B-5 – Modification to this table to coincide with the request above in #4 above.
6. UDC 11-6C-3(B)3 – Modifying this subdivision street names standards to align with the newly adopted
Title 8, Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code. The City Council recently
approved this document.
All of the proposed changes to the UDC including the support documents are attached for your review in
PDF format. As noted above, this round of proposed UDC text changes were shared with the UDC Focus
Group and the BCA. Two of the members of the UDC Focus Group did provide comments on the subject
application but no concerns or changes were proposed.
In summary, the changes proposed in this application represent changes that City Staff believes will make
the implementation and use of the UDC more understandable and enforceable.
VIII. EXHIBITS
A. Strike-out/Underline Version of the Proposed Changes (DRAFT FORM)
B. Required Findings from the Unified Development Code
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 3
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 221 of 227
Exhibit A. – Strike-out/Underline Version of the Proposed Changes
Proposed UDC Text Amendments
UDC Section Topic Problem/Question Potential Fix
Table 11-2A-2 Allowed uses in the
residential districts
Include daycare, group as an allowed use in the R-4 district. TABLE 11-2A-2
ALLOWED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use R-2 R-4 R-8 R-15 R-40
Daycare center1 - C C P P
Daycare, family1 - A A A C
Daycare, group1 - -C C P P
Direct Sales A A A A A
11-3D-8(A)16. Portable signs Remove item b. to allow all lawfully established uses the ability to
apply for a portable sign in the O-T zoning district. 16. Portable Signs: Portable signs, when allowed by this article, shall meet the following standards:
a. Any portable sign shall count as part of the overall freestanding sign allowance as set forth in subsections B through H of this section.
b. The following uses shall qualify for any portable sign: retail, restaurants, drinking establishments, and personal services.
bc. Placement of any portable sign shall meet the following standards:
(1) The placement of any portable sign shall be limited to the portion of the sidewalk that is located directly in front of the business applying for
the sign permit and shall not be placed in front of another business.
(2) It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to comply with the American disabilities act (ADA) standards for pedestrian walkways and
clearance for handicap accessible parking stalls.
cd. A maximum of one portable sign is allowed per entrance with no more than one portable sign per street frontage.
de. The maximum background area of any portable sign shall not exceed eight (8) square feet. Any portable sign may be single or double sided.
ef. Portable signs shall be constructed of stable and durable materials that will hold up under adverse weather conditions.
fg. A permit is required for any portable sign.
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 4
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 222 of 227
11-4-3-9(A)4. Daycare facility Modify daycare standards to allow the background checks and fire
inspections occur with certificate of occupancy rather than prior to
the issuance of the certificate of zoning compliance.
A. General standards for all child daycare and adult care uses, including the classifications of daycare center; daycare, family; and daycare, group:
1. In determining the type of daycare facility, the total number of children at the facility at one time, including the operator's children, is the
determining factor.
2. On site vehicle pick up, parking and turnaround areas shall be provided to ensure safe discharge and pick up of clients.
3. The decision making body shall specify the maximum number of allowable clients and hours of operation as conditions of approval.
4. Upon tentative approval of the application by the director or commission for a daycare center facility, tThe applicant or owner shall provide proof
of criminal background checks and fire inspection certificates as required by title 39, chapter 11, Idaho Code. Said proof shall be provided prior to
issuance of certificate of zoning complianceoccupancy. The applicant or owner shall comply with all state of Idaho and department of health and
welfare requirements for daycare facilities.
5. In residential districts or uses adjoining an adjacent residence, the hours of operation shall be between six o'clock (6:00) A.M. and eleven o'clock
(11:00) P.M. This standard may be modified through approval of a conditional use permit.
6. Prior to submittal of an application for an accessory daycare facility in a residential district, the applicant or owner shall hold a neighborhood
meeting in accord with subsection 11-5A-4B of this title. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided to all property owners of record
within one hundred feet (100') of the exterior boundary of the subject property.
The applicant shall not exceed the maximum number of clients as stated in the approved permit or as stated in this title, whichever is more
restrictive.
B. Additional standards for daycare facilities that serve children:
1. All outdoor play areas shall be completely enclosed by minimum six foot (6') nonscalable fences to secure against exit/entry by small children and
to screen abutting properties.
2. Outdoor play equipment over six feet (6') high shall not be located in a front yard or within any required yard.
3. Outdoor play areas in residential districts adjacent to an existing residence shall not be used after dusk.
C. Additional standards for family daycare facilities conducted as home occupation accessory uses:
1. In no way shall the family daycare emit lighting, noise, fumes, smoke, dust, odors, vibrations, or electrical interference that can be observed
outside the dwelling. A sign may be displayed for advertising the family daycare facility in accord with the standards set forth in UDC 11-3D-8B.
2. Off street parking shall be provided as set forth in section 11-3C-6 of this title, in addition to the required off street parking for the dwelling.
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 5
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 223 of 227
11-4-3-27(B)3. Multi-family development Make this section eligible for alternative compliance in accord with
section 11-5B-5. B. Site Design:
1. Buildings shall provide a minimum setback of ten feet (10') unless a greater setback is otherwise required by this title. Building setbacks shall take
into account windows, entrances, porches and patios, and how they impact adjacent properties.
2. All on site service areas, outdoor storage areas, waste storage, disposal facilities, and transformer and utility vaults shall be located in an area not
visible from a public street, or shall be fully screened from view from a public street.
3. 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. In
circumstances where strict adherence to such standard would create inconsistency with the purpose statements of this section, the director may
consider an alternative design proposal through the alternative compliance provisions as set forth in section 11-5B-5 of this title.
4. For the purposes of this section, vehicular circulation areas, parking areas, and private usable open space shall not be considered common open
space.
5. No recreational vehicles, snowmobiles, boats or other personal recreation vehicles shall be stored on the site unless provided for in a separate,
designated and screened area. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
6. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. (Ord. 16-1672, 2-16-2016)
7. Developments with twenty (20) units or more shall provide the following:
a. A property management office.
b. A maintenance storage area.
c. A central mailbox location, including provisions for parcel mail, that provide safe pedestrian and/or vehicular access.
d. A directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development.
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 6
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 224 of 227
Table 11-5B-5 Alternative compliance Allow the required eighty (80) square feet of private usable open
space to be eligible for alternative compliance per the City Council’s
direction.
B. Applicability:
1. This process is intended to replace specific requirements as set forth throughout this title as follows: (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
TABLE 11-5B-5
ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE
Permit Section
Common driveway 11-6C-3
Common open space and site amenity requirements 11-3G
Fence requirements 11-3A-7
Height maximum in commercial districts 11-2B-3
Height maximum in industrial districts 11-2C-3
Height maximum in TN-C district 11-2D-5
Landscape buffer for wireless communication facilities 11-4-3-43E
Landscape requirements 11-3B
Landscaping for base of freestanding sign 11-3D-8
Lighting standards for pathway along State Highway 55 11-3H-4C3
Outdoor lighting requirements 11-3A-11
Multi-family private usable open space standards 11-4-3-27B3
Parking and loading plan requirements 11-3C-5
Parking requirements 11-3C-6
Private street standards 11-3F-4
Projecting sign allowance 11-3D-8E and F
Sign location in the O-T district 11-3D-5
Structure and site design review standards 11-3A-19
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 7
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 225 of 227
11-6C-3(B)3. Subdivision standards Modifying this section of code to align with the newly adopted Title 8,
Chapter 2, Uniform Street Name and Addressing Number Code. 11-6C-3: STANDARDS:
A. Compliance:
1. Through properties are prohibited except where it is shown that unusual topography or other conditions make it impossible to meet this
requirement. Through properties shall be limited to one (1) street access on one (1) frontage, designated by a note on the final plat.
2. The plat shall comply with all applicable requirements as set forth in chapter 2, "District Regulations", of this title.
3. The plat shall comply with all applicable requirements as set forth in chapter 3, "Regulations Applying To All Districts", of this title. (Ord. 16-1672,
2-16-2016)
B. Streets:
1. Dedication: Within a proposed subdivision, arterial and collector streets as shown on the Comprehensive Plan shall be dedicated to the public in
all cases; in general, all other streets shall also be dedicated to public use.
2. Street Specifications: The design, location, and widths of all street and street intersections shall comply with the requirements of the
transportation authority, unless alternative standards are adopted by the City of Meridian.
3. Street Names: The naming of streets shall comply with Title 8, Chapter 2, “Uniform Street Name and Address Number Code”, of this code.
conform to the requirements of the Ada County Street Name Committee, with the following exceptions:
a. The street name shall generally comply with section 8-2-6, "Standards For Designation Of Street Names", of this Code.
b. Street names shall not duplicate any existing street name within the County, except where a new street is a continuation of an existing street.
c. Street names that may be spelled differently but sound the same as existing streets shall not be used.
d. All new streets shall be named as follows: streets having predominantly north-south direction shall be named "avenue" or "road"; streets
having a predominantly east-west direction shall be named "street" or "way"; meandering streets shall be named "drive", "lane", "terrace",
"path", or "trail"; and cul-de-sacs shall be named "circle", "court", and "place".
e. For streets that provide primary access to a subdivision or neighborhood and that align with an existing or planned street across an intersection
that is not part of the same subdivision or neighborhood, the street name shall not duplicate the name of the subdivision or neighborhood.
f. Proposed streets which are a continuation of an existing street shall be given the same name as the existing street.
g. Street name signs shall be installed in the appropriate locations at each street intersection.
h. The Meridian city council may approve exceptions to the requirements for street names in accord with subsections B3a through B3g of this
section. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
4. Cul-De-Sacs: No streets or series of streets that ends in a cul-de-sac or a dead end shall be longer than four hundred fifty feet (450'). (Ord. 14-
1623, 9-2-2014)
5. Alleys:
a. Alleys shall have a minimum of sixteen feet (16') of paving.
b. All alleys shall serve as fire lanes.
c. All alleys shall be concrete or asphalt with a concrete ribbon curb.
d. The entrance to the alley from the public street shall provide a minimum twenty eight foot (28') inside and forty eight foot (48') outside turning
radius. No parking shall be allowed on either side of the street within fifty feet (50') of the alley entrance as measured from the centerline of the
alley.
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 8
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 226 of 227
Exhibit B. – Required Findings from Unified Development Code
1. Unified Development Code Text Amendments:
Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation
and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant a text amendment
to the Unified Development Code, the Council shall make the following findings:
A. The text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
Staff finds that the proposed UDC text amendment complies with the applicable provisions of
the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 6, of
the Staff Report for more information.
B. The text amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare; and
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare. It is the intent of the text amendments to further the health,
safety and welfare of the public.
C. The text amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services
by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not
limited to, school districts.
Staff finds that the proposed zoning ordinance amendment does not propose any significant
changes to how public utilities and services are provided to developments. All City
departments, public agencies and service providers that currently review applications will
continue to do so. Please refer to any written or oral testimony provided by any public service
provider(s) when making this finding.
2018 UDC Text Amendment – H-2018-0011 9
Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda March 1, 2018 – Page 227 of 227