CC - Staff Report 7-28
Page 1
HEARING
DATE:
July 28, 2020
TO: Mayor & City Council
FROM: Sonya Allen, Associate Planner
208-884-5533
Bruce Freckleton, Development
Services Manager
208-887-2211
SUBJECT: H-2019-0027
Delano Subdivision
LOCATION: 2800 & 14120 W. Jasmine Ln.
History: This project was originally heard by the Commission on May 2, and July 18, 2019; at the
hearing on July 18th, the Commission voted to recommend denial of the project to City Council. The City
Council heard the project on November 12, 2019; at that hearing, Council voted to remand the project
back to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development and for Commission’s
review of a revised plat with changes to lots proposed along the northern boundary of the subdivision that
front on E. Della Street (e.g. single-story, detached units, lose a lot(s)). (See pg. 16 for more information.)
Update: The Applicant submitted revised plans for the Commission hearing based on discussion at the
City Council hearing and meetings with the neighbors, included in Section VII. The revisions include a
reduction in the number of buildable lots from 85 to 66; a change to the proposed zoning (the portion of
the site along the north & west boundaries previously proposed to be zoned R-15 is now proposed to be
zoned R-8); and a change to the conceptual building elevations.
Staff has updated the subject staff report based on the revised plans – original text that is no longer
applicable is shown in strike-out and new text is shown in underline format. The conditions of approval in
Section VIII are not in strike-out/underline format as there were no conditions that went forward to
Council because the Commission recommended denial of the project; new conditions are included in
accord with the revised plans based on those originally recommended by Staff to the Commission for the
May 2, 2019 hearing. A summary of the Commission hearing on April 16, 2020 is included on page 18.
On May 12th, the Council voted to deny the project. The Applicant submitted a request to City Council for
reconsideration of their decision after the Findings were approved on May 26th; the request was heard on
June 9th and approved. The request for reconsideration was based on Council’s failure to voice their
specific concerns to the project during the public hearing so that the Applicant (and the public) could
respond and address those concerns. The Applicant felt there was not adequate opportunity to present all
of the information necessary for the Council to make an informed decision on this project. A new public
hearing was noticed and scheduled for July 28th.
STAFF REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Page 2
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Comprehensive Plan map amendment to include 4.10 acres of land currently in Boise’s Area of City
Impact and planning area in Meridian’s planning area with a Mixed Use – Regional Future Land Use
Map designation; Note: The Comprehensive Plan Map amendment application is no longer needed as
the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) was amended with the new Comprehenisve Plan to include an
MU-R FLUM designation for this property.
Annexation & zoning of 15.22 acres of land with R-8 (3.31 acres), R-15 (11.57 8.12 acres) and R-40
(3.64 3.79 acres) zoning districts; and,
Preliminary plat consisting of 85 66 single-family residential building lots, 1 building lot for a 96-unit
multi-family development, and 12 8 common lots and 2 other (common driveway) lots on 15.22 acres
of land in the R-8, R-15 and R-40 zoning districts.
II. SUMMARY OF REPORT
1. Project Summary
Description Details Page
Acreage 15.22
Future Land Use Designation MDR (Medium Density Residential) in City of Meridian &
Mixed Use – Regional (MU-R) in City of Boise
Existing Land Use 2 existing homes & accessory structures
Proposed Land Use(s) Single-family residential (SFR), attached & detached) and
conceptual multi-family residential (MFR)
Current Zoning RUT in Ada County
Proposed Zoning R-8, R-15 & R-40
Lots (# and type; bldg/common) 85 66 SFR building/128 common/1 MFR building and 2 other
Phasing plan (# of phases) Yes; 23 phases
Number of Residential Units (type
of units)
181 66 SFR detached units (18 attached/67 detached SFR, and
96 MFR apartments)
Density (gross & net) 7.35 5.7 (SFR, R-8 & R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) gross
units/acre; 11.8 (SFR, R-15) & 27 (MFR, R-40) net 8.12
units/acre (SFR) (net)
Open Space (acres, total [%] /
buffer / qualified)
See Analysis, Section V.3
Amenities Shade structure, (2) play structures, benches, pedestrian
walkways See Analysis, Section V.3
Physical Features (waterways,
hazards, flood plain, hillside)
None
Neighborhood meeting date; # of
attendees:
February 25, 2019; 92 attendees
Applicant met with the Alpine Pointe HOA Board on
December 16th and 23rd, 2019; the revised plan was presented
to the HOA Board on February 18th, 2020 – 30+/- people
attended (an official neighborhood meeting was not held as it
wasn’t required).
History (previous approvals) None
Page 3
2. Community Metrics
Description Details Page
Ada County Highway
District
Staff report
(yes/no)
No Yes
Requires ACHD
Commission
Action (yes/no)
Yes (tentatively scheduled to be heard on May 22, 2019)
This project is being heard by the ACHD Commission because of
objections from neighbors pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and
connectivity to Centrepointe Way
Fire Service
Distance to Fire
Station
1.34 miles from Fire Station #3 (can meet the response time requirements)
Fire Response
Time
3 minutes under ideal conditions
Resource
Reliability
82% from Fire Station #3 – does not meet the target goal of 8580% or
greater
Risk
Identification
21 (SFRresidential) and 4 (MFR) – current resources would not be
adequate to supply service to the proposed project; (see comments in
Section VIII.C)
Accessibility Meets requirements; FD is concerned as there is no visitor parking in the
development resulting in people parking in areas that may block access to
residences. See additional comments in Section VIII.C.
Special/resource
needs
Doesn’t The MFR portion of the project will require an aerial device (see
comments in Section VIII.C)
Water Supply Requires 1,000 gallons per minute for 1 hour (may be less if building is
sprinklered)
Other Resources NA
Police Service
Distance to
Police Station
5 miles
Police Response
Time
4:30 minutes
Calls for Service 0904 in RD ‘M724’
Accessibility PD has no issues with proposed access
Specialty/resourc
e needs
No additional resources are needed; MPD already services this area.
Crimes 0119
Crashes 026
West Ada School
District
Distance (elem,
ms, hs)
Discovery Elementary – 2.83 miles; Heritage Middle School – 3.16 miles;
Rocky Mountain High School – 5.56.2 miles
Capacity of
Schools
Discovery Elementary 650; Heritage Middle School 1,000; Rocky
Mountain High School 1,800
# of Students
Enrolled
Discovery Elementary 515511; Heritage Middle School 1,2541,246; Rocky
Mountain High School 2,4482,469
Anticipated
school aged
children
generated by this
development
68
Page 4
Wastewater
Distance to
Sewer Services
0-feet
Sewer Shed Five Mile Trunkshed
Estimated
Project Sewer
ERU’s
181
WRRF
Declining
Balance
13.66 MGD
Project
Consistent with
WW Master
Plan/Facility
Plan
Yes
Impacts &
Concerns
The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A -3, A-4, A-
5, C-1 and D-5. Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant
the possibility of using grinder pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans
do not note the use of them. If the parcel to the north of the multi-family is
to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at minimum slope in
N. Centrepointe Way to the north boundary line.
Water
Distance to
Water Services
0-feet
Pressure Zone 3
Estimated
Project Water
ERU’s
See application information
Water Quality None
Project
Consistent with
Water Master
Plan
Yes
Impacts &
Concerns
Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to
the north for the multi-family portion of the development will be provided
according to how annexation proceeds. Meridian will provide water in
Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in Boise.
Page 5
3. Project Area Maps
Zoning Map Planned Development Map
III. APPLICANT INFORMATION
A. Applicant:
Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706
Boll Cook Investments, LLC – 251 E. Front St., Boise, ID 83701
Future Land Use Map (updated)
Aerial Map
Page 6
B. Owner:
Norm Cook – 14120 W. Jasmine Ln., Boise, ID 83713
Eddy Bollinger – 2800 E. Jasmine Ln., Meridian, ID 83646
C. Representative:
Laren Bailey, Devco Development, LLC – 4824 E. Fairview Ave., Boise, ID 83706
Hethe Clark, Clark Wardle – 251 E. Front St., Boise, ID 83701
IV. NOTICING
Planning & Zoning
Posting Date
City Council
Posting Date
Newspaper Notification
4/12/2019; 6/28/2019;
2/25/2020; 3/27/2020
8/2/2019; 8/30/2019;
4/24/2020; 7/10/2020
Radius notification mailed to
properties within 300 feet
4/9/2019; 6/25/2019;
2/25/2020; 3/27/2020
7/30/2019; 8/27/2019;
4/21/2020; 7/8/2020
Public hearing notice sign posted
on site
4/22/2019; 7/8/2019; 3/4/20;
4/4/20
9/6/2019; 11/01/2019;
4/29/2020; 7/17/2020
Nextdoor posting 4/9/2019; 6/25/2019;
2/25/2020; 3/27/2020
7/30/2019; 8/27/2019;
4/22/2020; 7/8/2020
V. STAFF ANALYSIS
1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP AMENDMENT
Since the hearing at City Council on November 12, 2019, the City adopted a new Comprehensive
Plan, which included an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) that assigned an MU-
R designation to the majority of the property that lies east of Centrepointee Way. Therefore, the
application for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is no longer required; Staff has deleted
this section from the report.
2. ANNEXATION & ZONING
The applicant requests annexation and zoning of the 11.57 11.43 acres west of N. Centrepointe
Way with an the R-8 (3.31 acres) and R-15 (11.57 8.12 acres) zoning districts; and the 5 acres
east of N. Centrepointe Way with an R-40 zoning district (3.64 3.79 acres) consistent with the
MDR and proposed MU-R FLUM designations. Note: There is a small portion of the Cook
parcel (east side of Centrepointe Way) that on the FLUM does not have a designation. This was a
mapping error and the entire Cook parcel is effectively designated MU-R.
Note: The parcel to the north (Parcel #R4582530100) recommended by Staff to be included in the
amendment to the FLUM is not part of the annexation request. Annexation of that parcel would
take place upon future redevelopment of that parcel at the property owner’s request.
Comprehensive Plan (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation for the portion of this site west of the extension
of N. Centrepointe Way is Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City of Meridian; the
portion of the site east of the extension of N. Centrepointe Way is currently was previously
located in the City of Boise’s Area of City Impactboundary and iswas designated General Mixed
Page 7
Use. On October 29, 2019, the Boise City Council approved and adopted the resolution (RES-
521-19) to amend the land use map of Blueprint Boise to transfer this area from the City of Boise
Area of City Impact (AOCI) to the City of Meridian AOCI. The recent amendment to the City of
Meridian’s FLUM included this property with a Mixed-Regional (MU-R) future land use
designation. As noted in the previous section, the Applicant proposes to amend the FLUM to
include the eastern parcel in the City of Meridian’s planning area with a MU-R FLUM
designation.
The MDR designation allows smaller lots for residential purposes within City limits. Uses may
include single-family homes at gross densities of 3 to 8 units per acre.
The MU-R designation allows high density multi-family developments as supporting uses for
higher intense commercial uses such as those to the south and east of this site along a major
transportation corridor (i.e. Eagle Rd./SH-55) and near arterial intersections (i.e. McMillan/Eagle
Rds. & Ustick/Eagle Rds.).
Land Use:
The proposed land use for this site is single-family residential (SFR) and a future multi-family
residential (MFR) development (i.e. apartments). A total of 8566 (18 attached and 67 detached)
SFR units at a gross density of 7.365.7 units per acre, and a net density of 11.8 8.12 units per acre
are proposed; and 96 apartment units are planned to develop in the future at a gross and net
density of 27 units per acre. The proposed density is consistent with that desired in the MDR and
MU-R designations respectively.
Proposed Use Analysis:
The proposed single-family dwellings (attached & detached) are listed as a principal permitted
use in the R-8 and R-15 zoning districts; and the multi-family development is listed as a
conditional use in the R-40 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Multi-family developments
are subject to the specific use standards listed in UDC 11-4-3-27; compliance with these
standards will be evaluated in the future through the conditional use permit process.
Concept Plan:
The Applicant submitted a concept development plan for the property to the north (Parcel #
R4582530100) at Staff’s request to demonstrate how the property could possibly redevelop with
the extension of N. Centrepointe Way to the north as planned on the MSM (see Section VII.E).
Transportation:
The Master Street Map (MSM) depicts a planned north/south commercial collector street through
this site from the south boundary to the north boundary eventually connecting to E. Wainwright
Dr. for access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The portion of Centrepointe Way proposed to be
constructed with this development is consistent with the MSM.
Comprehensive Plan Policies (https://www.meridiancity.org/compplan):
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):
“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)
A mix of SFR attached and detached homes and MFR apartment units are proposed within
this development which will provide ownership and rental options for various income groups
in this area.
Page 8
“Provide housing options close to employment and shopping centers.” (3.07.02D)
The proposed development will provide housing options in close proximity to the employment
and shopping center uses along the Eagle Rd. corridor.
“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 density proposed in the multi-family portion of the development falls within the high
density category. The site is located within approximately a mile of from Kleiner Memorial
Park, a 60-acre City Park, and is in close proximity to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55, a major access
thoroughfare.
“Consider ACHD’s Master Street Map (MSM) in all land use decisions.” (3.03.04K)
The MSM depicts a north/south collector street through this site; the proposed plan depicts a
collector street in accord with the MSM.
“Require open space areas within all development.” (6.01.01A)
Qualified open space in accord with the minimum standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3 is
required.
“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)
The proposed development is contiguous to the City and urban services can be provided to
this development.
“Restrict private curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets.” (3.06.02D)
One (1) access is proposed on the west side of N. Centrepointe Way, a collector street, to the
SFR portion of the development; and one (1) access is proposed on the east side of N.
Centrepointe Way for the MFR portion of the development. Staff recommends local street
access (or a driveway with a cross-access easement) is provided to the property
(#R4582530202) abutting the R-40 zoned portion of the site as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.3,
as the property currently only has access via Eagle Rd./SH-55.
“Coordinate with transportation agencies to ensure provision of services and transit
development.” (6.02.02H)
This site is not currently served by public transportation. However, ValleyConnect 2.0
proposes bus service on Eagle Rd. from the Boise Research Center to downtown Kuna with
20 minute frequencies in the peak hour. The Closest bus stop would be less than ½ mile from
this site when that route is operational.
“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 pathway connections to this development from adjacent developments to the
north and south other than sidewalks adjacent to public streets. Staff recommends the
Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south (Brickyard
Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two developments (i.e. the
single-family and the mulit-family developments) on each side of N. Centrepointe Way.
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in all Mixed
Use areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pgs. 23-24): (Staff’s analysis in italics)
• “Residential densities should be a minimum of six dwellings/acre.”
The gross density of the proposed MFR development is 27 units per acre which falls within
the range desired in mixed use designated areas.
Page 9
• “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 proposed development incorporates a MFR component along with the SFR development
and is in close proximity (i.e. 460’) to N. Eagle Rd./SH-55. The proposed development will
provide housing options for nearby employment centers.
• “A conceptual site plan for the entire mixed-use area should be included in the application.”
A concept plan was included on the landscape plan for the future MFR development in
conjunction with the SFR development currently proposed.
• “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.”
This development does not include commercial/office buildings.
• “The site plan should depict a transitional use and/or landscaped buffering between
commercial and existing low- or medium-density residential development.”
The proposed single-family attached and detached units with varying lot sizes and setbacks
will provide a transition in density and lot sizes between larger single-family residential lots
to the north and the townhomes/multi-family lots to the south. This development does not
include any commercial uses; however, the proposed multi-family development on the eastern
portion of the site will provide a transition between the proposed single-family attached and
detached units and future commercial/mixed uses along Eagle Rd.
• “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 development plan only includes one land use type (i.e. residential); however,
threetwo different types of residential units are proposed (i.e. single-family detached,
attached and multi-family apartment units). Within the overall mixed use designated area,
which incorporates land on both sides of Eagle Rd./SH55 to the south to Fairview Ave., there
are a mix of uses as desired consisting of commercial (retail, restaurants, etc.), office and
residential uses.
• “Community-serving facilities such as hospitals, churches, schools, parks, daycares, civic
buildings, or public safety facilities are expected in larger mixed-use developments.”
This is a relatively small portion of the overall mixed use designated area; none of these
types of uses are proposed on this site nor have they been developed on the adjacent mixed
use designated area to the south.
• “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 proposed plan does not incorporate public and/or quasi-public spaces and places; the
common area proposed in the residential development is owned by the Homeowner’s
Association and does not satisfy this requirement. These types of public spaces have been
provided in the adjacent mixed use designated area to the south.
• “All mixed-use projects should be directly accessible to neighborhoods within the section by
both vehicles and pedestrians.”
Page 10
The proposed development plan shows interconnectivity with the residential neighborhood to
the north providing accessibility to the commercial development to the south via N.
Centrepointe Way.
• “Street sections consistent with the Ada County Highway District Master Street Map are
required within the Unified Development Code.”
The proposed development plan includes a north/south collector street (i.e. N. Centrepointe
Way) consistent with the Master Street Map.
• “Because of the existing small lots within Old Town, development is not subject to the
Mixed-Use standards listed herein.”
The proposed development is not within Old Town; therefore, this provision is not applicable.
In reviewing development applications, the following items will be considered in MU-R
areas, per the Comprehensive Plan (pg. 30):
• “Development should 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 proposed residential uses comprise 100% of the site. Densities of the SFR and MFR
developments are in accord with this guideline.
• “Retail commercial uses should comprise a maximum of 50% of the development area.”
No retail commercial uses are proposed with this development; however, the MU-R
designated land to the south incorporates a large amount of retail commercial uses.
• “There is neither a minimum nor a maximum imposed on non-retail commercial uses such as
office, clean industry, or entertainment uses.”
No commercial uses are proposed with this development.
Zoning:
Based on the analysis above, Staff is of the opinion the requested annexation with the R-8, R-15
and R-40 zoning districts and proposed development is generally consistent with the MDR and
proposed MU-R FLUM designations and is appropriate for this site.
The proposed annexation area is contiguous to City annexed property to the north and south; the
R-8 and R-15 area is within the Area of City Impact Boundary (AOCI) and the R-40 area is
outside of the AOCI boundary. A legal description for the annexation area is included in Section
VII.A.
The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant
to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. In order to ensure the site develops as proposed with this
application, staff recommends a DA as a provision of annexation with the provisions
included in Section VIII.
3. PRELIMINARY PLAT
Existing Structures/Site Improvements:
There are two (2) existing homes and accessory structures on this site. These structures are
required to be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer for the
phase in which they are located.
Page 11
Dimensional Standards (UDC 11-2):
The proposed plat and subsequent development is required to comply with the minimum
dimensional standards listed in UDC Tables 11-2A-6 for the R-8, 11-2A-7 for the R-15 and 11-
2A-8 for the R-40 zoning districts (see below). The proposed plat complies with these standards.
Subdivision Design & Improvement Standards (UDC 11-6C-3):
The proposed subdivision is required to be designed and improved per the standards listed in
UDC 11-6C-3 which include but are not limited to streets, driveways, common driveways,
easements, and block face. The proposed plan complies with these standards.
Phasing Plan:
The subdivision is proposed to develop in 23 phases as shown on the phasing plan in Section
VIII.C. The first phase will include the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. from the north through the
site to N. Centrepointe Way. Staff recommends the phasing plan is revised to include
construction of the street buffer on the east side of N. Centrepointe Way in the first phase so
that the street buffer and detached sidewalk is constructed and the buffer landscaped with
the first phase of development.
Access (UDC 11-3A-3, 11-3H-4)/Streets:
Jasmine Lane, a 50-foot wide private street, currently provides access to the lots in Jasmine
Acres Subdivision, including the subject properties. The private street is depicted on the
Jasmine Acres subdivision plat. Staff is unaware if a separate recorded easement exists for
the private street. Where the easement crosses the subject property it should be
relinquished; proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to
City Engineer signature on the final plat.
One access is proposed on either side of N. Centrepointe Way, a collector street; and an
emergency only/pedestrian access is proposed from the extension of N. Dashwood Pl. at the north
boundary of the site. A stub street (E. Jasmine St.) is proposed to the parcel to the west for access
and future extension. Public streets are proposed within the SFR portion of the development with
27-foot wide street sections; private drive aisles will be provided within the MFR portion of the
development. In accord with UDC 11-3A-3, which limits access points to collector streets to
improve safety and requires access to be taken from a local street if available, Staff
recommends N. Dashwood Pl. is extended as a full access street into the site with the first
phase of development. Note: ACHD approved the connection of Dashwood Ave. to the existing
stub street to the north (Dashwood Pl.) as a temporary emergency access/pedestrian connection
until Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., or within 10 years, whichever occurs first.
When Centrepointe Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., Dashwood Pl. will be reconstructed as a
public street for vehicular connectivity to Wainwright Dr.
UDC 11-3A-3A.3 requires all subdivisions to provide local street access to any use that
currently takes direct access from an arterial or collector street. The parcel to the east of
the property proposed to be zoned R-40 on the east side of Centrepointe Way (Parcel
#R4582530202), currently takes direct access via N. Eagle Rd./SH-69, an arterial street and
a State Highway; therefore, Staff recommends local street access (or a driveway with a
cross-access easement) is provided to the property to the east as set forth in UDC 11-3A-
3A.3. The Applicant should coordinate with the developer of that property on a location for
the access street/driveway.
Staff recommends N. Centrepointe Way is extended/constructed with the first phase of
development from the southern to the northern boundary of the site so that if re-
development of the property to the north (Wong) occurs before the multi-family portion of
Page 12
this site, the connection to Wainwright Dr. can be made and services can be extended as
soon as possible.
Traffic: A Traffic Impact Study was not required by ACHD for the proposed development;
however, the Applicant did include an informal traffic analysis in their application narrative based
on ACHD’s Policy Manual that takes into consideration existing traffic volumes in relation to
anticipated traffic volumes from the proposed development and the resulting impacts to
Wainwright Dr. & Dashwood Pl. The analysis shows the total trips per day on Wainwright at
41% of total capacity; and on Dashwood at 44% of total capacity resulting in 56-59% under total
capacity for these streets, which should not overburden existing roadways systems if these
calculations are correct. See application narrative for more information.
Many letters of testimony have been received from adjacent residential property owners to
the north regarding the amount of traffic that will be generated from the proposed
development and routed through their neighborhood. For this reason, it’s imperative that
the Centrepointe Way connection to Wainwright occur as soon as possible; thus, the reason
for Staff’s recommendation for the property to the north to be included in the amendment
to the FLUM and for the construction of Centrepointe to the northern boundary of the
annexation area to occur with the first phase of development.
Common Driveways (UDC 11-6C-3)
All common driveways are required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-6C-3D.
ThreeTwo (32) common driveways are proposed that comply with UDC standards. Common
driveways should be a maximum of 150’ in length or less, unless otherwise approved by the Fire
Dept.
An exhibit is required to be submitted with the final plat application that depicts the
setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots and structures. Driveways
for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common driveway(s) should be
depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the common driveway.
Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless separated by a minimum
5-foot wide landscaped buffer.
A perpetual ingress/egress easement for the common driveway(s) is required to be filed w ith
the Ada County Recorder, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved
surface capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the easement should
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat.
Signage should be provided at the ends of the common driveways on Lot 125, Block 1; Lot
7, Block 2; and Lot 19, Block 24 for emergency wayfinding purposes as requested by the
Fire Department.
Transition: There are 68 single-story structures with 10 8 dwelling units/properties proposed
along the west boundary of this site adjacent to the 8.2 acre rural residential property to the west,
which is currently in Ada County and designated as MDR (3-8 units/acre) on the FLUM.
There are 5.5 6 existing single-story residential properties to the north that abut this site that are
0.31-0.38 of an acre in size; 1012 single-family structures with 15 12 dwelling units/properties
are proposed along the north boundary of the site. The Applicant submitted an exhibit (I) in the
narrative of the application that demonstrates the proposed structures and lots in relation to
existing homes, shops, parking areas and yards. See aerial map below.
Because the homes proposed along the north and west boundaries will all be a single-story
in height, Staff believes they will have a lesser impact on adjacent neighbors than 2-story
homes would have; therefore, Staff is not recommending a greater transition in lot sizes
Page 13
isthan proposed. However, the Commission and City Council should consider any public
testimony provided in determining if fewer lots/structures should be provided along these
boundaries as a better transition to existing residential properties.
Parking (UDC 11-3C):
Parking for single-family dwellings is required based on the number of bedrooms per unit. For 1-
bedroom units, a minimum of 2 spaces per unit are required with at least one of those spaces in an
enclosed garage, other space may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pad. For 2-3
bedroom units, a minimum of 4 spaces per unit are required with at least 2 of those spaces in an
enclosed garage, other spaces may be enclosed or a minimum 10’ x 20’ parking pads.
Because of the proposed reduced 27-foot wide street sections, parking is restricted to one side of
the street only resulting in fewer available on-street parking spaces for guests and households
with cars that can’t be parked on private property than is typical with a full street section which
allows parking on both sides of the street. Off-street parking is required to be provided on each lot
in accord with the aforementioned UDC standards. Because of the narrow lots (i.e. 32’+) for
detached homes and associated driveways, there is not adequate room for on-street parking in
front of those lots for guest parking and in some areas parking is a ways away. Where attached
homes are proposed, there is room for approximately one space per every 2 lots for on-street
parking. On-street parking (5658 spaces) is also available adjacent to common lots and along one
side of the street within 200’ from any home within the development (see Exhibit H in Section
VII).
Pathways (UDC 11-3A-8):
Pathways are required to be constructed in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-8 with
landscaping on either side of the pathway(s) in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-
12C.
Page 14
Because interconnectivity is important and especially so in mixed use developments, Staff
recommends the Applicant coordinate with the Developer of the property to the south
(Brickyard Apartments) to incorporate pedestrian connections between the two
developments on each side of N. Centrepointe Way.
Sidewalks (UDC 11-3A-17):
Sidewalks are required to be constructed adjacent to public streets as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17.
Minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalks are required along all collector and arterial streets; and
minimum 5-foot wide attached (or detached) sidewalks are required along local streets as
proposed.
Parkways (UDC 11-3A-17):
Parkways are required to be constructed and landscaped per the standards listed in UDC 11 -3A-
17E. Eight-foot wide parkways are proposed along the collector streets and along internal local
street abutting common areas in accord with UDC standards.
Landscaping (UDC 11-3B):
Per UDC Tables 11-2A-7 and 11-2A-8, a 20-foot wide buffer is required adjacent to N.
Centrepointe Way, a collector street. Street buffer landscaping is required to be provided within
common lots in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C; trees and shrubs should be
depicted within the street buffers on either side of N. Centrepointee Way in accord with
these standards. The Landscape Calculations table should include the linear feet of street
buffers and the required vs. proposed number of trees demonstrating compliance with the
aforementioned standard.
Landscaping is required to be provided in common open space areas in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-G-3E; the proposed landscaping exceeds the minimum standards.
Landscaping is required within parkways as set forth in UDC 11-3A-17E and 11-3B-7C; the
Landscape Calculations table should include the linear feet of parkways and the required
vs. proposed number of trees demonstrating compliance with the aforementioned standard.
Qualified Open Space (UDC 11-3G):
Based on the overall development area which consists of 15.21 acres of land, a minimum of 10%
(1.52 acres) qualified open space is required to be provided within the development per the
standards listed in UDC 11-3G-3B. Because the site is bisected by a collector street and the
portion of the site proposed to develop with apartments is not being developed at this time, Staff
recommends the 10% open space is provided on each property; the R-8 and R-15 property
totaling 11.3+/- acres should provide a minimum of 1.13 acres and the R-40 property totaling
3.6+/- acres should provide a minimum of 0.36 of an acre (in addition to the open space required
in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family developments).
A revised qualified open space exhibit was submitted as shown in Section VII.F that depicts
1.331.23 acres (or 11.510.8%) of open space for the SFR portion of the development consisting
of a half-0.69 of an acre park with amenities, parkways, a micro-path lot, and linear open space
that is at least 20’ wide and has an access at each end and is landscaped, and a collector street
buffer and a local street buffer. The linear open space on Lot 17, Block 4 doesn’t qualify as it’s
not accessible at the west end as required by UDC 11-3G-3B.1e, however the rest of the area
meets the minimum standard at 1.17 acres. Alternative Compliance is requested to count the local
street/land use buffer along the southern boundary of the site toward the qualified open space
requirements (see Section 4 below for more information). The open space on the R-40 property
will be evaluated for compliance with UDC 11-3G-3B at the time of submittal of a conditional
use permit.
Page 15
The qualified open space on the MFR portion of the site east side of Centrepointe Way includes
area that does not qualify (i.e. the perimeter buffer along the east boundary) and is below the 10%
required of the total land area (i.e. 5 acres). Because that portion of the site is not planned to
develop at this time and is conceptual in nature and likely to change, Staff recommends a DA
provision is added requiring a minimum 10% qualified open space is provided at the time of
development that meets the standards in UDC 11-3G-3B. This requirement is in addition to that
required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for MFR developments.
Qualified Site Amenities (UDC 11-3G):
A minimum of one (1) qualified site amenity is required to be provided for this development
based on the size of the overall development (i.e. 15.21 acres).
The Applicant proposes a shade structure, children’s play structure, children’s climbing dome,
children’s climbing boulders, seating benches, public art micro-pathways and possibly a swing set
and a pathway as amenities, which exceed UDC standards. The pathway does not count as a
qualified amenity as it doesn’t meet the standards in UDC 11-3G-3C.3; however, the other
amenities proposed do qualify and exceed the minimum standards.
Existing Trees: There are many existing trees on this site the Applicant states are being removed
by the residential property owner for firewood. Include mitigation information on the plan for any
existing trees that are not removed by the property owner in accord with the standards listed in
UDC 11-3B-10C.5.
Waterways (UDC 11-3A-6):
The Nourse Lateral runs along the northern boundary of this site and is piped. An easement
should be depicted on the plat for the waterway. If the easement is 10 feet or greater, it
should be located within a common lot that is a minimum 20-feet wide and outside of a
fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in UDC 11-3A-6D.
Fencing (UDC 11-3A-6, 11-3A-7):
All fencing constructed on the site is required to comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3A-
7.
The existing fencing along the north and southwest boundaries of the site is proposed to remain.
A 6-foot tall solid vinyl privacy fence is proposed along the west, south and east boundaries of
the SFR portion of the site as well as along the north, east and south boundaries of the MFR
portion of the site in accord with UDC standards. A 4-foot tall wrought iron fence is proposed
around the perimeter of the children’s play area on Lot 1, Block 32.
Utilities (UDC 11-3A-21):
Connection to City water and sewer services is proposed. Street lighting is required to be installed
in accord with the City’s adopted standards, specifications and ordinances.
See Section VIII.B below for Public Works comments/conditions.
Pressurized Irrigation System (UDC 11-3A-15):
An underground pressurized irrigation system is required to be provided for each lot within the
development.
Page 16
Storm Drainage (UDC 11-3A-18):
An adequate storm drainage system is required in all developments in accord with the City’s
adopted standards, specifications and ordinances. Design and construction shall follow best
management practice as adopted by the City as set forth in UDC 11-3A-18.
Building Elevations (UDC 11-3A-19 | Architectural Standards Manual):
Conceptual building elevations were submitted for the proposed single-family attached and
detached units and multi-family apartment structures as shown in Section VII.F. Building
materials for the single-family homes consist of a mix of siding (horizontal and vertical lap siding
and board & batten) and stucco with stone veneer accents.
The single-family attached and multi-family structures are required to comply with the design
standards in the Architectural Standards Manual; single-family detached structures are exempt
from this requirement.
All SFR homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the development will be
restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the Applicant.
Because the rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 14-1812-8, Block 1 and 51,Lot 2,
Block 25 that face N. Centrepointe Way will be highly visible, Staff recommends those
elevations incorporate articulation through changes in two or more of the following:
modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays, banding, porches,
balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to break up
monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from this
requirement.
Public Testimony: Many letters of testimony have been received on the original plan submitted
with this application, primarily from residential neighbors to the north in Alpine Pointe
Subdivision (aka Zebulon Heights). The primary concerns are the intensity of the development
(i.e. density is too high); not enough transition in lot sizes to lower larger lots to the north;
extension of N. Dashwood Pl. and Centrepointe Way and resulting traffic generated from this
development and from the developments to the south that will be routed through their subdivision
until Centrepointe can be extended to the north to Wainwright in a more direct fashion; and safety
concerns for children pertaining to traffic. The neighbors have suggested several alternate
development plans that would result in less traffic through their neighborhood. See public
testimony in the project file for more information.
Additional public testimony has been received on the revised plan that can be accessed at:
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=166928&&dbid=0&&repo=Meridian
City.
4. ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE A local street buffer is no longer proposed; Staff has removed this
section as it is no longer applicable.
The applicant requests alternative compliance to UDC 11-3G-3B, as allowed in UDC Table 11-
5B-5, to be allowed to count the area of a local street buffer toward the minimum qualified open
space for the development.
The qualified open space pertaining to street buffers listed in UDC 11-3G-3B allows the full area
of collector street buffers and 50% of arterial street buffers to count toward the minimum required
common open space; local street buffers do not count toward the minimum requirements.
The Applicant proposes to construct a 29-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary
of the SFR portion of the site with dense landscaping along E. Jasmine St., a local street, to buffer
the abutting 3-story apartment structures in Brickyard Subdivision.
Page 17
In order to grant a request for Alternative Compliance, the Director must determine if the
alternative provides an equal or superior means of meeting the intent and purpose of the
regulation (see Findings in Section IX.D).
The Director has reviewed the request and finds the proposed alternative means for meeting the
intended purpose of UDC 11-3G-3 has been met.
VI. DECISION
A. Staff:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment if the parcel
to the north (R4582530100) is also included, the Annexation & Zoning and Preliminary Plat
applications with the conditions included in Section VIII.A per the Findings in Section IX.
If the parcel to the north (R4582530100) is not included in the map amendment, Staff
recommends denial of annexation and zoning request for the eastern parcel (i.e. R-40 zone).
B. Commission:
The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on May 2 and July 18, 2019. At
the public hearing on July 18th, the Commission moved to recommend denial of the subject
CPAM, AZ and PP requests to City Council.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Jim Conger;
b. In opposition: Malissa Bernard (representing many neighbors on Dashwood Place to the
north in Alpoint Point Sub.); Frank Marcos (Alpine Point Sub. HOA President);
Kenneth Clifford; Sherry Garey; Greg Walker; Patricia Pitzer; Joy Cameron; Sandi
King; Laura Trairatnobhas
c. Commenting: Connie Thompson;
d. Written testimony: Many (47+/-) letters of testimony were received (see public record).
e. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons
f. Other Staff commenting on application: None
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Consensus that proposed density of development is too high;
b. Not enough transition in lot sizes is proposed to larger lots to the north;
c. Concern pertaining to the extension of Dashwood Pl. and Centrepointe Way and
resulting traffic generated from the proposed development and from the commercial
and multi-family residential developments to the south that will be routed through the
subdivision to the north if Jasmine is connected to Centrepointe before Centrepointe can
be extended to the north to Wainwright;
d. Safety concerns for children pertaining to traffic;
e. The proposed development is premature and that infrastructure (i.e. the extension of
Centrepointe to Wainwright) should be in place prior to the development going in, not
after the fact;
f. There has been no negotiation with neighbors by the Developer as directed by the
Commission;
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. The desire for the City of Boise to take action on a request to exclude the eastern portion
of the site from their Area of City Impact boundary prior to the City making a decision
on this application;
b. The possibility of only an emergency access via Dashwood Pl.;
Page 18
c. Concern pertaining to adequacy of parking for the development;
d. Preference for R-8 vs. R-15 zoning for the single-family portion and R-15 vs. R-40
zoning for the multi-family portion of the site as a transition to adjacent zoning;
e. Density should be reduced due to Heritage Middle School and Rock Mountain High
School already being over capacity;
f. Desire for the Applicant to work with neighbors to address issues that were brought up
at the hearing.
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. The Commission recommended denial of the proposed CPAM, AZ and PP applications
to the City Council based on their desire for the Applicant to obtain approval from the
City of Boise for the adjustment to the Area of City Impact boundary; and opinion the
applicant did not sufficiently work with the neighbors on their concerns pertaining to
the proposed development.
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. None
C. City Council:
The City Council heard this project on November 12, 2019 and moved to remand the project back
to the Commission to address the density issue of the proposed development and for their review
of a revised site plan with changes to lots proposed along the northern boundary of the
subdivision that front on E. Della Street.
D. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on March 19 and April 16,
2020. At the public hearing on April 16th, the Commission moved to recommend approval of the
subject AZ and PP requests.
1. Summary of Commission public hearing:
a. In favor: Hethe Clark
b. In opposition:
c. Commenting: Malissa Bernard; Laura Trairatnobhas; Michael Bernard; Sandi King;
Kenneth Clifford; Allie Crane
d. Written testimony: Many letters of public testimony were received (see public record);
Hethe Clark (response to the revised staff report – in agreement except for two items: 1)
requests DA provision #1D be revised to not restrict homes along the west boundary to
a single-story in height as previously proposed, to allow 2-story homes to be
constructed; and 2) requests deletion of condition #2B, which reqires construction of
the 20’ wide street buffer & detached sidewalk along the east side of Centrepointe to be
constructed with the first phase of development to be deferred until the multi-family
portion of the site develops.;
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Bill Parsons
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. The HOA to the north (Alpine Point) requests the Dashwood stub street at the north
boundary be vacated and sole vehicular access be provided to the site from the south via
Centrepointe Way to keep traffic from cutting through their neighborhood – this could
also be accomplished with a gate for emergency access only; feeling that the
subdivision to the north is “overconnected” and more connections aren’t necessary to
Wainwright Dr. from the south, especially with Centrepointe planned to extend to
Wainwright in the future; requests larger lots and single-story homes along north
boundary for a better transition; belief that funds should be provided by all development
for improvement of the Eagle Rd. & Wainwright intersection;
Page 19
b. Concern pertaining to the impact the proposed development will have on the capacity of
area schools;
c. Frustration from the neighbors that they weren’t aware that Dashwood was planned to
be extended in the future as there were no signs erected at the end of the stub street;
d. Concern pertaining to the removal of all of the existing evergreen trees (40+/-) along the
southern boundary of the site and request for mitigation to be required (the owner
planned to cut the trees down for firewood);
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by Commission:
a. The Commission asked the Applicant to clarify the status of the Nourse Lateral
easement along the northern boundary of the site – the Applicant stated the Alpine
Pointe Subdivision plat depicts a 15’ wide easement for the piped lateral that exists on
the adjacent property to the north within the easement; the Applicant also proposes to
depict an additional easement on the subject plat in case it’s needed for maintenance of
the lateral;
b. The transportation plan for this area and existing and planned connections to
Wainwright Dr.;
c. Whether or not Dashwood should be extended to Centrepointe with the first phase of
development as recommended by Staff; or extended as a temporary emergency
access/pedestrian connection until Centrepointe is extended to Wainwright, or within 10
years, whichever occurs first – when Centrepointe is exended to Wainwright,
Dashwood would be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular connectivity to
Wainwright as required by ACHD.
d. The Applicant’s request for homes along the west boundary to not be restricted to
single-story in height and for the buffer and sidewalk along the east side of
Centrepointe to not be constructed until development of the multi-family portion of the
site;
e. Support for retaining the existing trees or requiring mitigation for them if removed;
f. In support of fewer lots and lower density proposed;
g. The timing for construction of the street buffer and sidewalk along the east side of
Centrepointe Way (with the first phase as recommended by Staff or with the 3rd phase
as proposed by the Applicant).
4. Commission change(s) to Staff recommendation:
a. Modify condition #A.1f to add language consistent with ACHD’s decision pertaining to
the extension of Dashwood to Centrepoint Way; and strike condition #A.5 in Section
VIII.
b. Modify DA provision #A.1d in Section VIII to allow bonus rooms on single-story
homes along the west boundary with no rear facing windows for the bonus rooms;
c. Strike condition #A.2b in Section VIII, which requires the street buffer and sidewalk
along the east side of Centrepointe Way to be constructed with the first phase of
development to allow it to be constructed with the third phase as proposed;
d. Include a condition requiring the Developer to retain as many trees as possible along the
southern boundary (see modification to condition #A.3a).
5. Outstanding issue(s) for City Council:
a. If Council determines that all existing trees on the site being removed should require
mitigation in accord with UDC standards, even those removed by the property owner
for firewood, condition #A.3a in Section VIII should be modified accordingly.
Page 20
D. The Meridian City Council heard these items on May 12, 2020. At the public hearing, the
Council moved to approve the subject AZ and PP requests.
1. Summary of the City Council public hearing:
a. In favor: Hethe Clark
b. In opposition:
c. Commenting: Frank Marcos; Malissa Bernard; Sandi King; Ken Clifford; Laura
Trairatnobhas; Mike Bernard; Doreen Mills; Allie Crane; Tim Fritzley; Sherry Garey;
Randy Spiwak; Patty Pitzer; Thomas Hunt; Justin Lucas, ACHD
d. Written testimony: Many letters of testimony were submitted (see public record).
e. Staff presenting application: Sonya Allen
f. Other Staff commenting on application: Joe Bongiorno; Warren Stewart
2. Key issue(s) of public testimony:
a. Neighbors in Alpine Pointe Subdivision to the north request the following: Dashwood
Pl. to be closed permanently as it was never meant to be extended and is designed as a
cul-de-sac; single-level homes along north boundary; the identity of the Developer to be
disclosed; not in favor of intensity of proposed R-40 zoning district; information on
whether the proposed units will be owner occupied or rental units;
b. Would like the existing trees along the southern boundary of the site to be retained and
the height of homes on Lots 16 and 17, Block 5 to be restricted to a single-story in
height;
c. Request for the Developer to perform a utility survey for existing facilities, specifically
the Nourse Lateral;
d. Request for a reduction in the number of lots along north boundary to six (6).
e. Applicant requests restriction for single-story homes to be removed along west
boundary (condition #1c);
f. Applicant requests condition #1f is modified to only require an emergency access via
Dashwood Pl.
3. Key issue(s) of discussion by City Council:
a. Transition in lot sizes/configuration along north boundary;
b. Retention of existing trees in the triangle common area at the southwest corner of the
site and along the south boundary if possible;
c. Enrollment of area schools and impact on such by the proposed development;
d. Discussion as to where jurisdiction of the City and land use and ACHD and
transportation begins and ends;
e. Removal of any connection to Dashwood Pl. except for emergency access or leave it
open for interconnectivity;
f. Requirement for mitigation of existing trees that are removed from the site.
4. City Council change(s) to Commission recommendation:
a. City Council voted to deny the project due to their belief it is not in the best interest of
the City to approve the project at this time due to connectivity reasons – they felt in
order to solve the connectivity issues in this area, Centrepointe Way needs to be
extended to Wainwright Dr. They determined there was no conditions of approval that
could be placed on this project that would enable them to approve the project at this
time.
VII. EXHIBITS
A. Applicant Proposed & Staff Recommended Future Land Use Maps Removed as an amendment to
the FLUM is no longer necessary.
Page 21
Page 22
B. Annexation & Zoning Legal Description and Exhibit Map REVISED
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
C. Preliminary Plat (date: 2/18/2019 3/12/2020) & Phasing Plan REVISED
Page 31
D. Landscape Plan (date: 2/20/2019 3/14/2020) REVISED
Page 32
E. Possible Conceptual Development Plan for Parcel to the North
Page 33
F. Qualified Open Space Exhibit & Site Amenities REVISED
Note: The crossed out area does not count toward the minimum qualified open space standards because it isn’t
accessible at the west end, per UDC 11-3G-3B.1e.
1.17 acres of qualified open
space without crossed out area
Page 34
Page 35
G. Conceptual Building Elevations (Single-Family Attached/Detached and Multi-Family
Apartments) REVISED
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
H. Parking Exhibit REVISED
Page 39
I. Site Plan
VIII. CITY/AGENCY COMMENTS & CONDITIONS
A. PLANNING DIVISION
1. A Development Agreement (DA) is required as a provision of annexation of this property.
Prior to approval of the annexation ordinance, 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.
Currently, a fee of $303.00 shall be paid by the Applicant to the Planning Division
prior to commencement of the DA. The DA shall be signed by the property owner
and returned to the Planning Division within six (6) months of the City Council
granting the annexation. The DA shall, at minimum, incorporate the following
provisions:
a. Future development of this site shall be generally consistent with the
preliminary plat, phasing plan, landscape plan and conceptual building
elevations included in Section VII and the provisions contained herein.
Page 40
b. A Conditional Use Permit is required to be submitted and approved for the multi-family
development prior to application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance and Design
Review.
c. All multi-family structures shall comply with the design standards listed in the
Architectural Standards Manual. An application for Design Review and
Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall be submitted and approved for all
multi-family structures prior to submittal of building permit applications.
d. Single-family homes along the west and north perimeter boundaries of the
development shall be restricted to a single-story in height as proposed by the
Developer. Homes along the west boundary are allowed to have a bonus room
but no rear facing windows shall be allowed for the bonus room.
e. The rear and/or side of 2-story structures on Lots 8-12, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 5 that
face N. Centrepointe Way shall incorporate articulation through changes in two or more
of the following: modulation (e.g. projections, recesses, step-backs, pop-outs), bays,
banding, porches, balconies, material types, or other integrated architectural elements to
break up monotonous wall planes and roof lines. Single-story structures are exempt from
this requirement.
f. The construction of N. Centrepointe Way from the southern boundary to the northern
boundary of the annexation area (stub to Wong parcel #R4582530100) shall occur with
the first phase of development. The connection of Dashwood Ave. to the existing stub
street to the north (Dashwood Pl.) is approved as a temporary emergency access and
pedestrian connection until Centrepionte Way is extended to Wainwright Dr., or within
ten (10) years, whichever occurs first. When Centrepointe Way is extended to
Wainwright Dr., Dashwood Pl. will be reconstructed as a public street for vehicular
connectivity to Wainwright Dr. as required by ACHD.
g. The R-8 and R-15 zoned property totaling 11.3+/- acres shall provide a minimum of 1.13
acres and the R-40 zoned property totaling 3.6+/- acres shall provide a minimum of 0.36
of an acre (in addition to the open space required in UDC 11-4-3-27C for multi-family
developments).
i. Provide vehicular connection to the property to the east (Parcel #R4582530202) through
the R-40 zoned property via a local street or a driveway as set forth in UDC 11-3A-3A.3.
If a driveway is provided, provide a cross-access/ingress-egress easement to that
property; submit a recorded copy of the easement to the Planning Division prior to
signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
j. No building permits shall be issued on this site until the underlying property is recorded
in a final plat.
2. The preliminary plat included in Section VII.B, shall be revised at least 10 days prior to
the City Council hearing as follows:
a. Depict an easement for the Nourse Lateral along the north boundary of the site. If the
easement is 10 feet or greater, it shall be located within a common lot that is a minimum
20-feet wide and outside of a fenced area unless modified by City Council as set forth in
UDC 11-3A-6D. If the lateral is located completely off-site and an easement does not
encroach on this site, submit written confirmation of such from the Irrigation District.
b. The street buffer and minimum 5-foot wide detached sidewalk on the east side of N.
Centrepointe Way shall be included in the first phase (instead of the third phase) of
development; the phase boundary shall be adjusted accordingly.
Page 41
3. The landscape plan included in Section VII.C shall be revised at least 10 days prior to
the City Council hearing as follows:
a. Include mitigation information on the plan for any existing trees on the site that are not
removed by the residential property owner for fire wood in accord with the standards
listed in UDC 11-3B-10C.5. As many existing trees as possible along the southern
boundary of the site shall be retained on the site.
b. Include the linear feet of parkways and the required vs. proposed number of trees in the
Landscape Calculations table demonstrating compliance with the standards in UDC 11-
3A-17 and 11-3B-7C.
c. Include the linear feet of street buffers and the required vs. proposed number of trees in
the Landscape Calculations table demonstrating compliance with the standards in UDC
11-3B-7C.
d. Depict trees and shrubs in the minimum 20-foot wide street buffers along N.
Centrepointee Way in accord with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-7C.
4. The 50-foot wide private street easement (i.e. Jasmine Lane) shall be relinquished where it
crosses the subject property. Proof of relinquishment shall be submitted to the Planning
Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer.
5. North Dashwood Pl. shall be extended as a full access street into the site with the first phase
of development in accord with UDC 11-3A-3.
6. Local street access (or a driveway with a cross-access easement) shall be provided to the
property to the east of the R-40 zoned property (Parcel #R4582530202) as set forth in UDC
11-3A-3A.3. The Applicant should coordinate with the developer of that property on a
location for the access. If a driveway is provided, a recorded copy of the cross-access
easement shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by
the City Engineer for the phase in which it is located (third phase).
7. For lots accessed by common driveways, an exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat
application that depicts the setbacks, fencing, building envelope and orientation of the lots
and structures. Driveways for abutting properties that aren’t taking access from the common
driveway(s) shall be depicted on the opposite side of the shared property line away from the
common driveway. Solid fencing adjacent to common driveways is prohibited unless
separated by a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer.
8. Provide address signage for homes accessed by the common driveways on Lot 5, Block 1 and
9, Block 4 for emergency wayfinding purposes.
9. A perpetual ingress/egress easement is required to be filed with the Ada County Recorder for
all common driveways, which shall include a requirement for maintenance of a paved surface
capable of supporting fire vehicles and equipment. A copy of the recorded easement shall
be submitted to the Planning Division prior to signature on the final plat by the City
Engineer.
10. All existing structures on the site shall be removed prior to City Engineer signature on the
final plat phase in which they are located.
Page 42
11. Parking is restricted to only one side of the 27-foot wide street sections; signage shall be
installed prohibiting parking on one side of the street to ensure emergency access can be
provided.
B. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Site Specific Conditions of Approval
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
1.2 The following proposed manholes have less than 3' of cover: A-3, A-4, A-5, C-1 and D-5.
Public Works has previously discussed with the applicant the possibility of using grinder
pumps in these shallow areas, but the plans do not note the use of them. If the parcel to
the north of the multi-family is to be served by Meridian, applicant must stub sewer at
minimum slope in N. Centrepointe Way to the north boundary line.
1.3 Each phase must be modeled to ensure adequate fire flow.
1.4 Public Works has met with SUEZ Water and agreed that water service to the north for the
multi-family portion of the development will be provided according to how annexation
proceeds. Meridian will provide water in Meridian, and SUEZ will provide water in
Boise. If the area being considered for inclusion is to be served by the City of Meridian,
the Public Works Department would like to have a completed water main loop north to
the existing water main in E. Wainwright Drive. The purpose of this loop is not for flow
and pressure reasons, it is to create redundancy and for mitigation of water quality
concerns created by dead end mainlines.
2. General Conditions of Approval
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 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.
2.3 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.
Page 43
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.
2.5 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.
2.6 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 addressed 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.
2.7 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.
2.8 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.
2.9 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.
2.10 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.
2.11 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.
2.12 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.
2.13 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.
2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404
Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers.
2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office.
2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H.
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.
Page 44
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.
2.19 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.
2.20 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.
2.21 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.
2.22 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.
2.23 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 887-2211.
C. FIRE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=184561&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
y
D. POLICE DEPARTMENT
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=184570&dbid=0&repo=MeridianCit
y
E. COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHWEST IDAHO (COMPASS)
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165379/Page1.aspx
F. NAMPA & MERIDIAN IRRIGATION DISTRICT
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/165231/Page1.aspx
Page 45
G. SETTLER’S IRRIGATION DISTRICT
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164812/Page1.aspx
H. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=165010&dbid=0
I. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (DEQ)
http://weblink.meridiancity.org/weblink8/0/doc/164959/Page1.aspx
J. WEST ADA SCHOOL DISTRICT (WASD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=179144&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
K. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT (ACHD)
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=183358&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=169441&dbid=0&repo=MeridianC
ity
L. CITY OF BOISE
https://weblink.meridiancity.org/WebLink/browse.aspx?id=184571&&dbid=0&&repo=Meridian
City
IX. FINDINGS
A. Comprehensive Plan Map 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:
Page 46
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment and FLUM designation of MU-R is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the property to the north (Parcel #R4582530100)
is also included in the map amendment as detailed in Section V.1 of this report.
2. The proposed amendment provides an improved guide to future growth and development of
the city.
The Commission finds that the proposal to modify the Future Land Use Map to include a
parcel of land that is currently in the City of Boise’s planning area for development in the
City, along with the adjacent parcel to the north as recommended, will provide an improved
guide to future growth and development of the City if the City of Boise approves an
adjustment to their Area of Impact boundary.
3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives,
and Policies of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in Section V.
4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified Development Code.
The Commission finds that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Unified
Development Code.
5. The amendment will be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses.
The Commission finds the proposed amendment will be compatible with adjacent existing
residential and future commercial uses.
6. The proposed amendment will not burden existing and planned service capabilities.
The Commission 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.
7. 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.
The Commission finds the proposed map amendment provides a logical juxtaposition of uses
and sufficient area to mitigate any development impacts to adjacent properties.
8. The proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian.
For the reasons stated in Section V and the subject findings above, the Commission finds that
the proposed amendment is in the best interest of the City if the parcel to the north is also
included in the amendment as recommended by Staff in Section V.1.
B. Annexation and/or Rezone (UDC 11-5B-3E)
Required Findings: 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 and/or rezone, the council shall make the following findings:
Page 47
1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan;
The City Council finds the proposal to annex and develop the subject property with R-8, R-15
and R-40 zoning is consistent with the MDR and MU-R FLUM designations; however, it’s not
consistent with connectivity goals and policies in the Comprehensive Plan (e.g. #3.03.03C).
2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district,
specifically the purpose statement;
The City Council finds the proposed map amendment and development is consistent with the
purpose statement of the residential districts in that it would contribute to the range of
housing opportunities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare;
The City Council finds the proposed map amendment and subsequent development would be
detrimental to the public and adjacent residents if Centrepointe Way isn’t extended to
Wainwright Dr. prior to development of this property and the extension of Dashwood Pl.
4. 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
The City Council finds that City services are available to be provided to this development.
The School District has submitted comments, included in Section VIII.J, that currently show
student enrollment is below capacity for the elementary school and within the capacity for the
middle school and high school once Owyhee High School is opened; the City Council finds
the proposed map amendment would not result in an adverse impact on the school district.
5. The annexation (as applicable) is in the best interest of city.
The City Council finds the proposed annexation and development is not in the best interest of
the City at this time due to Centrepointe Way, a collector street, not being extended to
Wainwright Dr.
C. Preliminary Plat (UDC 11-6B-6)
1. The plat is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and is consistent with this unified
development code; (Ord. 08-1372, 7-8-2008, eff. 7-8-2008)
The City Council finds the proposed plat is generally in conformance with the UDC;
however, it is not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan due to connectivity reasons if
Centrepointe Way is not extended to Wainwright Dr. prior to development of this property.
2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the
proposed development;
The City Council finds public services can be made available to the subject property and are
adequate to accommodate the proposed development.
Page 48
3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the city's
capital improvement program;
The City Council finds the proposed plat is in conformance with scheduled public
improvements in accord with the City’s CIP.
4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development;
The City Council finds there is public financial capability of supporting services for the
proposed development.
5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and
The City Council finds the proposed development would be detrimental to the public safety
and general welfare if this property develops prior to the extension of Centrepointe Way to
Wainwright Dr.
6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. (Ord. 05-1170, 8-
30-2005, eff. 9-15-2005)
The City Council is unaware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features that would
need to be preserved with this development.
D. Alternative Compliance (UDC 11-5B-5E)
Required Findings: In order to grant approval for an Alternative Compliance application, the Director
shall determine the following:
1. Strict adherence or application of the requirements are not feasible; or
Staff finds that strict adherence or application of the requirements of UDC 11-3G-3 are
feasible.
2. The alternative compliance provides an equal or superior means for meeting the
requirements; and
Staff finds the proposed alternative means of compliance provides an equal means for
meeting the requirements in UDC 11-3G-3.
3. The alternative means will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or impair the
intended uses and character of surrounding properties.
Staff finds the alternative means of complying with UDC 11-3G-3 will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or impair the intended uses and character of surrounding
properties and will actually be a benefit to the public welfare by providing a buffer between
the high density and medium density residential uses and 2- and 3-story structures.